The Sex Abuse Scandal at PSU

[SoCalDukeFan]

I am the first to admit that I really don't know how I would have reacted if I were McQuery.

But he was a strong 28 year old athlete. Apparently he saw an older man raping a boy in the shower. Rather than try to stop it, rather than call the police, he called his Dad.

The next day he is talking to JoePa. Does he tell JoePa I saw a rape and called my Daddy? Or does he make it seem less serious?

I can come up with scenarios whereby JoePa should be thrown in jail and the key thrown away. I can come up with others whereby he acted properly.

BTW in 1998 it was known to the DA etc that Sandusky was taking showers with boys and no charges were brought.

I will wait until the whole story comes out.

SoCal

[JamminJoe]

I'm not sure you guys are really putting yourself in the situation that Mcquery was in. This is a really horrible example, but...Let's say you're a life-long Duke fan, and after many many years you are able to finally make a trip to Cameron Indoor Stadium to watch a game. The game is the next day but the night before, you are able to visit the grounds and you find an open door into Cameron. So you wander and and you are just in awe of everything, Coach K court, the locker rooms,...Okay, I'm really not able to go further with this story, but you can see where I'm going with this. It would be a shocking scene which would totally blow away your whole perception of reality. Are you telling me you would be able to call the police right then and there? Of course you would know that the Duke program and the man who built it would just be totally destroyed by this, by your blowing the whistle and informing the police.

This is the scene that Mcquery and those janitors 2 years previous encountered. It would not be an easy situation to handle, and I would say the majority of Duke fans, of posters on this board, would be running away that night, too scared and confused to do a thing.

[DukieInKansas]

I'm not sure you guys are really putting yourself in the situation that Mcquery was in. This is a really horrible example, but...Let's say you're a life-long Duke fan, and after many many years you are able to finally make a trip to Cameron Indoor Stadium to watch a game. The game is the next day but the night before, you are able to visit the grounds and you find an open door into Cameron. So you wander and and you are just in awe of everything, Coach K court, the locker rooms,...Okay, I'm really not able to go further with this story, but you can see where I'm going with this. It would be a shocking scene which would totally blow away your whole perception of reality. Are you telling me you would be able to call the police right then and there? Of course you would know that the Duke program and the man who built it would just be totally destroyed by this, by your blowing the whistle and informing the police.

This is the scene that Mcquery and those janitors 2 years previous encountered. It would not be an easy situation to handle, and I would say the majority of Duke fans, of posters on this board, would be running away that night, too scared and confused to do a thing.

None of us can really put ourselves in any of the shoes as PSU. I would certainly hope that I would put the welfare of any child above my personal feelings for an individual or program but I can't say with 100% certainty that I would. I hope none of us ever have to face the choices they faced. The options are always so much clearer in hindsight.

[sagegrouse]

I am the first to admit that I really don't know how I would have reacted if I were McQuery.

But he was a strong 28 year old athlete. Apparently he saw an older man raping a boy in the shower. Rather than try to stop it, rather than call the police, he called his Dad.

The next day he is talking to JoePa. Does he tell JoePa I saw a rape and called my Daddy? Or does he make it seem less serious?

I can come up with scenarios whereby JoePa should be thrown in jail and the key thrown away. I can come up with others whereby he acted properly.

BTW in 1998 it was known to the DA etc that Sandusky was taking showers with boys and no charges were brought.

I will wait until the whole story comes out.

SoCal


I'm not sure you guys are really putting yourself in the situation that Mcquery was in. This is a really horrible example, but...Let's say you're a life-long Duke fan, and after many many years you are able to finally make a trip to Cameron Indoor Stadium to watch a game. The game is the next day but the night before, you are able to visit the grounds and you find an open door into Cameron. So you wander and and you are just in awe of everything, Coach K court, the locker rooms,...Okay, I'm really not able to go further with this story, but you can see where I'm going with this. It would be a shocking scene which would totally blow away your whole perception of reality. Are you telling me you would be able to call the police right then and there? Of course you would know that the Duke program and the man who built it would just be totally destroyed by this, by your blowing the whistle and informing the police.

This is the scene that Mcquery and those janitors 2 years previous encountered. It would not be an easy situation to handle, and I would say the majority of Duke fans, of posters on this board, would be running away that night, too scared and confused to do a thing.


None of us can really put ourselves in any of the shoes as PSU. I would certainly hope that I would put the welfare of any child above my personal feelings for an individual or program but I can't say with 100% certainty that I would. I hope none of us ever have to face the choices they faced. The options are always so much clearer in hindsight.

The Front Page cited a column by Rob Bracken (http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/11/2982203/climate-of-secrecy-led-to-crumbling.html), the retired sports editor of the local paper, about the incredible amount of secrecy around the football program and -- basically -- everything else at Penn State. This was clearly recognized by McQueary and probably be everyone else.

sagegrouse

[BobbyFan]

I'm not sure you guys are really putting yourself in the situation that Mcquery was in. This is a really horrible example, but...Let's say you're a life-long Duke fan, and after many many years you are able to finally make a trip to Cameron Indoor Stadium to watch a game. The game is the next day but the night before, you are able to visit the grounds and you find an open door into Cameron. So you wander and and you are just in awe of everything, Coach K court, the locker rooms,...Okay, I'm really not able to go further with this story, but you can see where I'm going with this. It would be a shocking scene which would totally blow away your whole perception of reality. Are you telling me you would be able to call the police right then and there? Of course you would know that the Duke program and the man who built it would just be totally destroyed by this, by your blowing the whistle and informing the police.

