Posted on 10/05/2014 12:43:21 PM PDT by FlJoePa
In our court systems, we indulge the obvious fiction that each person is presumed to know the law. Easy enough for judges to say. Whether their families eat does not depend on the ordinary citizen's failure to understand the intricacies of our law. Since laws reproduce like rabbits and the shelves of law books, statute books, court decisions, regulations grow and grow much too fast for lawyers to keep up with the changes, how do we expect civilians with real jobs in the real world not in the legal profession to do better?
I doubt that Paterno understood the law any better than most busy people do.
A common saying is that there is honor among thieves, i.e. they don't report one another to the police (or the NCAA by analogy) for what they all do (which is why we call them thieves). It is a relatively innocent vice not to report each other for petty crime.
Child rape is NOT a petty crime as I am sure you will agree. It is also not a crime common to all football coaches or so we may reasonably hope. If Paterno told SI that he had never ratted anyone out and was not about to start now, I bet that the murder of his secretary in his sight by her estranged husband would have been reported by Paterno. Likewise the anal rape of a child in his presence. But the crimes charged here, by their very nature, were not in his presence.
Your last question is as to what he did to follow up to see something was done. Whether he knew the law or not, the law allowed him to contact Curley and to ask what had been done. Curley was required to make a report within 24 hours of receiving a report from a mandated reporter and, IIRC, to answer that reporter's questions as to what had been done.
Penn State has been humiliated. Sandusky is sentenced effectively to spend the rest of his life in the Pennsylvania hoosegow, probably suffering the, ummm, special attention of Big Bubba and his fellow prisoners. They may have to put him in solitary or give him bodyguards. Prison is a dismal place for people sent up on kiddyraper beefs. Even bigtime assistant football coaches. Joe Paterno is dead of lung cancer. And yet the Penn State football program is alive and well.
It is the NCAA starring in run for its life.
The way the law works in mandated reporting is that it's like a game of tag, where everyone who gets touched is 'it'. McQueary told Paterno. Regardless of what McQueary did or did not do, by telling Paterno, Paterno is responsible to report it to child welfare authorities. With apologies to Delta Dawn– who must never have set foot on a college campus and known firsthand the professional standard known as 'University Police"– it was negligent of Paterno not to have called in someone (specifically: child welfare authorities) from outside the university. He'd been there long enough to know it would get covered up. He chose football over child rape.
And don't tell me Paterno didn't know. Wink wink, nudge nudge, Sandusky sandwich anyone? If it's true that Paterno didn't know what was going on under his very nose then he is an even bigger idiot. It's his flippin' program!
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.
Not true. Paterno directed and no doubt met personally with boys too young to legally sign themselves into his program. Are you telling me that Penn State never had football camps for kids, or mentoring programs, or that prospective (underage) kids never came to or stayed on campus specifically because of the football program? Or at the invitation of Joe Paterno? He had care and supervision of minors, and those dealing with them.
Paterno was a mandated reporter. He did not notify child welfare authorities. He had every reason to believe the university would swallow the scandal.
He can rot in hell.
I got a B in evidence in law school. How about you? I practiced trial law for several decades. How about you? Your first sentence is correct beyond question and I never suggested otherwise. Your second sentence is impertinent.
Bookmark
You were critical of delta Dawn but did not ping him/her which is like talking behind his/ner back.
What did JoePa do? Turn your kid down for a football scholarship?
The way the law works in mandated reporting (failure to comply with) and every other criminal charge known to man or beast is that such charges are prosecuted under constitutional standards. We don't punish first and try defendants later and still later investigate. To be punished, a defendant must first be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by pleading guilty or nolo contendere, or "guilty under the doctrine of the SCOTUS case of Alford vs. North Carolina," or after trial by a judge or by a jury of his peers, if he demands such, and lose his final appeal or waive the appeal process. It is not enough that some consensus may develop one way or the other on this or any other internet site. See Simpson, O.J., State of California vs.
