I want to take you back to July 23rd, 2012 when NCAA President Mark Emmert unfurled the PSU Consent Decree. There are a plethora of problems with the 'conclusions' stated in the consent decree, based on the flawed Freeh Report, that others like Ray Blehar and the SMSS Freehdom Fighters have already covered in great detail that I am not going to cover here. I want to focus more specifically on a few points and contrast it to a resolution the NCAA adopted one week ago.
The NCAA consent decree stated the following:
Furthermore, Joe Paterno specifically stated that he did not know how to handle these things (likely because PSU had never trained him due to their failure to implement Clery Act laws, a Board failure not a Football program failure) and therefore reported it per university policy to people he felt would, i.e. Curley and Schultz. Paterno also realized correctly that he should report what he was told and step aside, as his involvement could cloud the follow up either way. Finally sexual abuse investigators who are trained would not want him following up with or confronting the accused because it could cause problems, especially since he was not a direct witness to anything.
Despite all of this the NCAA attempted to use PSU as a punching bag for it's own PR purposes and sanctimoniously hammered the football program with the worst sanctions in history. Mark Emmert in his press conference stated:
"What we can do is impose sanctions that...ensure that Penn State will rebuild an athletic culture that went horribly awry. Our goal is not to be just punitive, but to make sure the University establishes and athletic culture and daily mindset in which football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing, and protecting young people."Of course anyone who knew Penn State football knew at the time this was a farce. Penn State had never under Joe Paterno put football ahead of anything else, especially educating and nurturing young minds. Penn State had been called the model for NCAA student athletes by Miles Brand, regularly ranked in the top of the NCAA in graduating it's players, and there are literally hundreds if not thousands of testimonials of Paterno imparting important life lessons onto his players and preparing them to be productive citizens in society.
Fast forward to last week. On August 8th, 2014 the NCAA approved a new resolution to deal with sexual abuse at schools. The most noteworthy element of the resolution from the point of view of the Sandusky scandal was this one:
The NCAA effectively just said to the world - Do what Joe Paterno did, and that's our official position, in writing now. With a settlement pending in the Corman lawsuit, and the University likely knowing the sanctions will ease further this fall, it is likely the Board will continue it's official 'move forward' policy and like the NCAA, sweep this all into the past. Unfortunately for the Board and NCAA, there are people in the Penn State community who actually care about truth and kids and won't move on until these things see the light of day, even if they stain our university to it's highest levels. We will never move on.
It's time to burn this whole thing to the ground.
Where to begin with the wrongness of your post...
ReplyDeleteFirst, sexual assault policy at a University is all about protecting the privacy of the victim while working the problem. This was a child sexual assault, different beast.
Second, you need to read Penn State's own new policy that covers what to do in a McQueary-Paterno situation, policy AD72. What it tells you is that:
- You (McQueary and/or Paterno) are to call the CYS or police if child abuse is suspected. Sexual assault on a child is child abuse
- If you do so, the law protects you from liability
- If you fail to do so, you are subject to disciplinary measures by the University
- You must act in the child's best interest
Note that this refutes the belief that the law said you could only report to your boss. Not only can you report to the CYS or police directly, but you are protected by the law in such a case. The law cited was in place in before 2001. Here's the new policy which clarifies not only what you must do now, but also what you could have done in 2001.
http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD72.html
Third, in 2001 Penn State did not have a child abuse policy but did have a sexual assault policy (since replaced and so not on the Gurusite), and it cited this document for reporting requirements.
http://www.bk.psu.edu/Documents/protocol_to_assist_victims.pdf
It includes indecent assault, which is what McQueary reported seeing. It applies to male and female, child and adult, student and non-student. Wasn't perfect, but it was there and gave the University's intent.
On page 6 it discusses when you must report and who you must call. It directs you to call 24/7 to both the police (not Schultz...the real police) and the VP for Health Services. 24/7.