This is how I feel regarding McQueary's initial reaction; I think the criticisms of his subsequent (non) action are more appropriate. It is so easy to type behind a computer that one would have ran in and pummeled Sandusky, with the benefit of hindsight and not being in the moment, particularly that specific moment it was for McQueary given his relationship with Sandusky.

[roywhite]

This topic actually dropped to page 2 of the DBR threads after last week's frenzied activity.

Inside the Jerry Sandusky investigation - why did it take so long?
(http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/special_report_why_the_jerry_s.html)

Interesting article, again from the original lead reporter Sara Ganim from the Hsbg Patriot-News

Paints investigators, particularly the current Governor of PA, in a bad light for delays and mistakes in handling the case.

[SMO]

This topic actually dropped to page 2 of the DBR threads after last week's frenzied activity.

Inside the Jerry Sandusky investigation - why did it take so long?
(http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/special_report_why_the_jerry_s.html)

Interesting article, again from the original lead reporter Sara Ganim from the Hsbg Patriot-News

Paints investigators, particularly the current Governor of PA, in a bad light for delays and mistakes in handling the case.

You mean a local paper discovered this is more than a Joe Paterno story? I would have suspected the worldwide leader in sports to have uncovered that!

[MulletMan]

The Front Page cited a column by Rob Bracken (http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/11/2982203/climate-of-secrecy-led-to-crumbling.html), the retired sports editor of the local paper, about the incredible amount of secrecy around the football program and -- basically -- everything else at Penn State. This was clearly recognized by McQueary and probably be everyone else.

sagegrouse

I don't find that to be a very insightful editorial at all. In fact, in a number of places there are writers all over this country that have been denied access to Duke who would write that same article and replace Paterno with Krzyzewski and Penn State with Duke. When programs become especially high profile, they need to close ranks and be very careful about who has access, and what information is put out into the public view. Indeed, when you're at the top of the mountain, people like to take shots at you. That seems pretty evident from this past week.

Besides, its all in the eye of the beholder. This guys cites two examples of "pervasive secrecy". One of which is that in a preseason phone call during the 85 or 86 season, when Paterno was asked if there were any players that were injured at this point, he replied with "No... just the usual bumps and bruises." Apparently, at this time, a PSU player was in the hospital after a collision in practice that day had left him paralyzed (he would later make a full recovery). The author of the piece says that Paterno not divulging this information is indicative of horrible secrecy and tight control of information. Is it possible that Paterno simply wanted to contact this player's family before the story broke in a newspaper? I mean, it was 1985 or 86... not like everyone had a cell phone. In fact, most people got news from newspapers at that time... maybe, just maybe, Paterno and PSU wanted to tell the family that their child was terribly injured. Maybe?

Nah... demons don't do nice things.

[CameronBornAndBred]

This topic actually dropped to page 2 of the DBR threads after last week's frenzied activity.

Inside the Jerry Sandusky investigation - why did it take so long?
(http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/special_report_why_the_jerry_s.html)

Interesting article, again from the original lead reporter Sara Ganim from the Hsbg Patriot-News

Paints investigators, particularly the current Governor of PA, in a bad light for delays and mistakes in handling the case.
She was interviewed on NPR this Friday, turns out she is a Penn State grad. The reporter asked if she is a football fan, she said something to the effect of "there is no experience like a Penn State football game", and that she just as affected as others by this scandal. Good to see she can wear her journalist's hat separately than her Nittany Lion cap, I wish the local reporters around the triangle could have done that with the heels.

Here is a cool piece on her.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ganim-star-reporter-on-penn-state-scandal-2011-11-14

[sagegrouse]

I don't find that to be a very insightful editorial at all. In fact, in a number of places there are writers all over this country that have been denied access to Duke who would write that same article and replace Paterno with Krzyzewski and Penn State with Duke. When programs become especially high profile, they need to close ranks and be very careful about who has access, and what information is put out into the public view. Indeed, when you're at the top of the mountain, people like to take shots at you. That seems pretty evident from this past week.

Besides, its all in the eye of the beholder. This guys cites two examples of "pervasive secrecy". One of which is that in a preseason phone call during the 85 or 86 season, when Paterno was asked if there were any players that were injured at this point, he replied with "No... just the usual bumps and bruises." Apparently, at this time, a PSU player was in the hospital after a collision in practice that day had left him paralyzed (he would later make a full recovery). The author of the piece says that Paterno not divulging this information is indicative of horrible secrecy and tight control of information. Is it possible that Paterno simply wanted to contact this player's family before the story broke in a newspaper? I mean, it was 1985 or 86... not like everyone had a cell phone. In fact, most people got news from newspapers at that time... maybe, just maybe, Paterno and PSU wanted to tell the family that their child was terribly injured. Maybe?

Nah... demons don't do nice things.

MM--

I linked the column for three reasons:

1. The guy was the sports editor of the local rag for -- like -- forever. I figured he was an authority -- especially because he came out of retirement to write a painful piece on the program he covered every day for decades. He gave two examples of a "controlling secrecy," and I was willing to grant that he could have given 200.

2. I found this quote especially striking --


We all, those of us who observed Joe Paterno and his program over many years, felt that it would end badly for him but none of us could have concocted such a horrific denouement.

"We... all ... felt that it would end badly for him [Paterno]." Wow! I never thought it would end badly for Paterno, except the likelihood that he would die with his boots on. I got the picture from Bracken's statement of Paterno having a death grip on the program and Penn State, so much so that he was unable to plan and execute a graceful exit from the scene.

