Penn State Goings-On

[Valmy]

Joe Pa to retire at the end of the season?  Does he think this is a joke? 

[garbon]

Joe Pa to retire at the end of the season?  Does he think this is a joke? 

Well it is ultimately the board's decision. I think that was just his preference.

[Ed Anger]

I might have to go to the Penn State at Ohio State game. Just to see JoePa ride off into the sunset.

[KRonn]

If all they have on JoPa is he knew about Captain Pedo "showering with a 10 year old boy" the early reports of his death may have been exaggerated.  Football locker rooms have group showers.  People shower together.

If you read the indictment, which I did and quite frankly do NOT recommend that others read , the coach who witnessed Sandusky abusing the kid supposedly was extremely distraught and told Paterno what it was that he witnessed.  Nobody gets extremely distraught over a group shower, especially not an ex-football player.

Yeah, this seems pretty bad, and I haven't read the indictment. I got a bit grossed out over all those people supporting Paterno.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Yeah, this seems pretty bad, and I haven't read the indictment. I got a bit grossed out over all those people supporting Paterno.

It'll go from "it seems pretty bad" to "holy fucking shit" when you read it.  It's bad.  Real bad.

e: And the people supporting him are absolute retards.  I mean, really?  The guy didn't report child rape and allowed the freak pedo to keep bringing kids around his football program, using that program to get close to them, despite his history. 

[Admiral Yi]

Did you guys catch the footage of Matt Millen blubbering?

[MadBurgerMaker]

Did you guys catch the footage of Matt Millen blubbering?

No I missed it.  I understand he was talking about killing Sandusky or kicking his ass or something?

[Admiral Yi]

No I missed it.  I understand he was talking about killing Sandusky or kicking his ass or something?

Not in what I saw.  It was just "these are little kids...sob sob sob"

[Ed Anger]

Detroit wept for years with Millen in charge.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Not in what I saw.  It was just "these are little kids...sob sob sob"

Oh okay.  Must have been someone else talking about kicking ass.  I'll look for some youtube links or something with Millen.

[jimmy olsen]

Not in what I saw.  It was just "these are little kids...sob sob sob"

Oh okay.  Must have been someone else talking about kicking ass.  I'll look for some youtube links or something with Millen.

I think that was Herm, also Golic IIRC.

[Barrister]

Been reading the grand jury report.  Man - he's a classic rpedator, with a well-honed technique for grooming his victims.

[Rasputin]

This scandal proves the wisdom of an old southern political expression, "never get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy".

I've read the indictment.

Having read it carefully, I'm troubled that at first blush the university does not apppear to have investigated the allegations once it learned of them.

While joe pa could have done more, I'm not sure that his behavior was unreasonable given the facts known to us presently:

1.  he is told by a graduate assistant that he witnessed sandusky (assuming the veracity of joe pa's version of events) in the shower with a boy who appeared about ten;

2.  at this time joe pa has known sandusky for 34 + years and we have no fact that suggests joe pa should have believed a claim this wild about sandusky who otherwise was a pillar in the community and president and founder of a charity whose mission was to help young kids;

3. sandusky no longer works for joe pa;

4. he is not on the campus because of joe pa but instead because of his charity (apparently at the will of a department other than athletics);

5.  if we accept that thus far there is no known fact  which would suggest that in 2002 joe pa should have believed his friend of 34 years capable of such a monstrous act, then it's reasonable to assume that joe pa might have had some skepticism about the veracity of the allegation;

6. joe pa nontheless reports it to his boss and to the head of the department at penn state who is letting sandusky run this charity on penn state property.

Without more information, I cannot say that joe pa's conduct was unreasonable; I fail to understand (and remain troubled by) joe pa's not confronting his friend to ask whether its true.  It would seem that that would have been the most likely second stop unless he had reason to know the answer already. If so, then joe pa chose to ignore the problem.

Turning to curley, spanner, and company, there can be no excuse for their not having investigated the allegations and run it to ground. This failure is, however,  inconsistent with how institutions behave in my experience.

I fear therefore that its more likely that they did investigate the allegations and then buried the results of that investigation hoping that they could keep sandusky away from penn state property and avoid further scandal. If they buried what likely should have been public records, they likely commited crimes as public officials crimes both in burying public records and failing to bring matters to the attention of the authorites, which forced them into a position where they  they werre all stuck having to stick to a story that frays at its fringes.

