Posted on 10/05/2014 12:43:21 PM PDT by FlJoePa
With all the recent court decisions siding in JVP's favor, I felt it a good time to boil this down to the bare truth. Cef gives it to you here if you want to listen.
Well, you've got me there.
I can't imagine the Penn State Police answering to the interests of... Penn State.
Bottom line: Joe Patero did what he was required to do under Pa. State law. If others dropped the ball, that was not his responsibility..Be careful of the brush you wish to paint others with...
Again, this thread is about Paterno. Your "wants" are meaningless to me, unless you post a thread on the subject you "want" to post about.
BS. Not even the AD told the police. Here's what Curley stated in his deposition:
"I never reported it to University Police. I didn't think that it was a crime at the time"
Yep ... just as Democrats will ignore the death of hundreds of Mexicans and some American Border Patrol agents in Fast and Furious in order to maintain power, some here will subordinate the serial buggery of young boys to a college football program.
Yay! Go Joe! You get your trophies back! Hey listen, could you slip an extra twenty to the cleaning staff? Sandusky made a mess in the locker room.
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Until McQuerry told Paterno what he saw in the shower, Paterno did not know that Sandusky was doing little boys in 2001
...I doubt it was a complete surprise when McQueary told him, though it’s also pretty evident that the depth of Sandusky’s perversion shocked him...after all, he testified to the grand jury that he may have heard rumors about Sandusky prior to MM’s revelation...but of course, rumors and gossip are what they are, crass and cheap...
...my real reason for thinking he suspected Sandusky was a creep was MM’s recollection of Paterno’s response...MM said Paterno’s shoulders slumped, and a look of deep sadness crossed his face...the reaction of a man whose trust in a colleague had been betrayed...
.If he had gone to the newspapers or anywhere else with that story, he could have been charged with a crime...do you get that?
...please...that’s utter nonsense...he would have been charged with no crime for informing Child Welfare or the State Police...
Looks like your tagline is highly appropriate to this discussion.
McQueary told three substantially different stories. In one, he SAW the rape. In another, he saw nothing but just heard "slapping noises." IIRC, his third story had him witnessing nothing. The third can be disposed of as self-serving to avoid job consequences, not from Joe Paterno but from the university. As to the first two stories, they are entirely inconsistent with one another. A defense attorney worth his salt would leave the pieces of McQueary's witness corpe in the gutter on the way home.
Again, IIRC, the janitor NEVER testified.
What made the case against Sandusky was the willingness of actual victims to testify against him. It would take a very strange man to be willing to lie under oath in claiming to have been anally raped.
Finally, suppose that McQueary actually saw or heard something worth investigating. Why did he not investigate? If he actually saw the felony of child rape or heard anything unequivocally demonstrating such a crime, two things would have happened: McQueary (1), who had played for Penn State just a few years before and was about 24 years old and had shoes on his feet, would have reacted normally and kicked the crap out of Sandusky's genitals and got the kid out of there on his way to (2) the telephone to report the incident to the nearest State Police barracks. I am betting that McQueary had every reason to trust McQueary under those circumstances. What kind of man is McQueary to let a child get raped in his relatively immediate vicinity and do NOTHING, not even tell his father, until several days had passed? As a result, I do not believe that authorities were ever able to identify thst victim. Paterno could only speculate as to whether McQueary witnessed anything. Jury likewise. Paterno reported skeptically to the campus police and the campus authorities per his contract.
Trust that there are other perps out there who have done a masterful job of covering their tracks. That is what disgusts me. You could not prosecute the dead Paterno because he died. You can prosecute the living perps and you should.
He did go to the police, or is English not a first language for you...
...again, nonsense...he phoned his nominal boss, Tim Curley, telling him they had a problem...
...disseminating easily disprovable malarkey is not helping your cause...
McQueary feared for his job.
If McQueary was the ACTUAL eyewitness to the anal felony rape of a kid about 10 years old, does the fact that “McQueary feared for his job” (which I do not doubt) absolve him? His report to Paterno would be deemed hearsay in court and inadmissible as evidence. McQueary’s eyewitness account as the subject of HIS OWN testimony does not suffer that disability.
If McQueary testifies that he told Paterno, it is not excluded under the hearsay rule. I suggest that you study-up on the subject.
What kind of man is McQueary to let a child get raped in his relatively immediate vicinity and do NOTHING, not even tell his father, until several days had passed?
...incorrect...he told his father the night of the occurence...it was Paterno that waited several days to phone Curley...