3. The "controlling secrecy" around the program -- if true -- helps explain a lot about McQueary's reaction (and also that of the three principals) and the caution he displayed in even reporting it to Paterno. And, of course, I know that "explain" his actions is a lot different from "excuse" his actions.

sagegrouse

[roywhite]

Another casualty in the scandal, this one not surprising.

Jack Raykovitz, Second MIle President, Resigns
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/jack-raykovitz-second-mil_n_1092555.html?ref=sports&ir=Sports)

I don't see how the charity itself will survive. Despite doing some good work over the years, it certainly appears to have been at least partially a way for Sandusky to procure victims; the charity also did not take steps to remove Sandusky until just a few years ago.

[PADukeMom]

This just keeps getting worse.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45286426/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Let me state this, the JoePa of 2011 is most definately NOT the JoePA of 1991 or even 2001. I don't know Paterno so I can't say 100% but from listening to his weekly press conferences for decades he's just not the same. All I can note from a child who has a parent in their middle 80's things just don't register like they used to. My Mom can tell me the same story 3 times in a 5 minute conversation. From my understanding is he reported this to Shultz who is the head of security.
I do have my doubts that JoePa has really been coaching this team for quite a number of years. I think he was more there as a figurehead & face of Penn State. I really do think the assistants were doing the vast majority of coaching the x's & o's. This is my opinion only. Before this horrible series of events, how could an icon be replaced without alienating the entire Lion Nation?
Wins & losses still don't add up to anything when it comes at the cost of a child.

[Ping Lin]

Coach K weighs in: Paterno a great man in a horrific situation
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/krzyzewski-paterno-a-great-man-in-horrific-situation/?src=twrhp

Over the past couple of days, my views have changed. I was against the firing of JoePa, but have come around to support it, and everything else. I suppose the situation will be clearer in the next few months.

[stillcrazie]

Does Sandusky have a wife or kids? I have heard nothing about them.

[hood7]

Does Sandusky have a wife or kids? I have heard nothing about them.

He has a wife and six adopted kids (5 boys, one girl). At least a couple of the kids were originally 2nd-Mile kids, I believe.

[roywhite]

Does Sandusky have a wife or kids? I have heard nothing about them.

Sandusky is married; he and his wife have 6 children, all adopted, and also took in foster children.

Here is his wiki biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky), which includes recent events.

[stillcrazie]

Sandusky is married; he and his wife have 6 children, all adopted, and also took in foster children.

Here is his wiki biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky), which includes recent events.

Thanks - I guess I could've googled it, but I was thinking that normally the media would hound the wife and kids over something like this. I can't think of a word worse than "devastated" but if there were one, his wife would be it.

[rthomas]

“Well, I think, unless you’re there, it’s tough to comment about everything,’’ Krzyzewski said. “I just feel badly for him and whatever he is responsible for, it’ll come out and hopefully it’ll come out from him.

I agree with Coach K 100%.


“I think one thing you have to understand is that Coach Paterno’s 84 years old. I’m not saying that for an excuse or whatever. The cultures that he’s been involved in both football-wise and socially, have been immense changes and how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different.

Not sure about this.


“But as we judge, remember that there’s just a lot there. There’s a lot,lot there. I think he’s a great man and it’s a horrific situation.”

yes, but....

[sagegrouse]

He has a wife and six adopted kids (5 boys, one girl). At least a couple of the kids were originally 2nd-Mile kids, I believe.

One son, I believe, works for the Cleveland Browns. -- sage

[SoCalDukeFan]

Most of all who posted here seem to agree that you don't really know how you would react in the situation you faced it.

Maureen Dowd has her take in the New York Times.

Comment 15 is from someone who claims to be have investigated claims of criminal sexual abuse of children in Pennsylvania for 17 years. Not once has a teacher who witnessed the abuse or hear about it from a child called him. Every time they report it the principal or guidance counselor. He or she writes:

"Not only did Mr. Paterno follow the law as it is written in Pennsylvania, he followed normal protocol as it stands throughout the state of Pennsylvania. For him to be condemned for this is unacceptable.. "

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/opinion/dowd-personal-foul-at-penn.html?sort=oldest

Of course after reporting the apparent crime Paterno and McQuery continued to see Sandusky.

SoCal

[J4Kop99]

Sandusky Speaks:

This is from an interview that will be airing tonight on NBC with Bob Costas...

NEW YORK -- Former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky is telling NBC that he is innocent of child sex abuse charges that shocked the sports world and resulted in the firing of coach Joe Paterno.

In a telephone interview with Bob Costas for NBC News' "Rock Center," airing Monday night.

Sandusky also denies accusations that he is a pedophile, but acknowledged "I could say that I have done some of those things.

"I have horsed around with kids," Sandusky continued. "I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact."

Sandusky, who founded a charity for disadvantaged youth, acknowledges that he showered with some boys after workouts and shouldn't have done so.

Paterno was fired last Wednesday for failing to do enough about a 2002 report alleging that Sandusky raped a young boy in the Penn State football showers.

The Associated Press has made several efforts to reach Sandusky by phone and through his attorney, but messages haven't been returned.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7235782/former-penn-state-coach-jerry-sandusky-proclaims-innocence-nbc-interview

[Acymetric]

Most of all who posted here seem to agree that you don't really know how you would react in the situation you faced it.

Maureen Dowd has her take in the New York Times.

Comment 15 is from someone who claims to be have investigated claims of criminal sexual abuse of children in Pennsylvania for 17 years. Not once has a teacher who witnessed the abuse or hear about it from a child called him. Every time they report it the principal or guidance counselor. He or she writes:

"Not only did Mr. Paterno follow the law as it is written in Pennsylvania, he followed normal protocol as it stands throughout the state of Pennsylvania. For him to be condemned for this is unacceptable.. "

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/opinion/dowd-personal-foul-at-penn.html?sort=oldest

Of course after reporting the apparent crime Paterno and McQuery continued to see Sandusky.

SoCal
(Emphasis mine)

I'm still undecided on a lot of things about this, but it seems like it would be pretty easy to counter that normal protocol throughout the state of Pennsylvania (and most likely nationwide) should be condemned entirely. Schools (particularly schools in the K-12 range) do not have the resources to properly investigate these issues and may not have the proper motivation or incentive to see the investigation through as it should. This kind of issue should go straight to the police, end of story.

[BD80]

This just keeps getting worse.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45286426/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

...

My take, the key witness says ...


…the truth is not out there fully…


The grand jury report wasn't an impartial, balanced evaluation of the situation, it is a summary of the evidence supporting the conclusion. The whole story hasn't yet come out.

[roywhite]

The grand jury report wasn't an impartial, balanced evaluation of the situation, it is a summary of the evidence supporting the conclusion. The whole story hasn't yet come out.

and the report just happened to be made public. "The grand jury indictment had been filed under seal, but because of a computer glitch it had mistakenly been made public."

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/11/grand-jury-indictment-had-been-filed.html

[rthomas]

How stupid is it that Sandusky admits on prime time TV that he took showers with 10 year old boys? Very creepy.

[CameronBornAndBred]

How stupid is it that Sandusky admits on prime time TV that he took showers with 10 year old boys? Very creepy.
Well if he denies that, then nobody is going to believe him about anything, it's already a given that he did take the showers. By admitting to one event he's hoping to persuade somebody that he's also truthful in saying that he didn't have sex with the kids. Gutsy strategy, especially since everything he says publicly is admissable in court. On NPR this morning they were reviewing the interview and really were taken back by his answer to the "are you sexually attracted to young boys" question. He took about a minute to finally say no, when you would hope that his answer would consist of only two words, "hell no". His lawyer needs his head examined for allowing the interview.

[PADukeMom]

My take, the key witness says ...




The grand jury report wasn't an impartial, balanced evaluation of the situation, it is a summary of the evidence supporting the conclusion. The whole story hasn't yet come out.

No No Noooo I don't think the point I was trying to make was clear enough. It is this whole cycle in Pennsylvania of corruption of children. In my local county 3 judges were convicted to sending children to juvie detention in exchange for cash to the center that was owned & operated by a local attorney & real estate developer. What I was trying to point out was that I was not surprised that this judge was so leinient on bail because she was connections to Sandusky. She needs to resign.

[roywhite]

Well, speaking about lenient bail arrangements....if the Attorney General, now the Governor of PA, knew about molestation incidents as far back as 2008, why wasn't Sandusky arrested around that time, instead of waiting until November 2011?

Edit: Apprarently Corbett got the case in March, 2009

Penn State probe moved slowly (http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/report%3A-penn-state-probe-moved-slowly-111411)

[rasputin]

(Emphasis mine)

I'm still undecided on a lot of things about this, but it seems like it would be pretty easy to counter that normal protocol throughout the state of Pennsylvania (and most likely nationwide) should be condemned entirely. Schools (particularly schools in the K-12 range) do not have the resources to properly investigate these issues and may not have the proper motivation or incentive to see the investigation through as it should. This kind of issue should go straight to the police, end of story.

It is normal procedure in the state in which I practice (Missouri) for teachers to report such a matter to a principal or counselor, who will ask the victim a few questions (just to confirm that there is reason to suspect abuse or neglect), and the principal or counselor will call the child abuse hot line. It is very clearly NOT the school's responsibility to investigate; their responsibility is to report.

[sagegrouse]

It is normal procedure in the state in which I practice (Missouri) for teachers to report such a matter to a principal or counselor, who will ask the victim a few questions (just to confirm that there is reason to suspect abuse or neglect), and the principal or counselor will call the child abuse hot line. It is very clearly NOT the school's responsibility to investigate; their responsibility is to report.

One of the points made in one of the earliest articles is that "reporting up the chain" is just fine -- provided it does get reported to the authorities. The police don't want to get six separate reports on the same incident.

sagegrouse

[A-Tex Devil]

One of the points made in one of the earliest articles is that "reporting up the chain" is just fine -- provided it does get reported to the authorities. The police don't want to get six separate reports on the same incident.

sagegrouse

Correct. There is a similar procedure in most school districts in Texas. The issue is, and always will be in this case, if McQueary saw what the grand jury report said he saw, it's clearly a crime. This isn't a case of Johnny coming to school with a black eye and a teacher suspecting problems at home. You obviously don't want teachers jumping to conclusions without raising it up the ladder. But in this instance, *if* the facts are as laid out in the GJ report, this goes waaaay beyond that.

I'm done speculating on why McQueary/Paterno didn't put pressure on their bosses to follow through when I assume they saw Sandusky hanging around the Ath Dept again weeks/months after the incident. There are myriad reasons why they didn't, almost all inexcusable, even if some are to an extent understandable. We'll have to see what comes out as this thing gets played out in the PA justice system.

[mph]

This (http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=7238963) might change people's view of McQueary.


A source familiar with the state investigation of child sexual assault allegations against Jerry Sandusky tells ESPN's Tom Rinaldi that Mike McQueary stopped Sandusky's alleged rape of a boy as young as 10 years old that McQueary witnessed at a shower at the Penn State practice facility in 2002.

and


In the email, first obtained and reported Tuesday by The Morning Call of Allentown, Pa., McQueary said he "did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police" after the alleged incident.

[killerleft]

[QUOTE=mph;528487]This (http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=7238963) might change people's view of McQueary.




As several folks have tried to caution people, we just don't know that all that has been reported is true, and much just hasn't been reported at all yet. If McQueary indeed stopped the assault and talked to police... then lots of people (including me, by the way) have been jumping on McQueary for no reason. And this news could shine a kinder light on Joe Paterno, as well.

[Acymetric]

It is normal procedure in the state in which I practice (Missouri) for teachers to report such a matter to a principal or counselor, who will ask the victim a few questions (just to confirm that there is reason to suspect abuse or neglect), and the principal or counselor will call the child abuse hot line. It is very clearly NOT the school's responsibility to investigate; their responsibility is to report.

Well, except that you say in your first sentence that they will investigate (on a small level) to determine whether to proceed to the police for further investigation. Do I trust administrators to do the right thing? No, and apparently I shouldn't (there are great administrators out there, not knocking all of them; but even bad one renders the "up the chain" strategy ineffective).


One of the points made in one of the earliest articles is that "reporting up the chain" is just fine -- provided it does get reported to the authorities. The police don't want to get six separate reports on the same incident.

sagegrouse

True, which is why I would want the first person that finds out to contact the police, and then inform up the ladder that police have been contacted and the school may want to pursue some action of its own with the knowledge that a member of the faculty has been accused of sexual abuse. As long as the higher ups are aware that a report has been filed there shouldn't be any concern of multiple reports.

An alternative to reporting straight to the police...report directly to the parents and see how they want to proceed. Just don't like adding administrators as "middle-men" here when they might have other interests that conflict with the best interests of the child as it appears may have happened here.

[rasputin]

Well, except that you say in your first sentence that they will investigate (on a small level) to determine whether to proceed to the police for further investigation. Do I trust administrators to do the right thing? No, and apparently I shouldn't (there are great administrators out there, not knocking all of them; but even bad one renders the "up the chain" strategy ineffective).



True, which is why I would want the first person that finds out to contact the police, and then inform up the ladder that police have been contacted and the school may want to pursue some action of its own with the knowledge that a member of the faculty has been accused of sexual abuse. As long as the higher ups are aware that a report has been filed there shouldn't be any concern of multiple reports.

An alternative to reporting straight to the police...report directly to the parents and see how they want to proceed. Just don't like adding administrators as "middle-men" here when they might have other interests that conflict with the best interests of the child as it appears may have happened here.

My reference was not to some "chain" that has a large number of links in it. Teachers normally will talk to a principal and/or counselor, who makes a report (although the teacher is also free to make a report).

[DukeGirl4ever]

Most of all who posted here seem to agree that you don't really know how you would react in the situation you faced it.

Maureen Dowd has her take in the New York Times.

Comment 15 is from someone who claims to be have investigated claims of criminal sexual abuse of children in Pennsylvania for 17 years. Not once has a teacher who witnessed the abuse or hear about it from a child called him. Every time they report it the principal or guidance counselor.


How very interesting that you posted this because we JUST had an in-service on this today at our school and I have the paperwork sitting in front of me. According to our school district's policy for reporting student abuse by a school employee (which our administrators actually verbally compared to the sex scandal at Penn State because it was an "former" employee), it states:
"A school employee shall immediately contact the principal when the school has reasonable cause to suspect that the student.....is as victim of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse or sexual exploitation by a school employee."

After going over the 7 page document, our administrators told us not to contact the police or Children and Youth Services unless the accused employee is the principal. At that point we would contact the Superintendent.

So, this comment about teachers not contacting police and/or outside services is a little off-base. If the policy is in place to contact an administrator or school counselor who then reports it to authorities, then it makes perfect sense that they are the ones reporting it every time. It is our responsibility as a district to report, not investigate.

If there was no follow-up by the district and I suspected the abuse was ongoing, then I can sit here and say I'd contact the police because I am a good person and want to do everything to protect that child, but we never know how we would actually react given a certain situation until we are in it. I just pray to God I'm never presented with anything so horrific!

[roywhite]

So, this comment about teachers not contacting police and/or outside services is a little off-base. If the policy is in place to contact an administrator or school counselor who then reports it to authorities, then it makes perfect sense that they are the ones reporting it every time. It is our responsibility as a district to report, not investigate.

If there was no follow-up by the district and I suspected the abuse was ongoing, then I can sit here and say I'd contact the police because I am a good person and want to do everything to protect that child, but we never know how we would actually react given a certain situation until we are in it. I just pray to God I'm never presented with anything so horrific!

So, to relate this back to the Penn State situation, didn't Joe Paterno also follow an established policy by reporting the incident to his administrator? And his original involvement was second-hand, not directly witnessing the act.

How much blame does he deserve here?

[KenTankerous]

wow.

That seems to me to be a lot of insulation to protect the institutions. I hear you that you would go further if the process didn't work but it also sounds like a whole lot of personal risk just to stop young people from being raped.

I don't know if any victims read this forum but as one (not of this institution but the Catholics) I want to say to y'all: None of this is your fault. And you do not have to be a victim, or a survivor or any other cliche crap the counselors throw at you! Your only fault is that you trusted somebody in authority, somebody you looked up to, somebody cool, somebody with keys to a kingdom you never dreamed you'd get into. Yet, they took you there. And you got a piece of the dream. And then the nightmare came.