This also seems consitent with their decision to keep him off Penn State property with his charities' beneficiaries as it suggests that the investigation corroborrated some of what the ga reported; why else take this act if the adminstration believes the allegations untrue?

How does the adminstration conclude that there is some truth to the allegations without some investigation or knowledge that there was some problem pre existing this complaint vis a vis sandusky and his charges?

[jimmy olsen]

Given the discrepancy between the testimony of the GA and JoePa, and the great likelihood that JoePa knew a lot more about Sandusky then he let on, I think he's going to end up getting charged.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/11/09/joe.paterno/?hpt=hp_c1

Did Joe Paterno break the law?

By Michael McCann

Joe Paterno could still be charged with perjury if authorities find he wasn't truthful in his grand jury testimony.

News and analysis from SI.com

While Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says that her office won't file charges against Joe Paterno for not reporting the alleged child sexual abuse by former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the 84-year-old coach could eventually face criminal charges for perjury, obstruction of justice and violating the state's Child Protective Services Law. Paterno could also become a defendant in civil lawsuits filed by Sandusky's alleged victims. Those lawsuits could allege that Paterno negligently failed to prevent a third party with whom he had a supervisory relationship (Sandusky) from committing abuse.

Perjury and Obstruction of Justice

Under Pennsylvania law, as in other jurisdictions, perjury refers to knowingly lying while under oath. Obstruction of justice describes interference with the administration of justice, such as by concealing evidence or delaying or frustrating a criminal investigation. While Paterno has thus far escaped these criminal charges, his statements and behavior suggest that he remains vulnerable to them. That is particularly evident when considering troubling inconsistencies between Paterno's testimony to the grand jury that investigated Sandusky and the testimony of Penn State assistant Mike McQueary.

These inconsistencies related to Paterno's and McQueary's statements about "Victim 2" in the grand jury's statement of facts. According to the grand jury's findings of fact, McQueary detailed how in 2002 he saw a naked Sandusky sexually abusing a young boy in the showers in the Penn State football locker room. McQueary also testified that he told Paterno what he saw the following day, though it isn't clear from McQueary's testimony how explicit he was in his description to Paterno.

After hearing from McQueary, Paterno alerted athletic director Tim Curley. Yet instead of relaying what McQueary claims to have told him, Paterno conveyed a milder and vaguer description. Specifically, Paterno testified under oath that McQueary had said that Sandusky was engaged in fondling or "doing something of a sexual nature" to a boy.

To be sure, the phrase "doing something of a sexual nature" technically includes forcibly subjecting a child to anal intercourse, meaning Paterno may have been more evasive than untruthful. Then again, Paterno's hazy choice of words could encompass a band of sexual acts, from raping a 10-year-old boy to inappropriately touching or patting a child, that ranges too widely in heinousness to be deemed consistent with McQueary's allegedly more specific statements. The phrase unnecessarily imports ambiguity and generality where none had existed, and dubiously invites the listener -- Curley -- to assign a lack of severity to the incident. From that lens, Paterno appears to have told Curley a different account than what McQueary had told him.

The inconsistent testimonies raise several questions:

• Did McQueary lie to the grand jury about what he saw or told Paterno?

• Did Paterno lie to the grand jury about what McQueary had told him?

• If neither witness lied, did Paterno intentionally misrepresent what McQueary had told him in order to discourage Curley from aggressively investigating the matter or alerting the police? If so, did Paterno conceal the severity of the evidence or delay the onset of a criminal investigation to such an extent that he obstructed justice?

It should be reiterated that Paterno is at least publicly regarded by law enforcement authorities as a witness, rather than as a possible defendant; if authorities thought his actions clearly violated the law, he would have already been charged, just like Curley and former Penn State senior vice president of business and finance Gary Schultz. For purposes of obstruction of justice, Paterno also benefits from Pennsylvania's statute of limitations, which prevents authorities from charging individuals with crimes after a period of years. Although the length of years can be extended or "tolled" under certain circumstances, authorities would likely encounter difficulty charging Paterno nearly 10 years after the 2002 incident. Statute of limitations would not help Paterno deflect perjury charges, however, as his grand jury testimony occurred within the last year, thereby clearly falling within the applicable five-year statute of limitations.

