Paterno knew only that McQueary said it happened, i.e. hearsay evidence.
Posted on 11/08/2011 11:40:43 AM PST by bjorn14
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Joe Paterno’s tenure as coach of the Penn State football team will soon be over, perhaps within days or weeks, in the wake of a sex-abuse scandal that has implicated university officials, according to two people briefed on conversations among the university’s top officials.
The board of trustees has yet to determine the precise timing of Paterno’s exit, but it is clear that the man who has more victories than any other coach at college football’s top level and who made Penn State a prestigious national brand will not survive to coach another season. Discussions about how to manage his departure have begun, according to the two people.
Paterno was to have held a news conference Tuesday but the university canceled it less than an hour before it was scheduled to start.
At age 84 and with 46 seasons as the Penn State head coach behind him, Paterno’s extraordinary run of success — one that produced tens of millions of dollars for the school and two national championships, and that established him as one of the nation’s most revered leaders, will end with a stunning and humiliating final chapter.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Re: “Paterno knew this vile scumbag was raping boys in the shower and did nothing.”
For Paterno to “know” this, under what the law defines as admissible evidence in court, he would have had to see it himself. If it happened, the only person who knew about it (as defined by law) and whose testimony to that effect would have been accepted by a court was McQueary. Paterno knew only that McQueary said it happened, i.e. hearsay evidence.
I once acted on a credible-sounding allegation from a very prominent pro-life Web site that an identifiable doctor and hospital left a baby (as defined by law, not the pro-life camp) to die. I sent a copy of the Web page to the state’s hospital regulatory agency, which investigated and found the accusation to be false. The pro-life site was lucky to not be sued for libel (along with the actual source of the allegation) by the doctor and hospital they named. The site also lost my trust because the owner never responded to my E-mail to the effect that the accusation was found to be false.
This is something one must consider before one goes beyond what one is supposed to do according to the law and/or organizational policy, which Paterno did. There is an ideal point between complicity through total silence, and engaging in what might turn out to be libel, slander, or the moral equivalent of a lynching—anybody remember the Durham Dirtbag and the Duke 88 who jumped on Mike Nifong’s bandwagon?
There will never be as good of a coaching rivalry again as there was between Woody and Bo.
Paterno knew only that McQueary said it happened, i.e. hearsay evidence.
Duh. Curley reports to him.
So, in other words, Curley just 'reported it to his superior' the way Joe Paterno did? Then why is everyone upset with Curley?
Obviously, I'm being sarcastic. Curley didn't call the police (wait - strike that, Joe Paterno, didn't, either).
I was being sarcastic about being sarcastic. Curley committed perjury. Although I am puzzled by the fact that he was charged with not reporting the abuse. Because he did report the abuse . . . to his supervisor, if Curley does report to Schultz.
But is anyone beginning to see why it's hard to give Joe Paterno a pass on this? Particularly when prosecutors are being so careful not to release anything regarding McQueary's statements about what he claimed to have told Joe Paterno. That one piece is missing from the GJ presentment and the GJ report. With respect to every other conversation, we know what a party claims to have said, and what the other party (or parties) claims to have been told. Paterno says he wasn't told the damning details . . . but we never hear what McQueary claims to have told Joe Paterno.
Yeah, I agree with you. Before I posted anything earlier today, I read as much as time allowed on both side of the issue at hand.
It seems to boil down to money and glory IMO. But that said I have no idea why they thought they could cover this up forever.
The president of the U. needs to resign now. Paterno needs to resign now. The entire coaching staff needs to resign now and seek life elsewhere. I feel sorry for the football players and the students, but it must be set right. If the NCAA has any stones they will deal with the football program as strongly as they are allowed to do. The board of regents or directors, whatever they call it there needs to man up and bring the hammer down and soon.
Additionally, I have to say that the silence speaks for itself. It’s a CF and it’s not going to get any better until someone steps up and takes action.
Paterno knew that this had to be reported to the proper authorities. Paterno knew it had not been reported. McQueary knew it had not been reported. They knowingly looked the other way while PSU officials broke PA law. OTOH, McQueary got his coaching job and Joe went on the set the record for most NCAA football victories so all was good in Happy Valley.
Because as an officer of the school he was required by law to report it withing a certain time frame. As an officer he can't get off the hook by passing it up the chain.
In most cases involving molestation of a child, you're required to report it when you have a credible claim. Hearsay doesn't matter.