This is not a game of any sort much less a game of tag. Again, I do not believe that JoePa had any more sophistication in the law than any other guy in his eighties still working full time at the top of his profession. He can read his employment contract which tells him he cannot report anyone outside the university. He can imagine being fired for trying that route. You may believe McQueary of the conflicting inconsistent stories but that does not require JoePa to believe him. It may well be that Paterno was quite skeptical of McQueary's story. Maybe not. I don't know and neither do you that is why judges instruct jurors NOT to discuss even the evidence (much less the hearsay) during breaks, lunch and overnights/weekends. The law requires no premature judgments to the extent that it can prevent them.
Of course you are long on unsupported speculation and short on proof. Paterno was negligent???? That assumes a lot of facts not in evidence. If Paterno was negligent, was he the only one? Did McQueary call in child welfare? Why not? Curley? Why not? Spanier? The trustees? Officials According to your theory of Tag, you're it! they are still alive and JoePa is not. Of course, njormally (at least in Connecticut) a misdemeanor has a one year statute of limitations. The prosecutor must be negligent for letting it run out. Why not prosecute him?
Child welfare authorities? REALLY??? Someone calls and says that the next door neighbors' noisy kids are playing outside again and they have DIRTY FACES! Here comes child welfare to justify their existence. Experts at CYA, their job is to make the politicians who fund them look involved.
I agree with you on University Police.
"Sandusky sandwich anyone?" Do you want to translate that into normal English? I remember a Ted Kennedy/Christopher Dodd sandwich with a waitress in the middle. Surely you are not suggesting that there were Sandusky/Paterno sandwiches with ten year old boys in the middle. If you would associate Paterno with such a thing, you need professional help and not from child welfare services either.
The third to the last paragraph is a stew of errors too rich for me to address tonight. I am heading for bed. He was not a mandated reporter. Thus your second to last paragraph fails.
As to your last sentence, be careful. IF he goes there, unrepented calumny may make you his room mate for eternity.
Curley was in charge of the campus police
...most incorrect...Schultz was in charge, in a titular way, of the campus police, while Curley was the athletic director...
My recollection is that Paterno was in his office on the Monday when McQueary told him,
...Paterno and MM met at Paterno’s home, on Saturday morning...
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, went to Paterno instead.
...as stated, MM told dad on Friday night...dad told him to talk to Paterno...
Paterno then, I had thought, called Curly promptly.
...in his testimony to the grand jury, Paterno stated he called Curley sometime within the next week, as he didn’t want to interfere with anybody’s weekend...
...I know recollections make for hazy evidence...but it would behoove you, if you wish to post on this topic, to get the most easily established points correct...
...and, fwiw, I hate the way this turned out for Paterno, whom I happily met on one occasion, and I don’t even like PSU football, so my feeling goes beyond the mere sport...
Shame on FlJoePa for continually trying to rewrite history about this stupid, stupid criminally negligent old man.
...my my my, such ranting...it contributes nothing to the conversation, you know, except that it says a great deal about you yourself.
It is Paterno who cannot testify as to what McQueary told him unless it falls within certain well-defined exceptions to the hearsay rule.
...are you asserting that if Paterno had been asked in a court of law how he found out about it, and he testified that MM told him so, then the judge would strike that testimony as hearsay..?
If you really want to know the truth, look to the members of the PSU Board of Trustees who were (and still are) connected to the Second Mile ‘charity’.
Yes, there is a conspiracy and a cover-up, but it does not involve Paterno.
I actually feel kinda sorry for those whose opinion comes from ESPN and Louie “liar for hire” Freeh.
The truth will eventually prevail, and sadly, the haters will remain silent.
but Paterno could not testify to it in court since testifying as to what McQueary told him is classic excludable hearsay.
...in re-reading your posts I came across this...I’m sure you’re aware that Paterno did exactly that to a grand jury, which the last I looked qualified as a court of law...
...I know grand jury proceedings are distinct from open court, and I’m not aware of hearsay distinctions which may apply, as I’m not a lawyer...and if you provide a cogent response, I’ll defer to your knowledge...but your original statement above needs explanation...