So Paterno could have reported it to the police, he obviously should have since it was in the best interests of the child's welfare, and with the new policy resulting from 2001, he would now have to. He would also have received training in this, as all Penn State employees must annually.
1. Child sexual assault laws and policies are confidential regarding ALL information unless as stated under § 3490.91. http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/s3490.91.html
Delete"Except for the subject of a report, persons who receive information under this section shall be advised that they are subject to the confidentiality provisions of the CPSL and this chapter, that they are required to insure the confidentiality and security of the information and that they are liable for civil and criminal penalties for releasing information to persons who are not permitted access to this information. This material shall only be released under the CPSL and this chapter and be made available only to the following:"
The list which follows does not include a football coach. While protecting the identity of victims it also protects the identity of alleged subject in cases of false allegations.
2. Penn State's new AD72 is window dressing. PA's own task force on this topic produced a report which admitted this exact thing: http://www.childprotection.state.pa.us/Resources/press/2012-11-27%20Child%20Protection%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
Robert Schwartz, Executive Director of the Juvenile Law Center said this (on pages 275 and 276):
"Local child protection agencies (here and across the country) have always had difficulty making judgments about child protection. Instead of making it easier for CPS workers to do their jobs, our General Assembly, over many decades, has made it harder. . . . When we increase the number of acts and omissions that we call child abuse, and require more mandatory reporting and mandatory investigations of them, we reduce child safety. This is the paradox of child protection."
The LACK of reporting is not the problem with CSA in PA, but rather the lack of resources and the failure of those resources regularly. PA has the lowest rate of successful investigations in the country by several orders of magnitude.
3. Paterno did not take a report of "sexual assault" as McQueary is on record stating he left out virtually all details of the incident, therefore Paterno was entirely justified in reporting as he did, and above the requirements of the law which said he didn't have to do jack squat. Despite that the report made it to someone who WOULD know what to do with it, Raykovitz, who did nothing, which is less than what anyone at PSU did.
4. Lastly if you are going to comment on how wrong my post is, you might want to look at the publication date of the protocol you posted. Unless McQueary's original date of 3/1/2002 was correct (we know it isn't) then this policy was not available to Paterno as it was published Fall 2001. You also it seems did not READ the actual reporting guidelines as they state:
"Whether or not to report to the police is a
decision the victim needs to make, except
in certain circumstances when reporting
is required by the University. If staff are
uncertain about whether they need to
report an incident, they should consult
with their supervisor and, if necessary,
with the director of University Health
Services."
Thanks and have a nice night.
A few more comments regarding the wrongness of psunav's post.
Delete1. John Y. is correct. You can't apply a policy (AD72) that was not in effect at the time.
2. None of the individuals involved in this incident, with the exception of police Chief Tom Harmon were mandated reporters under the 2001 statute. Harmon's story that he didn't get a report of this incident was self-serving because he knew he could be charged with FTR. If Harmon didn't get a report, and Schultz didn't ask him to look for the 1998 police report (Harmon testified to that fact last July 2013), then why did he tell Schultz about the file on February 12, 2001? Was it go look for old files about Jerry Sandusky day??
3. I just blogged the other night about McQueary's testimony. None of the terms Mike used with PSU officials crossed the line into the realm of sexual assault. In fact, McQueary testified he DID NOT see the touching of genitals, which is the definition of indecent assault. Nor did he use the words, sodomy, anal, rape, or sexual intercourse to describe what he saw. In summary,
4. Finally, the policy you referenced isn't applicable and you should know that from reading the title page "to Assist Victims." At no time during this incident was there any contact from a victim, which is what the entirety of the policy is about. What an employee should do when approached by a victim who is claiming to be sexually assaulted.
John, I'll respond to you first.
Delete1) Your citing of the PA Code is with respect to child abuse information that is in the hands of the department or a county agency. That doesn't apply to McQueary or Paterno. The law providing coverage against liability when reporting child abuse does. Did you read it? See when it came into effect? I did. It was in effect in 2001. McQueary and/or Paterno both could have reported legally to CYS or the police and been protected.