Nonetheless, the potential exists for Paterno to face both perjury and obstruction of justice charges, especially as the investigation intensifies and as other witnesses, as well as defendants and potential defendants, talk. Also, should Curley and Schultz and, if eventually charged, university president Graham Spanier seek plea deals, they may be willing to implicate Paterno in exchange for more favorable treatment. Paterno, conversely, could seek the same type of arrangement with prosecutors, implicating Curley, Schultz et al. in exchange for avoiding prosecution. It is thus very possible that Penn State officials who worked closely together may wind up in a "prisoner's dilemma" where they will have an incentive to cut a deal and implicate their former colleagues before those former colleagues cut a deal and implicate them.

Child Protective Services Law

Under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law, certain individuals, including teachers and school administrators, have a legal obligation to immediately report suspected child abuse to child protective services or law enforcement, or to a "person in charge" (supervisor), who must then report the alleged abuse to the authorities. The reporting must be honest. When in writing, the reporting must also include known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse, along with other material details.

Within one day of learning from McQueary of the alleged abuse, Paterno notified Curley, his boss. By doing so, Paterno satisfied an obligation to immediately report to a person in charge.

On the other hand, one could read the Child Protective Services Law to classify Paterno as himself a person in charge of McQueary and as one who had a subsequent obligation to report to the authorities. Still, Curley's status as Paterno's boss likely insulates Paterno from liability, at least for failing to notify child protective services or law enforcement.

Paterno may have nonetheless violated the Child Protective Services Law by failing to tell Curley the specific story as told by McQueary and by failing to provide known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse. As discussed above, if McQueary's testimony is true, Paterno appeared to downplay the severity of the incident while speaking with Curley. His portrayal seemed incomplete, if not outright disingenuous. Also, while Paterno made his initial report of the suspected child abuse to Curley by phone, any written communications would have required the known information.

In Paterno's defense, law enforcement authorities have indicated that, in their current view, while Paterno appeared to do the bare minimum, he technically satisfied his legal obligations under the Child Protective Services Law. Whether that viewpoint proves sustainable could depend on the development of new and more incriminating facts and public pressure.

Negligence

Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.

Sandusky's alleged victims could file lawsuits against Penn State for negligently failing to protect them from Sandusky. Under tort law, employers have a duty to prevent their employees from committing crimes or civil harms on others while their employees are engaged in their employment. Even after Sandusky retired, Penn State, by allowing him on campus despite questions about his treatment of children, could have breached a duty of care to children whom Sandusky allegedly abused. Penn State, for its part, could maintain that it took preventative steps, including prohibiting Sandusky from bringing children to campus and taking away his keys to university facilities. It could also portray Sandusky as no longer an employee but rather a retired individual who was permitted to use a very limited range of campus resources.

The alleged victims could also sue Paterno on similar grounds. While Paterno was not technically Sandusky's "boss" after 1999, it seems plausible to assume that Sandusky -- still actively involved with the team, albeit in an informal capacity -- continued to view himself as Paterno's subordinate. Victims of Sandusky could allege that Paterno negligently failed to protect them or to adequately warn authorities of Sandusky's alleged abuse of children.

Should tort lawsuits be filed, expect Penn State, Paterno and other targeted Penn State officials (e.g., Curley, Schultz and Spanier) to attempt to settle the claims before they go to trial. At a minimum, such trials would paint the university and its top officials as immoral and irresponsible, and as embracing a "hear no evil, see no evil" approach to what appears to be the actions of a sadistic man.

Michael McCann is a sports law professor and Sports Law Institute director at Vermont Law School and the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law.

[Valmy]

if we accept that thus far there is no fact known which would suggest that in 2002 joe pa should have believed his friend of 34 years capable of such a monstrous act, then it's reasonable to assume that joe pa might j have had some skepticism about the veracity of the allegation.

But this is not the first time Sandusky had been under investigation for this stuff.  He was investigated for an incident in 1998 which totally coincidentally corresponded to when he was forced out as DC.  Surely a second accusation should have forced Joe Pa, the moral compass and the leader at Penn State, to take serious action.  You are really asking me to give this dude an enormous benefit of the doubt to the point I am supposed to assume Joe Paterno is either an idiot or so deep in denial he is out of touch with reality.  I mean he let the dude on campus for years, with young boys against the University's own policy, for years after this even while the freaking Grand Jury investigation was going on.  How could you interprete that differently than Joe not just being skeptical about the accusation, but outright supporting his long time friend and assistant coach Sandusky?