Also, Pennsylvania State law requires that if you don't report it yourself (in a school setting), that you inform your supervisor and that the President or head of the school or institution report (I can give you the site to the specific statute; it's in the GJ presentment). So Pennsylvania state law doesn't just permit hearsay disclosures of child molestation, it requires them in school settings.
Finally, if Joe couldn't report it, how could his supervisor? It would be hearsay for his supervisor. If his supervisor heard it from Joe, it would be double hearsay.
And if you're concerned about "credible-sounding' allegations, (a) err on the side of reporting, in the case of child sexual abuse, and (b) Paterno already knew that Sandusky had been showering with little boys and had been investigated back in 1998 for multiple incidents. Seems as if this claim would have been . . . credible.
A great man knows when an idol is no longer worthy. I want to commend you for your comments and logic based discourse on the situation. I know this is a mournful time for you in seeing the debasement of a man whom you believed was great. My compliments again, and well written.
Convenient how this all hit the fan AFTER the record was broken. Who held up the story?
I am sure that they have it in testimony but Joe is not part of the indictment and what McQueary told Joe is irrlevant to this case prosecution of Sandusky, Curley and Schultz.
The story has been out for months. The question is who held up the indictments which made it news.
23 Pa. Con. Stat. Section 6311(c), regarding staff members of institutions:
Whenever a person is required to report under subsection (b) in the capacity as a member of the staff of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, that person shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge. Upon notification, the person in charge or the designated agent, if any, shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with section 6313. This chapter does not require more than one report from any such institution, school, facility or agency.
Nope. Don't see anything saying that officers of a school are required to report it. "Person in charge" or "designated agent". If there's a case that makes the term "person in charge" applicable to all officers of a school, then please let me know. The Grand Jury Presentment says that the president or head of a school has the duty to report.
What McQueary told his father is also irrelevant to the prosecution of Sandusky, Curley and Schultz, yet we are told that specifically.
As I said, we are told about every conversation from every point of view, except what McQueary said that he told Paterno. It's not necessary to prosecute Sandusky, Curley and Schultz. It is necessary if you want to protect Paterno's image. And it's the one thing that's missing. I read a document twice. Once for what's in it, and once for what it's missing. Of the entire chain of links of all conversations, just that one link is missing.
And we're told plenty that isn't necessary for the prosecution. Sometimes what you're not told is . . . telling.
I told you what it told me. Now please tell us what it is telling you.
Where do yousee that. I only see that McQueary told his father what he had seen, his father told him to tell Joe what he had seen and that McQueary told Joe what he had seen.
I hate to accept compliments in this situation, and I'm afraid that my replies have gotten snippy. I don't understand how people can read this and not understand JoePa's role.
In my profession, I have to read documents like this twice. Once, for what's in them. Once, for what is missing from them.
It's like putting together a large jigsaw puzzle. In the beginning, you look at pieces and match them based on what you see. Later, you look at the puzzle and see the missing spots and find pieces to fit those missing spots.
I was bothered when I read the presentment and, later, the report. I was sickened when I re-read them for what was missing.
That's when I realized that every conversation from the moment McQueary called his dad through McQueary's multiple meetings with Curley and Schultz were documented. With respect to one meeting, the report states what McQueary says he said, and what Curley says he was told, and what Shultz says he was told. It report all three viewpoints of the conversation.
In fact, following four men - McQueary, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz (and later, the Penn State president), the presentment and report detail each link in the chain of conversations from both sides.
Except one time.
The presentment and report are carefully written so that the topic of what McQueary told the investigators that he told Paterno is missing. It's the hole in the completed jigsaw puzzle. We know what Paterno says he was told (none of the details). If McQueary said that he told Paterno details, it would be even more devastating that what we know. And both documents carefully come to that hole and walk around it.
It tells me that McQueary said that he told Paterno that Sandusky was raping the kid. That McQueary said more he told Paterno more than he saw 'fondling' and maybe something inappropriate of a sexual nature.
And that Paterno had creditable reason to know something worse happened than 'fondling.' And still, he just reported it to Curley. And when nothing happened to Sandusky and Sandusky was still around with little boys, Paterno did nothing.
That's that it tells me.
If it doesn't tell you that, then I'm glad you still have more respect for Joe Paterno than I do. You're somewhere closer to where I was on Sunday, when JoePa was the only coach I respected in NCAA football.
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.