As a result, I do not believe that authorities were ever able to identify thst victim.
...actually, they made minimal, if any, effort to do so...
Paterno reported skeptically to the campus police and the campus authorities per his contract.
...again, incorrect...Paterno reported, skeptically or otherwise, to Curley alone, not to the campus police...
Joe Paterno was a mandated reporter of child abuse under Pennsylvania law.
Pennsylvania Mandated Reporting of Child Abuse
What is the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL)?
The PA Child Protective Services Act was signed into law in 1975. It was enacted to protect children from abuse, allow the opportunity for healthy growth and development and, whenever possible, preserve and stabilize the family.
Who is mandated to report?
Individuals who, in the practice of their employment, occupation or practice of a profession, come into contact with children and have reasonable cause to suspect that a child under the care, supervision, guidance, or training of that person or of an agency, institution, organization or other entity with which that person is affiliated is a victim of child abuse.
What is the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL)?
The PA Child Protective Services Act was signed into law in 1975. It was enacted to protect children from abuse, allow the opportunity for healthy growth and development and, whenever possible, preserve and stabilize the family.
May God have mercy on the victims of Penn State.
It is a while since last I looked at this matter on the internet while contending with folks here. It is entirely possible that some of my recollections are faulty. My recollection is that the incident was on a Friday night during the annual Easter break and that McQueary told no one until he told his father on Sunday and asked dad what he should do. If we have dueling recollections, there we are. If you have a reference to McQueary having told dad on the night of the incident, I will defer to you on that.
My recollection is that Paterno was in his office on the Monday when McQueary told him, McQueary told dad on Sunday, asking what he should do. Dad told him to report what he had witnessed and McQueary, instead of going to the police, prosecutor or campus police officials, went to Paterno instead. Paterno then, I had thought, called Curly promptly. By then, delay was no longer an issue. It was no longer possible to identify the child victim.
Sandusky was not going to flee the jurisdiction. The prosecution can obtain the right to arrest a Sandusky either by an arrest warrant signed by a judge or by presentment before and indictment by a grand jury, either of which requires only a finding of probable cause (It is more rather than less likely that the proposed defendant committed the crime in question and that what was done was in fact a crime.
I do not doubt for a moment that the campus police and campus authorities made only minimal effort, if any, to identify the victim.
You raise some good well measured points/responses but to me it DOES mean silence as to the likes of Sandusky. Schools DID ‘squeal’ on other schools. It/that did happen. If Joe was not gonna ‘blow the whistle’ on someone/something as so insignificant, (really, compared to child rape), as other schools violating C/S recruiting rules then no way in heck was he gonna do anything about this mess. A mess that would have lead to the destruction of Penn State. After Paterno “reported the problem”, what/how did he follow it up to ensure something was indeed done or in the works? I’m asking, I really do not know.
The language you are citing looks more like it comes from the brochure you attached as a pdf file than directly quoting a statute.
Nonetheless, let us suppose that the language fairly reflects that statute. Under the language you cited, Joe Paterno was NOT a mandated reporter of child abuse under Pennsylvania law.
The first and third paragraphs of the brochure language you cited are irrelevant to the question. They are political puffery to remind us that our politicians are on the job.
Focus on the middle paragraph headed WHO IS MANDATED TO REPORT? which is the question. Nobody knows to this day the identity of Sandusky's child victim of the anal rape in the shower room, if that is what occurred, nor with any certainty what actually occurred in the shower room. Paterno most certainly did not witness that incident, if any. All he has to go on is a report to him by McQueary who claimed to be a witness. He might be able to report what McQueary told him to a child protection authority but Paterno could not testify to it in court since testifying as to what McQueary told him is classic excludable hearsay.
Paterno never came into contact with the child/victim by any allegation of fact of which we are aware. Paterno did not customarily come into contact with children in his capacity as Penn State football head coach. Paterno had no care, supervision, guidance or training responsibility to any child, much less the child victim of this crime, if any, nor did the Penn State football program have any such responsibilities toward the unknown child snuck onto the premises by the retired Sandusky during a university holiday period.
The most that you might say is that IF Paterno was responsible for the child/victim which he was not, he might have been chargeable with a misdemeanor violation. As a practical matter, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its prison authorities would gladly see to the dismissal of any such charges to avoid paying the medical bills on his final bouts with lung cancer. If Paterno cared at all about a virgin criminal record, he would have filed a motion to dismiss the charges and away goes trouble down the drain. That's a guarantee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.