And it is NOT YOUR FAULT.

You are not flawed. You aren't discounted. And you are not scarred.

You've outlived it. Listen to Coach K - Next Play!

[sagegrouse]

So, to relate this back to the Penn State situation, didn't Joe Paterno also follow an established policy by reporting the incident to his administrator? And his original involvement was second-hand, not directly witnessing the act.

How much blame does he deserve here?

Joe Paterno went "by the book" in alerting the AD. Whether he accurately reported what was said by McQueary or under-reported it is somewhat irrelevent, in that Curley and Schultz both interviewed McQ. No problems there.

One problem for Joe P. is an apparent failure to follow up (hector?) Curley to see that action was taken. Sure, Curley was his nominal superior, but Joe P. was far more powerful.

The bigger problem for Joe Paterno is a long string of incidents and a clearcut pattern of behavior that indicated Sandusky had a problem with young men and boys (gosh, it is painful even to write that sentence). Costa this AM said he was surprised how much Sandusky said during his interview this week and, while his admitted behavior was not criminal, it was indeed "creepy." I tend to believe that Paterno knew everything that happened relative to Penn State football (much as K knows everything that happens at Duke). Let me restate that: "Joe Pa knew EVERYTHING related to Penn State football." There was a criminal investigation against Sandusky in 1998 for incidents that happened in Penn State athletic facilities. Does anyone really believe that Paterno did not know about this? Sandusky, by his own words, has said that he was told that year that he would not be head coach at Penn State. Then he retired the following year and never coached again, despite his immense reputation as a coach and recruiter. Does anyone really believe these events and non-events were unrelated to the criminal investigation and his "creepy" behavior? Meanwhile, Sandusky still had status at Penn State, was allowed to use facilities, and was able to bring young boys into the athletic facilities. Joe Pa could have stopped all of his Penn State access at any time and did not.

Here are the obvious questions about the future:

Is Joe criminally liable for any of this? I can't see how.

Is this going to ruin his reputation to the end of time? Yes, it may well do that.

Does he have potential liabilities through civil lawsuits? Sure, he has a lot of money and was Sandusky's supervisor for 23 years. (Aha! A "viable" defendant.) Of course, he's gonna get sued, whether he was at fault or not. But the bigger problem to me is that he tried to protect Penn State but did not do nearly enough to protect Sandusky's alleged victims.

sagegrouse

[DukeGirl4ever]

So, to relate this back to the Penn State situation, didn't Joe Paterno also follow an established policy by reporting the incident to his administrator? And his original involvement was second-hand, not directly witnessing the act.

How much blame does he deserve here?

Based on our district's policy, Paterno did what he was supposed to do. It was Curley and Schultz that failed to take the necessary steps.
That being said, I haven't seen PSU's "abuse" policy although I would assume it is similar. But you know what they say about people who ASSUME things...:p

Since JoePa followed the steps (according to our policy) the court system said he would not be charged. Like others have said, however, it was how the follow-up was handled that are making people question his ethics.

Honestly, I don't know where I stand on all of this. There is way too much info out there for me to sort through and we haven't even come close to hearing every angle. Just wanted to pass on the info that we were given as a district and how we "should" follow through with child abuse situations.

[roywhite]

The bigger problem for Joe Paterno is a long string of incidents and a clearcut pattern of behavior that indicated Sandusky had a problem with young men and boys (gosh, it is painful even to write that sentence). Costa this AM said he was surprised how much Sandusky said during his interview this week and, while his admitted behavior was not criminal, it was indeed "creepy." I tend to believe that Paterno knew everything that happened relative to Penn State football (much as K knows everything that happens at Duke). Let me restate that: "Joe Pa knew EVERYTHING related to Penn State football." There was a criminal investigation against Sandusky in 1998 for incidents that happened in Penn State athletic facilities. Does anyone really believe that Paterno did not know about this? Sandusky, by his own words, has said that he was told that year that he would not be head coach at Penn State. Then he retired the following year and never coached again, despite his immense reputation as a coach and recruiter. Does anyone really believe these events and non-events were unrelated to the criminal investigation and his "creepy" behavior? Meanwhile, Sandusky still had status at Penn State, was allowed to use facilities, and was able to bring young boys into the athletic facilities. Joe Pa could have stopped all of his Penn State access at any time and did not.

sagegrouse

It's not at all clear that Sandusky's behavior was recognized by those he worked with going back into the 1990's. I could not put my hands on a link, but I have seen references that Sara Ganim, the Hsbg Patriot-News reporter, who has done the original and best reporting on this scandal, has indicated that Paterno told the grand jury he was not aware of charges against Sandusky in 1998. The Second Mile Foundation had a long list of very prominent people who inter-acted with Sandusky and attached their names to his charity, which seems unlikely if there was some general buzz about his creepy behavior. Sandusky was married with six children; there have been no public utterances from them about aberrant behavior by Sandusky.

For what it's worth, the concept of Paterno knowing everything that goes on or has gone on with any relevance to the football program is contrary to the gripes of many Penn State football fans who have said going back to at least 2000 that Paterno had lost his touch, was not as sharp or energetic as he had been, and should have retired from the job much earlier.

Again, Paterno did testify under oath to the grand jury, and was found to be credible. At some point, we should learn more about just what he said.

He's obviously been the face of Penn State football and his reputation is tarnished by this scandal and his abrupt departure. But how much blame should really go toward him?

