I think it's reasonable to assume he's the GA. I caught parts of yesterday's press conference, and reporters referred to McQueary by name without correction from the AG. He's also been universally reported as the the GA, making it likely we would have heard a denial from McQueary if those reports were false.
here to search for it. It is very strange that the code would be organized that way. Reading both statutes, it does not appear clear to me that university administrators are among those persons required to report suspected child abuse. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6311(a) defines a required reporter generally as, “A person who, in the course of employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children,” and then goes on to list specific occupations such as doctor, social worker, law enforcement official and the like.
Furthermore, Paterno would seem to be off the hook legally. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6311(c) indicates that persons working in an institution may satisfy the reporting requirement by reporting to the person in charge. Whether Paterno had a moral duty to go farther is another matter entirely. However, the Vice President involved oversaw the campus police.
The apparent weakness of the legal case against Curley and Shultz seems to confirm my initial suspicion that prosecutors used the grand jury to run perjury traps on them. There is really no other explanation for a grand jury investigation in this situation. All the evidence against Sandusky himself in the grand jury report could have been developed through police investigation. A judge could have issued any subpoenas required to obtain documents from the university. I think it is fair to say that Curley and Shultz were targets of the investigation as much as Sandusky. Grand jury procedure 101 is that prosecutors never call the target of an investigation before the grand jury because the target can give exculpatory testimony. The only reason to call the target before the grand jury is to ask them questions about things the prosecutors already know about and then see if they testify differently.
Essentially, as I see it, prosecutors cannot successfully prosecute Curley and Schultz for failure to report so they used the grand jury to try to get them to say they did report when they did not and then prosecute them for perjury. The reason Curley and Schultz would be tempted to lie is obvious: they thought they were already in serious legal trouble and could be prosecuted if they said they did not report. The grand jury report characterizes their testimony as equivocal so they may have taken the bait.
Do not get me wrong. I agree that they had a moral duty to get the police involved right away if there was reason to suspect Sandusky of child sexual abuse. If there was and they failed to do so, go ahead and put the boot into them for that. What I have a problem with is prosecutors manufacturing a crime where there is none in order to achieve an outcome that is not otherwise permitted by law. As distasteful as the allegations against Curley and Shultz are in this particular case, there are some obvious dangers in prosecutors using their power in this fashion.
1) To me a key question is what happened when Curley and Schultz confronted Sandusky to tell him he was banned from bringing kids into the Penn State locker rooms. Did Sandusky deny the allegations? Did he admit anything? More importantly, did they ask him the name of the kid he was with that day so someone could contact the child an investigate a little bit? Wouldn't most people's first reaction be to ask Sandusky for his side of the story -- I wonder what story he gave that they did not need to follow up at all and forward the info onto the police. Pathetic!
2) JoePa's legacy - I think there is a lot to still be known about what JoePa did and (more importantly) did not do in this whole thing. I am not a fan of what I have heard so far. He may not have broken the law, but it sure feels like he did not rise to a moral standard we all think he should be held to. But, that is not what I want to talk about right now.
JoePa has been a good man at Penn State. He has won a ridiculous number of games and been a mentor to an incredible number of kids. He has given back, to Penn State and other charities, in some remarkable ways. There is little question that up until this week everyone associated with the Penn State program had every right to be incredibly proud of his association with the school.
And that is why this week has been so sad. Unless Sandusky is somehow completely exonerated (highly unlikely given the number of independent accusers), this scandal will forever taint the JoePa legacy. It comes at the very end of his career, so we will not have time to let it fade into history. It is such a disgusting scandal and involves folks so high up in the Penn St administration that it simply will not be forgotten. It is sorta sad that when JoePa's obituary is written, there will be paragraphs, probably highly placed ones, mentioning this story and the taint it put on the end of his career.
--Jason "I feel sorry for the guy-- even though I think he probably should have done more in this case" Evans
Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk
that Paterno did go to the police. What would the police have done? I would assume interview the GA first. I don't think that the police proceed on secondhand info when firsthand should be pretty easy to get.
It just seems to me that the GA should have gone to the police and I would like to understand why he did not before judging Paterno.
It also seems to me that by telling Sandusky not to bring kids on campus or whatever that the Penn State officials thought something was wrong and were trying more to protect the University than innocent children. Reprehensible.
Jason,b eing the mother of sons who were involved in sports and as a parent who was involved in the various organizations if someone where to come to me with any allegations of any sort of abuse of a child my response would be to contact the police immediately. I would not talk to the coach first nor the organization. The child has got to come first.
The more I hear of this the more digusting this is. This is a huge mess.
Here's what I don't get. Penn State has to have known about the likelihood of an indictment for the better part of a year - the story broke in March! How can they not have been better prepared for this?
What's sad is that a 10-year-old boy is alleged to have been raped in a shower in the Penn State football locker room, and it appears that no actions were ever taken to even find out the identity of the child. Somewhere out there, if the claims are correct, there's an 18-year-old kid who's been living with this, anonymously and with no help, for almost half his life, undoubtedly forming the conviction that grownups will not protect him. Which conviction has surely not been challenged over the last week. I'm trying very hard to reserve judgment on all of this until we know all the facts, and account for human fallibility in the individual decisions. But it appears to be undisputed that McQuery says he saw Sandusky in the act, and within a few days three separate, very powerful adults had heard his story, and no one ever figured out who the kid was. If that all turns out to be true, then it's inexcusable for each of them, including Paterno, under any set of circumstances I can imagine. I won't care if Paterno can plausibly make the case that his superiors had told him the matter was being taken care of and he had no reason to not believe them. Even if his initial reaction was one of shock and disbelief that his longtime assistant could possibly be capable of something like what he was hearing. If he didn't at some point ask "Have you found the kid?" he will have failed miserably in the morality department. If these were individuals who didn't know Sandusky personally and did not continue to interact with him for years afterwards, or who had no power within the system, it might be different. It might also be different if these were not individuals who were (or are) employed by the State of Pennsylvania for the express purpose of educating and caring for the wellbeing of young people. That it appears none of them did anything to ensure that a young person was being attended to, is the sad thing here. I'm having a difficult time figuring out the hypothetical scenario where the facts that may materialize over the next several months change this.