Inhistoric

Nice job

Thanks

stinkypants - November 11, 2011 reply

The actual law about reporting child abuse:

I think the concept that so many are protesting is the perception of what the media reports is inconsistant with the facts to the case. Pennsylvania law applies, and it the course of an institution that serves the needs of children, child abuse reporting must be made to the person designated at the institution who must immediately forward the data to the childline network.

The ball was not dropped nor covered up by Joe Paterno. The media presentation that he is ultimately responsible ignores so many facts of this case that there is a very logical backlash.

The reporting failed at the administration level. The reporting failed at the eye witness level.

What should I do when I suspect
a child has been abused?
A The law says that mandated reporters must
immediately make a report, or notify the person in
charge. The person in charge or the designee must
make a report of suspected child abuse immediately
to ChildLine at 1-800-932-0313.
Q How will I know if the report is made by
the person in charge or the designee?
A The person in charge of the agency or his designee
must notify the reporter when the report is made to
ChildLine.

http://www.lcyictraining.com/files/Mandated%20Reporting/Mandated%20Reporting.pdf

milroyigglesfan - November 11, 2011 reply

This is an emotional event - both horrifying and angering

But emotions that rule the day are quite frequently the reason for making quick judgements, errors, burning effigies of everyone remotely associated .

The first order of business is to ensure the safety and well being of the victims. The second order of business is to incarcerate and prosecute anyone responsible for these horrifying events.

The third order of business is to assess how this happened, how did the system fail and who in that system failed.

The backlash right now is the recognition by so many that we’ve jumped to step 3 and laid all responsibility at the feet of one 84 year old man.

It doesn’t pass the sniff test. It doesn’t fit the facts of this case. Nobody is arguing whether Joe or any of 100’s of people could not have done more. It was nearly 20 years.

But what if the facts determine that events were reported and not investigated? what if facts determine that a DA was on the take, or a policeman? What if facts determine that reports HAVE been made over and over and over and got no results?

Joe Paterno was told of an abusive event, and reported it as prescribed by law to the designated official. He is fired.

Is this world safer now? Really?

milroyigglesfan - November 11, 2011 reply

Denial

Stop with the media angle. Yes or no: was Jerry Sandusky allowed to remain on campus after Paterno was informed of what happened? Yes or No? It’s as simple as that. You can’t possibly rely on future knowledge absolving him when the language in the grand jury testimony so clearly spells out that “something of a sexual nature was going on.”

The legality of this means nothing. Look up David Cash and the Sherrice Iverson case, and I can come back and tell you that Cash didn’t break any laws. But he still did the wrong thing, and so did Paterno. And as for the age question: even if the world isn’t safer, a man with any decency in him still has to pay for his crimes, on matter what age. If, today, Roman Polanski was arrested and sent to a life in prison, I doubt the world would be any safer either. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve it (bad double negative).

ZombieMonta - November 11, 2011 reply

Any Justification for the Firing of Joe Paterno or Vilification of Mike McQueary?

THIS IS ALL ABOUT BLAMING THE MEDIA and why that is justified.
My previous contribution to this site on the subject of Joe and Mike called AN OUTSIDERS VIEW OF PSU and THE NATIONAL NARRATIVE has gotten quite long and difficult to absorb. But having spent a significant amount of time with this story and having read so much of what is out there in the press and in comments on various sites, I feel compelled to add some additional thoughts and observations in this new post. I do not wish to beat a dead horse or overstay my welcome but I am encouraged by the response to the previous piece and I hope this additional one will not cause any distress or boredom.

I have had to answer so many comments to my first post about the nature of the Grand Jury Report – as a summary of allegations designed to justify an indictment – and to garner public opinion in support, that it’s become increasingly clear how that so many people have a very difficult time dealing with any logic that upsets their justification for condemning Paterno, McQueary and Penn State as villains who enabled Sandusky.

Why did so many people jump to unfounded conclusions and rush to judge people they did not know for things we have so little information on which to base conclusions? Follow me below the jump to consider this process.

Human Beings have a pretty tough time admitting they were wrong when they feel very strongly about something and child abuse by a sexual deviant has a particularly deep impact. When we are disgusted and deeply offended we feel deeply and our opinions run equally deep and become intractable for many.