[stixof96]

I believe that a decision was made to protect Penn State first when the pedofile was caught raping the boy in the shower and I believe everyone from the President of Penn State down to Paterno was in on the coverup. In the end, it's all about money and nothing else.

[turnandburn55]

Well if he denies that, then nobody is going to believe him about anything, it's already a given that he did take the showers..

But that's the thing about our legal system-- the defendant is under no obligation to confirm or deny a gosh-darned thing. The Fifth Amendment is a powerful tool, and he should be making full avail of it (under the assumption that he's innocent until proven guilty).

He's some interesting thoughts on it and some facts I didn't know..

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2011/11/penn-state-coach-and-his-lawyer-prove-value-of-the-5th-amendment/

[BD80]

But that's the thing about our legal system-- the defendant is under no obligation to confirm or deny a gosh-darned thing. The Fifth Amendment is a powerful tool, and he should be making full avail of it (under the assumption that he's innocent until proven guilty).

He's some interesting thoughts on it and some facts I didn't know..

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2011/11/penn-state-coach-and-his-lawyer-prove-value-of-the-5th-amendment/


Sandusky's lawyer, ... Joe Amendola got his 16 year old client pregnant. ... 16 is the age of consent in Pennsylvania

Maybe his lawyer understands the beast within.

This whole thing has become so macabre. A lawyer having sex with his client his despicable - because of the nature of the relationship and the trust the client is encouraged to place in the lawyer. That abuse was multiplied by the adult/child dynamic. Beyond creepy.

But still, why is Sandusky's lawyer's history an issue? Isn't it more relevant that the complaining witness "Victim 1" has a lawyer and his mother is giving interviews? What is the statute of limitations for a civil action? "Victim 1" alleged the contact ended in spring of 2008. Will they have to file suit before the criminal trial, giving the testimony a pecuniary taint?

[OldPhiKap]

Maybe his lawyer understands the beast within.

This whole thing has become so macabre. A lawyer having sex with his client his despicable - because of the nature of the relationship and the trust the client is encouraged to place in the lawyer. That abuse was multiplied by the adult/child dynamic. Beyond creepy.

But still, why is Sandusky's lawyer's history an issue? Isn't it more relevant that the complaining witness "Victim 1" has a lawyer and his mother is giving interviews? What is the statute of limitations for a civil action? "Victim 1" alleged the contact ended in spring of 2008. Will they have to file suit before the criminal trial, giving the testimony a pecuniary taint?

Sex with a client would get you disbarred in most states, in and of itself.

The rest, if true, is truly nauseating.

[bundabergdevil]

For those that haven't seen the story, now, in addition to the allegations at The Citadel, a potential victim is now alleging that a Syracuse Assistant BBall coach molested him. http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7248184/syracuse-police-investigating-bernie-fine-molesting-boy-1980s

Ff anything positive comes out of the PSU situation I wonder if it will be victims all around the country feeling compelled to come forward.

[roywhite]

Another ugly situation and reports of sexual abuse, this time from gymnastics.

Former U.S. Olympic Gymnastics Coach Banned After Sex Abuse Allegations
(http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/don-peters-us-olympic-gymnastics-coach-banned-sex/story?id=14966477)


In a week already marred with a mounting sexual abuse scandal at Penn State, a former U.S. Olympic gymnastics coach has had his coaching privileges permanently revoked and has been kicked out of the sport's Hall of Fame following an investigation into sexual abuse allegations.

Don Peters, 62, who led the 1984 U.S. Olympic women's gymnastics team with all-around champion Mary Lou Retton and coached many gymnasts to medal podiums over several of decades, has been listed as "permanently ineligible" for membership by USA Gymnastics, the nation's governing body of the sport. The action means he can no longer work or volunteer at more than 2,000 member clubs across the country.

[Greg_Newton]

Well, if there's one positive to come out of all of this, maybe it's that a bunch of child molesters across the country get put behind bars. Seems like the PSU situation has given more people courage to come forward in their respective situations.

[roywhite]

Penn State: Danger in the unknown (http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/kreidler-111117/echoes-duke-lacrosse-rush-judgment-penn-state-scandal)


And with that, it is official: Public ignorance has become the currency of the Sandusky scandal. Not willful ignorance, although surely there have been ample amounts of that, but a more ordinary, everyday, lack-of-basic-information, we-just-don't-have-it-yet type of ignorance. It is terrifyingly obvious that many people are operating off shards of factoids and little else, and drawing broad conclusions based upon those shards, and generally not knowing very much with absolute certainty, because the case so far doesn't allow for that.




The scandal involving Jerry Sandusky and Penn State might not travel the same path as the Duke story did. It is not the same story. It certainly might not be subject to a legal reversal on the scale of the Duke case.

What the stories share, though, is a strikingly similar sort of venal public response, a certain "they're all guilty as sin" quality that permeates so much of the national conversation. If nothing else, recent history suggests that at least a modicum of restraint today might prove wise later on. Here's hoping it doesn't get lost in all the shouting.

[peterjswift]

Penn State: Danger in the unknown (http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/kreidler-111117/echoes-duke-lacrosse-rush-judgment-penn-state-scandal)


I followed links from that article to this one about Mike McQueary. (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7237700/in-penn-state-child-sexual-abuse-scandal-there-no-easy-answers-assistant-mike-mcqueary)


There's some statements from a former FBI employee who worked specifically with child abuse. Here's a few choice ones:


Turner said most adults have never even seen a photo of a man having sexual relations with a young boy, much less witnessed it. Further complicating things, Turner said, was the fact that Sandusky was seen as a role model in the community and someone McQueary had known nearly his entire life.