2) AD72 is not window dressing. It does two very important things. It clearly and succintly explains with references to state law how an eyewitness or someone with second-hand knowledge can report, and how they are even specifically protected from liability in that case. Second, it clearly states what someone should do in such a situation, both from a now-required policy standpoint and from a moral standpoint.
I'm not sure what your quoting of a task force complaining about not being able to act on reports has to do with anything. McQueary and Paterno never reported, so the point is moot.
3) Based on what Paterno said he was told, while being interviewed by Sassano with his lawyer sitting right next to him...
SASSANO: Okay, and can you tell me what Mike McQueary told you please.
J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on. We didn’t get in to what the inappropriate action was, but it was inappropriate. And that’s how I knew about it.
SASSANO: So he did not elaborate to you what this sexual activity was, only that he witnessed some sexual activity between Sandusky and a young boy?
J. PATERNO: Well he, well he, to be frank with you it was a long time ago, but I think as I recall he said something about touching.
SASSANO: Touching?
J. PATERNO: Touching.. whatever you want to call them, privates, whatever it is.
Paterno just described Indecent Assault, which in fact Sandusky was found guilty of.
It is impossible for a grown man to be in a shower with a child and engage in "inappropriate sexual activity" and "touching of privates" and not have it be a crime. Period. End of story.
4) The Fall 2001 version of the protocol was the current one available on-line in November 2011. However, it had been referred and linked to by Penn State policy AD12 on Sexual Assault since the 1990s. Now, either one of two things hold true. Either the previous version was essentially identical in substance (my bet, as its contents are common sense) or it was a lot different. This would imply that at the same time the PSU leadership was dealing with Sandusky and his sexual assaults and not reporting them, they were crafting a Protocol on reporting that would require them to report it. Which do you think makes more sense?
Also, you didn't cite the section on mandatory reporting of incidents.
Since you and Ray and the Paternos are on a search for the truth, I am sure you will dig up the previous version and see if Paterno actually complied with the PSU 2001 Sexual Assault policy, since you seem to think that the NCAA 2012 Sexual Assault policy seems to have some bearing on something.
Now for Ray...
Delete1) If John is going to cite NCAA 2012 Sexual Assault policy as meaning something, then he ought to look at PSU policy too, i.e., AD72. Or take a look at PSU 2001 Sexual Assault policy. Or admit that it has no bearing whatsoever.
2) As per PA state laws cited in AD72 (I encourage you to read those laws and verify they were in place in 2001) you were allowed and protected to report. Did you have to? I guess not.
But did you know that if you see someone drowning you have no duty to rescue? You can just stand there and do nothing and be perfectly legal. Would you say that was a moral thing to do? In the best interests of the drowning victim.
Legal requirement is a pretty low bar. The laws don't legislate morality.
3) See my reponse to John above. Paterno clearly described an Indecent Assault to Sassano. That is what matters, what Paterno said he knew. Period.
4) Of course the Protocol is tailored to the hundreds of sexual assaults between adults that occur on campus each year. But it was where policy AD12 pointed you to for sex assault reporting, and nowhere in there does it explicitly say the victim has to approach you first. It does call out mandatory reporting situations, see above. More importantly is the first paragraph...
"Victims have been traumatized and, as a result, require sensitive care for their medical, psychological, and legal needs following victimization. Within the University community, it is impera- tive to support victims in their recovery from the trauma of relationship, domestic and sexual violence and to do so with an attitude of concern and non-judgmental regard."
Nothing in any of the involved parties actions in 2001 suggest they followed this overarching advice. Nothing.
The idea that although McQueary witnessed and reported to his supervisor a sex offense by a grown man on a child, since the child victim didn't come forward their hands were tied from reporting it to the police - this is calls into question your moral compass. Ray, I think your fight to exonerate Paterno is taking you places morally you don't really want to be.
If you are going to use the NCAA Sexual Assault policy in 2012 to make some sort of point, you must also use the PSU Sexual Assault policy in 2001. And when you do, you see that McQueary and more importantly Paterno did not comply with the letter or intent of the policy.