That is why this was such a dangerous subject that became damaging when treated so cavalierly by political figures who did not stop to think what damage they could do with incomplete evidence broadcast to millions in a document that was not explained for what it was then unreasonably accepted as unassailable fact.

So everyone read many pages of horrific allegations at one time and they were rightly repelled and horrified. But our righteous sympathy for victims and their families does not give us the right to condemn Paterno or McQueary if their actions or inactions were reasonable or understandable given what little we know about what they knew and did.

Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary and the PSU athletic director had no grand jury report of allegations to assist their response to the events of March 1, 2002, but that hasn’t stopped way too many media and their readers/viewers for jumping to conclusions and rushing to judge what they did or did not do based on one short paragraph in the report that contains no quotes, no Q&A, no qualifiers, no exculpatory evidence, no cross-examination and no detailed account of events:

“It was about 9:30pm. As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the showers. He saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. He left immediately, distraught.”

That’s it. That is everything we have to go on concerning Mike McQueary’s experience. Then the report goes on to tell us Mike and his father met with Paterno:

The GA and his father decided the GA had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno, head football coach of Penn State. The next morning, a Saturday, the GA telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno’s home where he reported what he had seen. Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the GA’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the GA was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley the PSU AD and Paterno’s immediate superior to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the GA had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.

"

That’s it. That is all the report tells us of Joe Paterno’s involvement and finally for PSU we know that Paterno involved his superior the AD and the VP in charge of campus police and Mike reported to them:

“Approximately one and a half weeks later, the GA was called to a meeting with PSU AD Curley and Sr VP for Finance and Business Gary Schultz. The GA reported to Curley and Schultz that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building showers. Curley and Schultz assured the GA that they would look into it and determine what further action they would take. Paterno was not present for that meeting.”

This is what we have along with perjury charges against the AD and the VP to understand what happened.

Notice NO QUOTES, no Q&A, no detailed testimony – just the grand jury reports simple summary to encourage people to leap to the conclusions of a cover up conspiracy and justify the firing of a Penn State stalwart and icon.

EXCUSE MY FRENCH but this is TOTAL BULLSHIT.

Now I understand why the public being subjected to the media narrative and the entire 40 count report might jump to unfounded conclusions. But how could any responsible journalist or commentator take this isolated incident with no identified victim and consider that cause for the vilification of Mike McQueary or the firing of Joe Paterno? Can they use the excuse that they do not understand the nature of a summary of allegations? NO. Can their overzealous vilification be justified on any level when it comes to Joe or Mike based on some emotional response in sympathy for victims? NO

The more I study this situation the more disgusted I become at the absurd media narrative. These people seem to thrive on the destruction of reputations – the bigger the better. It makes me hope there is some way Joe Paterno and his family and Mike McQueary can sue every last one of these people for defamation, slander and or libel but alas we know that is highly unlikely.

There are many ways to question the McQueary version as summarized by the DA and it is not Mike’s fault.

Mike and his father call Joe and he tells them to come over. They sit down and Mike tells the story you can read in italics in the Outsider’s View of PSU and the National Narrative so I don’t have to repeat myself
Then Joe starts to ask questions.

“How far were you from Jerry and the boy when you saw them?” About 30 feet away
“How long was it before they saw you?” A few seconds
“Did you have a clear view of what was happening?” No there was a lot of steam and water because several of the showers were running.
“What happened when they saw you?” They broke contact and Jerry yelled ‘Hey Mike we were just horsing around"
“Did the boy run to you or call for help?” No he appeared to be calm.
“Why did you think it was sexual?” The boy had his hands on the wall and Jerry was behind him naked with his hands around the boy and I had heard these slapping sounds so I though it was anal intercourse at first.
“Were his hands on the boy’s private parts or genitals?” I thought so at first but I could not be sure.
“What did they do then?” They turned off the showers and grabbed their towels and I went into a nearby office and called my father to ask what I should do.
“Did you ask them to stay so you could make some calls?” I started to do that but I was so shocked, I mean this was coach Sandusky I’ve know since I was a boy. He was my coach and a mentor and he is such a well respected figure. I was confused and stunned. I did not know what I should do. I was not 100% certain that anything worse that a grown man naked in the shower in contact with a boy had occurred. It could have been as bad as anal intercourse that was my initial reaction, or it could have been fondling or maybe it was just seriously awkward inappropriate horseplay. It all happened so fast.
“Did you see them leave the building?”
Yes – and the boy did not seem to be upset or ill at ease but Jerry seemed very embarrassed and in a hurry to leave. I should have gotten the name of the boy but I was so shocked by the entire thing I couldn’t think straight. Did I just witness a sexual assault or was it just a totally inappropriate horseplay like Jerry said? I felt like it would be my word against his if I called the police and I could not be certain what I saw.
I swear coach I have a bad feeling about this and I think it could have been sexual but how could I be sure it happened so fast. I wish I could be more certain and I have this feeling it was sexual but is that enough?