"You're trying to comprehend something your brain can't handle," Turner said. "You can't rationalize it. Compute it. Handle it. Most people turn around and walk away. And then they try to figure out, 'Oh my God. What the hell did I just see?' The people who say they would go in there and break it up? They're wrong. Nine times out of 10, that's just not how the human brain works."

This seems a lot like what was said, way upthread (quoting in its entirety, because I think it is worth reading):


I think the first thing to mention is that from the GA's prospective, there is nothing rational about the situation, and having a rational response is pretty tough. We don't know how long he witnessed anything. Was it 5 seconds, 30 seconds, a few minutes. It's plausible that he was able to comprehend what happened, but by the time he got over the shock, it was done. My second thought is that even if he did get over it quickly, there is still fear about who it is. This guy, even though he was retired, still had major clout, and probably had significant influence compared to a GA. It's not irrational to have fears about your job if you say something and they take his word for it. In those seconds and minutes, the myriad of things that can run through your mind and paralyze you is mind boggling to say the least.

The grand jury presentment says that the first thing he did after leaving the locker room was call his father. Honestly, that's probably what I would have done too. My first instinct is to call someone who I absolutely trust, and is not part of my workplace to ask for advice. He could have a tendency to doubt himself and not even be sure if what he saw was real. In any case, he would want some advice before doing something he couldn't take back. His father told him to go to Paterno, who then relayed it to the AD. The GA later met with the AD who told him that Sandusky's locker room keys were taken away and it was reported to the director of the second mile. It's really only at this point where the GA lapsed in judgement. Before this, he had the confidence that it was moving up the ladder and that the police would presumably be brought in, and it would be done by someone in a more authoritative position. However, when he was told that Sandusky merely lost his locker room privileges, that's when he needed to question why the police weren't called and do it himself if necessary.

It's all well and good to talk about what the right thing to do at that moment was, but it's really easy to get paralyzed by the moment when something that outrageous happens before your eyes. Once he had time to think and saw that his superiors were doing nothing, he really needed to act further, and that's where he erred. While on the subject, that is also the exact same way in which Joe Paterno erred. When it comes to heinous crimes like this, there is no rational, and trying to put people's responses into rational terms is impossible.

Anyhow - I thought it was interesting to see an article about McQueary that included the thoughts of an expert on the subject matter, and even more interesting to see that it seemed to match SCMatt33's much earlier post. I hope Mike & Mike read this article...McQueary was put through a blender on their show.

[roywhite]

The NCAA has now gotten involved officially, and will investigate "institutional control" issues at Penn State relating to the Sandusky scandal.

Letter of Inquiry to Penn State President Erickson (http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf)

[roywhite]

More bad news.

Joe Paterno has lung cancer. (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/sports&id=8437607)

[roywhite]

Prosecutors change timeline in Sandusky case, saying McQueary incident happened in 2001, not 2002 (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/05/prosecutors_change_timeline_in.html)


Prosecutors no longer thinking that Mike McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in a Penn State locker room the night before spring break in 2002.

Instead, new evidence shows what McQueary saw happened instead in February 2001, the attorney general's office said in court paperwork filed today.

In the motion, the prosecutor alludes that the change does not affect the allegations of a crime.



While allegations against Sandusky will proceed, this timeline may bring into play the statute of limitations for allegations against Penn State officials Curley and Schultz.
Also seems to call into question the credibility of McQueary.

[KenTankerous]

Oh, so this is great news! We can maybe sweep this whole thing under the carpet on a timeline technicality. Awesome.

Yeah, but not really. Because little boys were raped in the Penn Sate locker room. But hey, time expired. Next play.

Not hardly.

Not for a minute.

Not ever.

Hold them accountable forever, for the full extend of the law, and beyond into social and polite society.

For Ever.

[burnspbesq]

Oh, so this is great news! We can maybe sweep this whole thing under the carpet on a timeline technicality. Awesome.

You're clearly not of a mind to deal with any facts that don't fit your pre-conceived notions, but this is a perfect example of why we have statutes of limitation. With the passage of time, physical evidence gets degraded and memories get fuzzy.

Someone a lot smarter than you or me once said that it's better that a thousand guilty men go free than that one innocent man be wrongly punished.

If you were accused of a crime, you would want every procedural safeguard that you are so eager to deny to Jerry Sandusky.

[-jk]

Please, folks, let's not turn this discussion into a policy debate.

Thanks,

-jk

[GopherBlue]

Please, folks, let's not turn this discussion into a policy debate.

Thanks,

-jk

Or, if I might be allowed to suggest, perhaps it is time to move this thread to the off-topic board.

As news-worthy and discussion-worthy as this story is, I prefer not to be reminded of these shockingly horrendous accusations every time I drop by for an update on the worlds greatest athletics program on the EK board.

[roywhite]

Or, if I might be allowed to suggest, perhaps it is time to move this thread to the off-topic board.

As news-worthy and discussion-worthy as this story is, I prefer not to be reminded of these shockingly horrendous accusations every time I drop by for an update on the worlds greatest athletics program on the EK board.

Well, it's fine if the moderators decide to do that, but this thread hasn't been on the first page for almost 6 months.

[KenTankerous]

Guilty.

Justice sometimes works, still.

[DevilWearsPrada]

Guilty.

Justice sometimes works, still.

Guilty on 45 of 48 counts, as to an article I read. Hopefully, the victims can feel that the Justice system did their work, and can move forward from this painful act and abuse againest them as youth. I am sure that Sandusky will spend the rest of his life in jail!