Post Reply
Page 5 of 21  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Penn State Scandal Prompts Accusations
3 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2011 - 9:25AM #41
TemplarS
Posts: 6,868

Nov 10, 2011 -- 7:02AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


All the major players in this scandal appear to be gone now.





If you think that, you don't remember (or haven't read much) about Watergate.


You are right about McQueary's behavior.


But the more I think and read the available details, the more suspicious I become about exactly what happened in the subsequent administrative-level discussions.


Look at  this way.  After Athletic Director Curley hears about the crime, it takes maybe a week or two for him to actually talk to the witness.  He does so along with the VP of Finance.  Then another couple of weeks go by.  So, basically a month of nothing but these two gentlemen discussing this amongst themselves.  Ask yourself, evidence of a major crime being committed on University property, by a person with significant University associations-is this conceivable?  Is there not at least one other major function unaccounted for here?  Hint: what what John Dean's function in the White House?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2011 - 10:01AM #42
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833

I need to get a grip here. I'm letting my emotions overcome my better judgment. McQueary would also be constrained from calling police himself by PSU policy as an employee, which grad assistants are. Both McQueary and Paterno apparently did what they were authorized to do--follow the chain of command.


So, do we demand as many are saying that both men SHOULD have done more? Legally, Jack Ford just said on ESPN, neither was obliged to do more. There are no Good Samaritan laws in PA which would obligate both men to ignore the chain of command and report directly to police.


Awful though we think it is that neither man did more, they both appear to have fulfilled their legal obligations. Do we demand more? One would think so from the armchair quarterback's standpoint. But think about it-- You see a man who coached you as a PSU player doing something so horrific you can't believe your own eyes. Would you be thinking at all clearly about what you must do? I think a person would have to be superhuman to do ANY of those "should-haves" it's so very easy for us to accuse McQueary of failing to do.


Think about it yourself...a revered teacher-coach-mentor is doing something so horrific that you can't believe what you're seeing. Would you be thinking clearly enough to act quickly and decisively? We'd hope we'd have the presence of mind to get the victim away from the abuser and do something to help the child, but would we?


I can honestly say I'd be so shocked that I might easily have done what McQueary did--called one of my parents or my spouse to ask what I should do. And then, I'd have followed policy and reported it to my immediate superior which both McQueary and Paterno did.


The higherups are the ones who are criminally liable and should be. It was their responsibility to report these incidents to police immediately. They should have been talking to McQueary to get the story from him within hours of Paterno's report, not a week or two later, particularly when the alleged perpetrator had been accused of similar misconduct previously.


More than likely, the only real recourse either McQueary or Paterno would have had once they concluded that there was no investigation underway and no report had been made to law enforcement would have been to quit. You don't badger your immediate supervisor to do his job properly unless you don't mind getting fired. That or quitting would be the only options I can see either man reasonably had.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2011 - 10:38AM #43
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833

Nov 10, 2011 -- 9:25AM, TemplarS wrote:

Ask yourself, evidence of a major crime being committed on University property, by a person with significant University associations-is this conceivable?  Is there not at least one other major function unaccounted for here?  Hint: what what John Dean's function in the White House?




I don't get your point, Templar. Dean was White House legal counsel.


Are you saying that Penn State's lawyers are among those who should be liable, too? It doesn't sound as though they were ever notified or consulted although that hasn't been specified in any reports I've read nor was it mentioned in the grand jury testimony. Maybe my recollection is faulty.


One would think that either Curley or Schultz would have discussed the 2002 incident with a university lawyer fairly quickly, but we don't know if they did or decided not to. Knowing how protective of the good-ol'-boys club athletes and coaches typically are, I'd be surprised if anyone in the PSU athletic department ever talked to a university attorney.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2011 - 10:49AM #44
TemplarS
Posts: 6,868

Nov 10, 2011 -- 10:01AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


...particularly when the alleged perpetrator had been accused of similar misconduct previously.




That case stinks too.  I don't think we've heard the end of that either.


Fact is, Paterno, Curley, Schutz and Spanier were all around in 1998.  I find it inconceivable that none of them knew anything about the previous allegations.  Sandusky was a Penn State employee at the time; though as it happened he retired at the end of the following season (no doubt coincidence, huh?). 


And there is this: Wendell Courtney, former General Counsel for Penn State, is also the lawyer for Second Mile, and was the lawyer for both organizations in 1998. 


And for real conspiracy nuts: Ray Gricar, the DA who chose not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998- went missing in 2005.  He has never been found, and was subsequently declared legally dead.  It is not rational to jump to any conclusions about that; but in any case one is tempted to wonder about the objectivity of an elected DA in a county where the only thing of note going on is Penn State.




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2011 - 10:58AM #45
loveontheair
Posts: 4,057

Nov 10, 2011 -- 10:49AM, TemplarS wrote:


Nov 10, 2011 -- 10:01AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


...particularly when the alleged perpetrator had been accused of similar misconduct previously.




That case stinks too.  I don't think we've heard the end of that either.


Fact is, Paterno, Curley, Schutz and Spanier were all around in 1998.  I find it inconceivable that none of them knew anything about the previous allegations.  Sandusky was a Penn State employee at the time; though as it happened he retired at the end of the following season (no doubt coincidence, huh?). 


And there is this: Wendell Courtney, former General Counsel for Penn State, is also the lawyer for Second Mile, and was the lawyer for both organizations in 1998. 