Now imagine you are Joe Pateno and what do you do?
Well I guess he could have done nothing because as Mike said he could not be certain but he decided to call his immediate supervisor and put him in touch with Mike McQueary.
And he spoke with the VP in the Administration in charge of campus police.
They both spoke with McQueary and based on what they were told they decided to tell Sandusky not to bring boys to the PSU facilities. Maybe given what they heard that was what they decided was most prudent. They could not prove that Sandusky had done anything criminal. What more could they have done and what more did they do? We do not know is someone was sent to question Sandusky. We don’t know if Sandusky told them it was all a terrible misunderstanding or that the boy involve was a foster child in his care. WE DON"T KNOW.
The boy in question has yet to be identified by the prosecution. Don’t you find that odd?
The defense says they have identified and contacted the boy and that he will testify that he and Jerry were just horsing around. That came from the Costas interview.
And then we find that Mike McQueary continued to support the Second Mile Charity even with Jerry Sandusky in attendance at the events as early as that same month in 2002.
 

McQueary played in and Sandusky coached in the annual Easter Bowl benefiting Easter Seals Central Pennsylvania on March 28, 2002, according to a review of news archives from the time period. McQueary, a former Penn State quarterback, also played in a June 21, 2002, celebrity golf tournament benefitting Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile.

McQueary played in Second Mile golf tournament again in 2003 and was again on the field for the Easter Seals flag football game, with Sandusky coaching, in April 2004.

Does this sound like the actions of someone who was certain he saw Sandusky engaged in anal intercourse with a young boy? Does it make sense that Mike could have been so certain as the Grand Jury report alleges? Or is it more likely that he was satisfied with some explanation by Sandusky or someone investigating the incident?
Is the national media so devoid of imagination that they cannot conceive of any explanation besides “McQueary saw a boy being sexually assaulted and ran to call his daddy” Or “Joe Paterno turned his back on innocent victims in order to cover up this incident to preserve PSU’s reputation”. How twisted do these media types have to be to accept those as the logical conclusions? Is it what they would have done under the same circumstances? Do they set themselves up as better people than Mike or Joe?
Or is it more likely that good people like Mike and Joe were deeply troubled by something they did not completely understand and that Mike was uncertain because a highly esteemed member of the community appeared to be doing something it was impossible for Mike to accept? Use your Occam’s Razor and decide for yourself what is the most likely answer.
If your mind tells you that cowardice and coverup are more likely than uncertainty and confusion I have to wonder about your values and the way you see people like Joe Paterno who is not some politician but an established paragon of virtue and good in a community that has known him for a lifetime. If Joe and Mike are not good people then who is? Do you really expect the worst of everyone? I realize in the USA in 2011 where we see constant 24/7 vilification of our leaders it may be a difficult question. But this should not be us. We should be better than that.
Maybe I cannot let go of this story because it seems to amplify our current national disease of believing the worst about our leaders in this atmosphere of constant unreasonable and scurrilous attacks that seem to make it possible that there are no good people who do the right thing. If Joe Paterno is not a good person then who is? If Mike McQueary is not the straight arrow good guy he seems to be then who is?
Again I offer this slant on this story as an outsider who has no ties to Penn State and no particular love for Joe Paterno. I had never heard of Mike McQueary prior to this story and I’ve even had some personal experience with this type of thing. I did not get into this thinking that Paterno and McQueary were unjustly treated. It just became more obvious to me the deeper I got into this situation.

aurabass - November 26, 2011 reply