You err once again in your understanding of both the facts of the case AND the applicable state statutes psunav.
ReplyDelete1. Curley et. Al. were charged under 23 PA 6319, or Failure to Report suspected child abuse. TItle 23 of PA law, Part VII, Chapter 63 is the only relevant law in this case and provides for defining both WHO reporters are and HOW they CAN report. Under 6311 in 2001 neither Paterno nor McQueary were considered mandated reporters. That has since been amended just this year to include ALL school employees. However even though neither were MRs at the time both made sure that they "caused a report to be made" under the relevant law anyway (and under current new standards) by starting the process which led to the person responsible for the child, Raykovitz, was informed. Raykovitz was in charge of the child under Sandusky's care (Sandusky admits it was a TSM kid) AND a legally required MR under the 2001 relevant statute, along with a professionally trained psychologist. .
No one argues that the police couldn't be called, of course they could, the argument is whether it was proper (and therefore by extension moral) to report as it was, and it was. Our judicial system protects both alleged victims and alleged perpetrators. With the vagueness of the report made to Paterno, he wanted to be fair to all parties in the situation as best he could and therefore reported as he did.
2. You are using an interview, which was taken after his initial GJ testimony and has never been entered into official record nor was under oath. The relevant wording on record is Paterno's grand jury testimony which was much less sure:
"Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy." -JVP
The interview you cite is months later after it was now obviously known that something was awry. Not exactly rock solid, which is of course not unusual for some words spoken 10 years earlier and remembered by an 84 year old man. So no, we DON'T really know a crime was committed, period. We know that MM was uncomfortable with what he (mostly heard) and barely saw, himself admits he imagined that sex was going on but never saw any, and explicitly stated to Dranov, another MR, that there was no sex he saw. Without a report of direct witnessing of sexual activity JD and JM advised him to take it to the school.
3. You entirely misunderstand the point of the post, but try to follow. In 2012 the NCAA, relying on Freeh's critique, sanctioned PSU based in part on the idea that they did not interfere with a legally reported potential child abuse incident. Joseph Paterno and Tim Curley (i.e. the athletic dept) caused a report to be made by reporting to an agent of the county, Raykovitz, who was a legally mandated reporter with responsibility for that child. Now in 2014 the NCAA is essentially saying the opposite. They are saying DONT interfere with a reporting/investigating process. Got it? It's real simple.
Morally, you seem to want to have it both ways psunav (by the way Ray and I put our real names to our moral compasses yet you don't which is telling). The very documents you use to make your argument outline the very procedure that MM and JVP went through.
John, thanks for letting me comment on your site. There are folks looking to exonerate Paterno that would reveal and attack child abuse victims, so I'm going to maintain my anonymity. Some points below...
Delete- I agree, McQueary and Paterno were not MRs. The law you cited covered MRs in 2001, so why did it apply to them?
- My point remains that it was legal and both would have been protected from liability if they had simply called the CYS or police directly. It also would have been in the best interests of the child.
- Since you feel Sexual Assault policy is pertinent, there was nothing in Penn State's Sexual Assault policy AD12 that discriminated between MRs and non-MRs, and it contained criteria for mandatory reporting, of which this incident fit.
- For Paterno's interview with Detective Sassano, neither Sassano nor Paterno's son Scott have disputed its contents, so why assume it is anything other than the truth? It was far more in depth that the GJ Presentment, and now we know that Paterno heard of a sex offense, Indecent Assault at a minimum.
- As for reporting to Raykovitz, neither AD12 in place back in place in 2001 nor (since you are citing current NCAA policy to make an argument about what happened in 2001) does AD72 (child abuse reporting policy for non-MRs) or AD39 (child abuse reporting policy for MRs) ever suggest reporting to another MR, or any entity in the state other than CYS or the police. The idea that passing the buck on to another MR (Raykovtiz) would be sufficient isn't common sense.