And for real conspiracy nuts: Ray Gricar, the DA who chose not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998- went missing in 2005.  He has never been found, and was subsequently declared legally dead.  It is not rational to jump to any conclusions about that; but in any case one is tempted to wonder about the objectivity of an elected DA in a county where the only thing of note going on is Penn State.




 





Hello,



"And for real conspiracy nuts: Ray Gricar, the DA who chose not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998- went missing in 2005.  He has never been found, and was subsequently declared legally dead."



Wow. Very strange. This is getting creepy by the minute. Thanks for the info.




love

Good works will never produce faith, but faith will always produce good works. loveontheair
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2011 - 11:15AM #46
TemplarS
Posts: 6,868

Nov 10, 2011 -- 10:38AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


Are you saying that Penn State's lawyers are among those who should be liable, too? It doesn't sound as though they were ever notified or consulted although that hasn't been specified in any reports I've read nor was it mentioned in the grand jury testimony. Maybe my recollection is faulty.


One would think that either Curley or Schultz would have discussed the 2002 incident with a university lawyer fairly quickly, but we don't know if they did or decided not to. Knowing how protective of the good-ol'-boys club athletes and coaches typically are, I'd be surprised if anyone in the PSU athletic department ever talked to a university attorney.





Bingo.


I do not know whether the lawyers should or even could be held liable, and I know of no testimony saying they were involved. But we know from Schutlz's involvement the thing had already gone beyond the athletic department. It seem to me inconceivable that in a case like this nobody got a legal opinion, if for no other reason than to understand the potential liability of the University.


Maybe (speculating again) it went like this: Report it to Schutz, who was responsible as I understand it for the campus police.  This discharges everybody's legal responsibilities. Then Schutz does a "Dean investigation" (Remember that one? There wasn't one.) and buries it.    But that smells of lawyers somewheres.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2011 - 11:18AM #47
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833

Okay, but the 1998 investigation resulted in no charges being filed, so I don't think we can claim that any of the athletic department personnel ought to have done more about that. A guy you're friends with and have worked with for years, you'd encourage him to step down just in case, but if the DA didn't file charges, you'd want to keep thinking the best of a buddy who might have been falsely accused.


I think it's really dangerous to assume that these guys were all working together to cover up Sandusky's misdeeds, and not filing charges after the 1998 investigation was simply part of the coverup.


It does sound suspicious for Courtney to have been legal counsel for both the university and Second Mile and not to have turned over any investigation to someone else due to an obvious conflict of interest.


As Love said, this really is becoming more skin-crawlingly dreadful moment by moment...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2011 - 11:33AM #48
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833

Nov 10, 2011 -- 11:15AM, TemplarS wrote:


Maybe (speculating again) it went like this: Report it to Schutz, who was responsible as I understand it for the campus police.  This discharges everybody's legal responsibilities. Then Schutz does a "Dean investigation" (Remember that one? There wasn't one.) and buries it.    But that smells of lawyers somewheres.



Yeah, I agree that this could easily be another case of the-investigation-that-wasn't especially with so many good-ol'-boy jocks involved. For no one to have consulted a lawyer in 2002 seems very unlikely after what occurred in '98, but it's possible if these guys were intent upon protecting their buddies.


As a lawyer, Jack Ford expressed the opinion on ESPN this morning that Schultz was definitely the "buck stops" guy since he was indeed supervisor of the campus police and was obligated to call in either university police or State College, PA police, both if he felt that advisable.


Ford said that there could conceivably be federal charges filed against Schultz, since failure of a school official whose responsibility it is to report such allegations to the Department of Education constitutes a violation of federal law. He said if none have been filed yet, then there may not be any, or the feds could turn it all over to state law enforcement. I think that's what he said and hope I'm not misquoting him.


The Department of Education announced this morning that it's looking into all this, so I expect more heads will roll once the feds get wound up tightly.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2011 - 11:48AM #49
TemplarS
Posts: 6,868

Nov 10, 2011 -- 11:18AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


Okay, but the 1998 investigation resulted in no charges being filed, so I don't think we can claim that any of the athletic department personnel ought to have done more about that. A guy you're friends with and have worked with for years, you'd encourage him to step down just in case, but if the DA didn't file charges, you'd want to keep thinking the best of a buddy who might have been falsely accused.


I think it's really dangerous to assume that these guys were all working together to cover up Sandusky's misdeeds, and not filing charges after the 1998 investigation was simply part of the coverup.





What happened in 1998 will hopefully be part of whatever investigation now happens.  I'm not insisting this was an ongoing conspiracy for 5 years. 


But the point is, in 1998 you might think sure, false charges, the investigation such as it was turned up nothing.


But when four years later the same guy is caught in the act- you must take previous circumstances into account.  You can't think the guy is innocent anymore.  You must act quickly and decisively.


Nobody did.  Paterno acted quickly but not what I would call decisively.


But what were these other guys, who were also around in 1998, thinking? Sitting around pondering their navels for month in order to decide to do nothing? 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2011 - 12:56PM #50
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833
But what else was Paterno obliged to do, Templar? He appears to have reported to his superior within a quite reasonable timespan.

Someone in his position isn't authorized to contact police directly no matter how powerful we believe Paterno was. Were there Good Samaritan laws in PA, then yes indeed Paterno could be held responsible for not having done more. But that's not the case.

His only real option probably was to quit.

To clarify, I didn't mean you were suggesting, Templar, that there was a coverup. I was only cautioning that we can't know either way at this point and ought to have been more clear that's what I meant.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 21  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook