Disgraced Former Penn State DC Jerry Sandusky (convicted child molester)

[Onebuckfan]

However fucked up this is, Joe Paterno is not going to be charged with a crime, he is a cooperating witness in the investigation.

Many years too late..till they had his balls in a vise

 

[Muck]

cont'd

Whoa...wall of text.

 

[matcar]

Whoa...wall of text.

According to the Pennsylvania congressman laws were broken because campus police never reported the incident to public authorities. It sounds as if campus police must provide some sort of annual report of any such violent crimes to the state police.

 

[Muck]

According to the Pennsylvania congressman laws were broken because campus police never reported the incident to public authorities. It sounds as if campus police must provide some sort of annual report of any such violent crimes to the state police.

lol Thanks...I merely went to the original article instead...it has paragraphs.

Wonderful invention paragraphs.

 

[matcar]

lol Thanks...I merely went to the original article instead...it has paragraphs.

Wonderful invention paragraphs.

FWIW, I don't actually think my summation relates to the previous wall of words, but I did want to note this other legal concern that I heard today. Really seems like the cover-up (intentional or just extremely careless negligent omission) might involve more laws broken than previously thought.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Who is even in charge of the police force? The University police have jurisdiction over the campus, but who is in charge of them?

http://www.police.psu.edu/faq/#policy

http://www.police.psu.edu/statestatutes/

I don't mean to be cynical, but how far should a victim have expected a complaint to go if the police force works for the school (if it does)?

The University Police report to the VP of Finance and Business. In 2002, and on an interim basis until a couple of days ago, that was VP Schultz, who was charged with perjury and failing to report an incident of alleged sexual abuse of a minor.

I mentioned earlier that there seemed to be an apparent conflict of interest there, since he could be hesitant to investigate criminal activity that could have a negative effect on PSU's bottom line, such as this mess.

Didn't see your earlier post, but that's precisely what I was getting at...

According to the Pennsylvania congressman laws were broken because campus police never reported the incident to public authorities. It sounds as if campus police must provide some sort of annual report of any such violent crimes to the state police.

OK... getting somewhere now... given how many years this cover-up lasted, it just seems implausible to me that the wasn't AT LEAST a conflict of interest at play here and at worst a police force that was fully cooperative and complicit in the cover up...

 

[Bucklion]

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7208581/rick-reilly-penn-state-scandal

Normally I detest Rick Reilly...but this article is pretty good, asking Fleury to respond and stuff.

 

[BB73]

No. I think it's possible to get a fair enough idea of the main points without reading the thorough description of all the sordid details. After the first page and a half, I didn't want any more. Much like with the horrendous Daniel Pearl video, which I will never watch, I know more or less what happens, but I don't want the grisly details emblazoned in my memory

Precisely.

edit: And I'm not really directing that at you, Bill; I think I understand why you made that plea. I'm just suggesting that it is possible, through second-and-third-hand accounts, to get a pretty clear idea of what the general sequence of events was, without exposing one's imagination to all the chilling, personal details.

It's very important, in my opinion, to read pages 6 and 7, which deal with victim 2, what McQueary says he saw, and the summary of what JoePa said to the grand jury about his own conversation with the AD and the VP; before rendering a reasonable opinion about JoePa's responsibilties and culpability in the whole mess.

But, hey it's the Internet, so lots of people want to express an opinion without finding out facts that are easily available. I'm trying to minimize that in order to improve the level of discussion in this thread.

 

[jlb1705]

A Congressman was on Sirius/XM college football playbook today and was stating that he believes that laws were indeed broken. Something about a Cleary law/act. It sounds as if he is going to go after them as well.

According to the Pennsylvania congressman laws were broken because campus police never reported the incident to public authorities. It sounds as if campus police must provide some sort of annual report of any such violent crimes to the state police.

FWIW, I don't actually think my summation relates to the previous wall of words, but I did want to note this other legal concern that I heard today. Really seems like the cover-up (intentional or just extremely careless negligent omission) might involve more laws broken than previously thought.

Under the Clery Act, colleges and universities have to disclose to the public (and prospective students and their families in particular) information on crimes that have occurred on campus. It's to prevent schools from glossing over violence and sexual crimes to protect enrollment. Violations can incur fines and/or result in the suspension of the insitution's ability to accept federal financial aid monies.

I suppose it would depend on the language, but it seems logical to me that if school officials either actively covered up crimes that occurred on campus or neglected to report them that they would be in jeopardy under the Clery Act as well.

It seems to me this sad story is going to have an effect far beyond what happens to Penn State's football program. If you were a parent, would you allow your son or daughter to attend a university where things like this were allowed to happen? The crimes were not against college students, but you just don't know what else is being covered up or brushed aside. I hope people in PA asking these questions to themselves and don't just continue to offer the unconditional support that we heard from Spanier and saw from the idiot students last night. I hope we hear some outrage on Saturday if and when Paterno, McQueary and their team take the field.

 

[Muck]

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7208581/rick-reilly-penn-state-scandal

Normally I detest Rick Reilly...but this article is pretty good, asking Fleury to respond and stuff.

"Does Paterno have grandkids? How would he feel if it were one of his grandkids in that shower with the coach? What would he have done then?? -- Sheldon Kennedy, former NHL player and abuse victim

Wow

 

[localyokel]

FWIW, I don't actually think my summation relates to the previous wall of words, but I did want to note this other legal concern that I heard today. Really seems like the cover-up (intentional or just extremely careless negligent omission) might involve more laws broken than previously thought.

Tho' I generally dislike quoting Wikipedia, it was handy. There are some interesting concepts in the following under Duty to Rescue:

"Common law

In the common law of the United States and other anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. However, such a duty may arise in two situations:

>A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.

>Such a duty also arises where a "special relationship" exists. For example: Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.

>Property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all dangers on the property.

In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin."
Notably absent from the list: Pervertsylvania

So, depending on interpretation, could individuals or the school be liable because they provided access to Sandusky, and his presence was itself a hazard to others? If a school says "Oh, trust us, we're going to have our respected coach bring your child to a football sleep-over" are they then acting in loco parentis while the child is in their custody?

When they were still allowing Sandusky to bring kids to practice, games, etc., weren't the kids there as invitees? Sandusky definitely posed a hazard on their property.

I know I'm stretching. It's just a game with letters and words...a game called hangman...there are a few guys I'd like to...

 

[Tanner]

"with hindsight" perhaps Touched was not the most appropriate title for Jerry Sandusky's autobiography

 

[Muck]

"with hindsight" perhaps Touched was not the most appropriate title for Jerry Sandusky's autobiography

Unfortunately it is all too appropriate.

 

[alexhortdog95]

Here's the part that gets me...

Joe Paterno sat there....knowing what he knew....knowing what had happened up to that point.....

And watched with a hypocritical eye at the situation that happened in Columbus.

"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
"Success without honor is an unseasoned dish; it will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good."

- Joe Paterno

 

[zincfinger]

It's very important, in my opinion, to read pages 6 and 7, which deal with victim 2, what McQueary says he saw, and the summary of what JoePa said to the grand jury about his own conversation with the AD and the VP; before rendering a reasonable opinion about JoePa's responsibilties and culpability in the whole mess.

But, hey it's the Internet, so lots of people want to express an opinion without finding out facts that are easily available. I'm trying to minimize that in order to improve the level of discussion in this thread.

I understand that, and I just read pages 6 & 7 per your suggestion, and it details the apparent contradiction between the specificity with which McQueary alleges he saw and described the incident (he saw sodomy), and the vagueness with which Paterno and Curley allege the incident was described to them (he saw inappropriate behavior). I do think this apparent contradiction was something that was available through second-hand accounts, but this section of the grand jury report certainly reinforces (or perhaps more appropriately, "preinforces") it.