V/R - P
psunav, as long as your posts remain on topic, do not attack or insult, and are respectful I will always publish a comment. the goal here is not to censor opposing points of view or prohibit discussion on the issues. I simply have an issue with someone anonymous telling me what my moral compass should be. I understand there are those doing what you say and if you look at all of my accounts across social media you will see that one of my main goals is to fight back against such treatment. Now to address your points:
Delete1. You would have to ask the OAG specifically but the current leading theory is that the OAG left the ID of Vic2 in doubt so they could claim the child was under PSU's care and thus make JVP and others liable. However it is relevant to note the law because that is how the law prescribes the reporting procedure for child abuse reports.
2. Re policy AD12 (replaced by new AD85 https://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD85.html#D) still allows POSSIBLY reporting to police (see the word or) and does not require it.
"Employees should immediately report incidents of discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, dating violence, domestic violence, stalking and retaliation to the Title IX Coordinator, the Affirmative Action Office, the Office of Student Conduct and/or Penn State University Police & Public Safety. "
I.E. University policy TODAY would still consider it proper for Paterno not to report this incident directly to police. So much for "moving forward" and "becoming a world leader in child abuse prevention".
3. We don't know WHAT Paterno heard still to this day except that he heard something about a boy and a shower with JS. Neither his GJ testimony, nor his interview can be trusted for anything really, as you can see it varies each time he told it. So has MM's, and so have other peoples in the case. This is entirely expected as Ray noted for 10 year old memory. The only thing we really know for sure was that MM called him and told him about something the day after witnessing JS in the shower with a child.
4. Once again policy AD72 is not relevant as it was NOT in place in 2001. So the law is relevant and the law states that "causing a report to be made" is a proper avenue for a report of this nature.
Again, thanks for the forum.
DeleteAD85 no longer applies, since there are now two policies specific to child abuse, AD72 and AD39. They both mandate reporting to CYS or police.
Did AD12 leave wiggle room? Obviously. That's why it was replaced by three policies, AD85, 72, and 39. The contents of AD72 and AD39 tell you what part of the wiggle the experts felt needed to be removed.
It still remains that JVP should have told McQ to call the police.
You and I will disagree about Joe's testimonies. I think he was remarkably consistent in what he said, i.e., inappropriate sexual activity. From his GJ testimony...
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
If AD72 is not pertinent to 2001, than neither is the current NCAA sexual assault policy pertinent to 2001.
Cheers
I bring up AD85 (which is still in place) to make a point about sexual assault that may not be child sexual assault. AD85 (which would be what NCAA's new policy is pertinent to) says you do not have to call police. You can report within the university structure. The NCAA's new policy states that athletic depts shouldn't interfere or involve themselves once the university is investigating. This is essentially the situation Paterno was in. He had passed it along to the AD and Finance & Business thus he should not have then interfered afterwards, for instance by IDing the child as Freeh suggests. Since the NCAA admits it relied on Freeh's conclusions then it is admitting it wanted Paterno to intervene. Those are contradictory policies regardless of what was in place when. Are you really trying to contend that in 2001 the NCAA may have wanted a FB coach to intervene in a university investigation?
DeleteSecond, you continue to state that Paterno was told of a crime and this is far from the truth. The term 'sexual nature' is not explicit enough to determine a crime has taken place. As an analogy (maybe not the best one), dancing can be of a sexual nature or not. Context is relevant. With almost no other details from McQueary it is a stretch to say that, now because he has been convicted, at the time he had knowledge of a reported crime.
I would add re AD85, in both places an alleged crime took place so it is not relevant to argue that in one case it's more important because it was a child and in another it's not needed to report that crime to police.
DeletePSUnav,
ReplyDeleteThe statute on the books in 2001 didn't require any of the involved individuals to make ar report. If you insist on making a moral argument, then PSU did everything morally right because they reported the incident to Sandusky's employer.