I actually feel kinda sorry for those whose opinion comes from ESPN and Louie “liar for hire” Freeh.
...oh, now I get it...it’s all clear as day...the BOT, the Second Mile, ESPN, and Louie the Liar all colluded with Jerry to get him to bugger the boys in his care, so that-—
1) the BOT could willingly dismantle PSU football so they could get back at Paterno for his refusal to to resign when they wanted...
2) the Second Mile could willingly shut itself down as a functional non profit...
3) ESPN could willingly open itself up to slander suits just so they could have a juicy story...
4) Louie the Liar could indulge his oft stated desire to destroy Joe Paterno...
...and here I was thinking the whole issue revolved around Jerry buggering the boys on his own, and the PSU administration keeping the story in house, believing that it would never see the light of day in the insular little world known as Happy Valley...which, in fact, it absolutely would not have, if Jerry hadn’t been so stupid as to molest a high school kid some years later...
...I’m so glad you set me straight on the matter...eternally grateful...
1), 2), 3), 4)....
I don’t even know where to begin - none of your responses make any sense at all.
You obviously have made up your mind.
And I have better things to do than rebut utter nonsense.
I’m getting back to work.
Believe what you will, and I will too.
Have a great week; I wish you all the best.
Signing off....
1), 2), 3), 4)....
I don’t even know where to begin - none of your responses make any sense at all.
...sigh...my responses are meant to be nonsensical, ridiculous answers to your ridiculous conspiracy theories...
Believe what you will, and I will too.
...except my ‘belief’ is actual accepted fact...that Jerry groped a number of boys against their will, a felony, and the PSU administration, when confronted, kept that knowledge to themselves, for whatever reasons...resulting in the perception of a case of tremendously poor judgement
at best, and criminal collusion at worst...your belief, apparently, is that whatever happened, it did not involve Paterno, but did involve ESPN and independent investigators...
I read tons about the case as it occurred. I’m not about to hang onto that disgusting situation to argue with a kook. At the time there were kooks claiming it was alright to have sex with little boys.
So why is this kook bothering everyone with his constant history revision and excuses? No one is going to go back and research facts to dispute one kook who won’t let it go.
” At the time there were kooks claiming it was alright to have sex with little boys.”
Sara, I don’t think there was anybody on this board that said that. I don’t know of any support for J.S. on this forum either. If it was up to me, I would shoot him, bring him back to life again, shoot him again, bring him back to life and repeat as necessary. That is what I think of J.S.
Neither prosecutor nor defense counsel nor any judge or magistrate of any sort was allowed to be present and that made objections impossible although, I believe, that a grand juror could ask, in the court room for judicial intervention but few grand jurors knew that. The defendant was allowed to be present but required to be silent or be ejected from the room. the evidence that the prosecution wanted presented such as photographs, investigative reports, scientific reports, etc. was put in a wooden box and it was available to the grand jurors. This procedure tended to be used for crimes punishable by the death penalty. No transcripts were produced and the grand jurors were sworn to secrecy. A finding of probable cause by 12 of the eighteen was sufficient to indict.
There are crimes of public notoriety which are handled there by a "one man grand jury" which was a judge of respected neutrality, probity and sometimes courage. One such grand jury of one indicted the Chief Justice of Connecticut's State Supreme Court for participating in financial crimes with Rhode Island mobsters. As a result, the Chief Justice resigned and was convicted.
Finally, in ordinary felony cases with ordinary defendants, Connecticut used to have "probable cause hearings" in which the prosecution had to present to a judge in open court with a stenographic record (and therefore appealable) enough of the prosecution case to justify the felony charge. The defense usually presented nothing at such hearings. The defense would see some substantial part of the prosecution's case without returning the favor.
I had not been aware that Paterno testified to a grand jury. Grand jury proceedings have their roots in British common law (adapted here in its entirety after the Revolution so that our judges would not have to toss out British precedents that were long settled by British Common law. OTOH, after our revolution succeeded, our judges were able to develop their own common law which, in case of disagreement with the British, would prevail over British common law. Our legislatures were free to enact statutes in derogation of British common law, as well.
A grand jury is, in any event, NOT a court of law although due process guarantees must be observed and obeyed. Each state has its own common law and I only practiced in Connecticut. I am not at all personally familiar with the Pennsylvania common law. However, there are important policy reasons for the exclusion of hearsay. There are also generally recognized exceptions to it.
If a man is fatally wounded and knows he will likely die imminently, he is thought to be unusually honest with an eye on eternity and judgment by God if he lies about who shot him. He tells a witness or witnesses what he knows of the identity of his killer. Usually the hearsay testimony of the witness(es) will be admitted. If George Washington admits chopping down his dad's cherry tree, it is an admission against interest which may lead to the elder Washington spanking the younger. Likewise admission of one's own commission of crime. Such admissions are thought to be unusually trustworthy. But, jailhouse confessions in which prisoner A admits to prisoner B (who is seeking favors from a prosecutor) that he committed a crime are not necessarily so trustworthy and may be rejected by the court. Some such confessions are ruled admissible. Some not.
It would take pages to describe all of the exceptions. But the rule is more predominant than the exceptions overall. I hope the post helps.
I hope the post helps.
...it does...thanks...grand juries basically exist to determine sufficient cause for indictment, I’ve learned...
Sara, I don’t think there was anybody on this board that said that. I don’t know of any support for J.S. on this forum either
...I believe the original comment to you was not limited to discussion on this board...
...I can tell you there are people who believe Jerry did nothing wrong whatsoever (thus justifying Paterno), and are actively engaged in deconstructing the victims’ claims...positions to which they are, of course, entitled, but notwithstanding, they exist...
We had easy access at the time to documentation which I have no ability to access now as to the curious disappearance of the Centre County prosecutor. If he was murdered during his investigation, one would expect greater law enforcement concern and effort.
The report of Louie Freeh who was essentially the CYA counsel to the Board of Trustees in charge of absolving them at taxpayers' expense ($500 per hour or more? and lotsa billable hours). I don't trust Freeh but anything in that report which may be critical of the trustees or exculpatory as to Paterno would be against the wishes of the girls what brung him to this dance and therefore, to that limited extent credible.
There was a lengthy report online of a former trustee who had retired but was seeking election anew and was very detailed. There were many other documents on line at the time. I am giving you my best good faith recollections. If they are wrong, they are wrong. My powers of recollection are not improving as I am approaching 70, the good Lord willing and the crick don't rise.
Anyone who uses the word behoove deserves respect.
If you have documentation, please provide links (something else I am too aged to know how to do). Only documentation can resolve the gulf between our recollections. If I am wrong, it won't be the first time and probably not the last either.
I would also observe that, other than reasonable questions raised by McQueary's disagreements with himself, once Sandusky got the child out of the locker room/shower room and out the door, he and the kid were in the wind. A prompt telephone call to authorities by the timid Mr. McQueary would have prevented that and all the more so if he had kicked the crap out of the vulnerable naked Sandusky which would seem to be called for as a normal hormonal and justice reaction by a man of McQueary's age and status as a former Penn State football player. If McQueary had acted, Sandusky would have been out of circulation then and there and thereby McQueary would have saved the molesting of other kids. Assuming that Paterno was the proper person to report to, by Saturday morning, it was too late to identify the child victim.
If Paterno was the proper person to report to as McQueary's superior, then Curley was the proper person for Paterno to report to as Paterno's superior in the athletic department. Schultz was in charge of the Penn State police, no "titular" about it. The civilian control of campus police guarantees that the campus police will not embarrass the perversion promoting Graham Spaniers of this world by making impolitic arrests. At other campuses and, perhaps, at Penn State, arrests for possession or use of narcotics are not allowed for typical PR and PC reasons. b Civilian control of campus police departments is inherently a source of corruption.
...I can tell you there are people who believe Jerry did nothing wrong whatsoever ...
I admit I don’t read every thread about PSU, but I have never seen any support for Sandusky on this web site. I think we can all agree that Sandusky is a despicable person, and should have received the death penalty.
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.