In other words, PSU turned the sittation over to a licensed PhD psychologist who worked in a child development practice and was also the Executive Director of a children's charity. By title, he was one of the persons enumerated in the law as being required to report the incident.
If you want to argue morality, it doesn't get much more immoral than a person who is responsible for the welfare of thousands of children knowing what Sandusky was doing and doing NOTHING about it.
Next, you can't take what Paterno is trying to recall 10 years after the fact as what was reported to him in February 2001. That's why there is such a thing as a statute of limitations. It is completely unreasonable to expect people to remember that far back. And trying people for perjury on words spoken 10 years prior is even more ridiculous.
Policy AD12: It is obvious from reading pages 1 and 2 that the policy provides guidance to employees about what to do when they are contacted by a victim of sexual abuse. To wit (PAGE 1): "As someone contacted by the victim, it
is essential to give supportive, nonjudgmental reactions." PAGE 1. PAGE 1.
Of course, the TITLE of the POLICY also is rather clear it is about assisting a victim who has come forward. "Protocol to assist victims of relationship, domestic
and sexual violence."
The citation you make about the victim being 'traumatized' certainly doesn't seem the least bit relevant to this case. McQueary testified that the boy involved did not cry, speak at all, or show any signs of distress.
It seems that you want to believe that Sandusky was violently and forcefully raping a child, despite the fact that 1) he was acquitted of the charge, 2) that Sandusky was a molester who groomed the victims into a state of compliance, 3) that the pattern of Sandusky's crimes reveal that he only went as far as victims would allow. In other words, there was no physical force or overpowering of the victims. The latter point is well documented in the literature on compliant victimization.
The person with the moral issue appears to be you, not me. You seem quite willing to go along with this farce of a story about PSU enabling Sandusky. As a result, you are enabling the continued abuse of children by not understanding who failed the kids. I, on the other hand, understand that it was our own state agencies who failed the kids and am continuing my work to ensure these problems get the attention they deserve.
Ray,
DeleteSuggesting they did everything morally right by reporting a crime of some person to his employer...if you saw a murder would you call the police or the guy's boss where he works? Even if his boss is an expert in forensics and is a criminal psychologist, you still call the police. Hell, the boss might be in on it. You call the police.
Scott Paterno was sitting right next to his father as he gave his interview to Sassano. He was even offered the opportunity to comment. No complaints then. But that was before they realized he was basically morally indicting himself.
The Protocol I cited is not AD12. That's a separate document, no longer available on PSU's policy site, but likely available through web archives. It just points to the Protocol for reporting criteria. And sorry, Ray, nowhere in the Protocol does it require the victim to come forward. The mandatory reporting criteria applied to this incident.
As for traumatization, I don't think you'll find an expert anywhere who will argue that committing a sex offense against a child, even "just" indecent assault, isn't enormously traumatizing.
I agree there was no physical force or overpowering of victims. So what? Are you trying to argue that the child was a consenting participant?
Everyone that had a role should be held responsible. I am particularly upset about this because I am a PSU alum, and this does not represent the ideals of PSU.
Again you make several errors here psunav. Paterno witnessed nothing. The actual witness did not go to police, even after some very direct questioning on the sexual nature of the incident from a mandated reporter. So to make the murder comparison is patently absurd. To compare witnessing a murder with taking a vague, diluted report of something that isn't known to be criminal with murder is completely incorrect.
DeleteSecond if it was so obviously morally depraved, how on earth did Scott and Joe not catch it in his testimony until later? The answer is that it wasn't at all morally depraved but Joe's best attempt to be fair to all parties involved about a topic he had little information. Do you seriously think that if Joe had been told by MM that he saw actual anal rape he would not have reported? Do you believe a man of Paterno's history would not report a known crime? I sure don't.
What happened here is the people who ARE responsible for failures are using a public figure who they knew would generate the attention to deflect from their own corruptness. When the truth is laid bare that will be clear.
OK, my analogy isn't perfect. Still, the idea that you report a crime to the perp's employment boss with the expectation that he'll report it to the police...it makes more sense to tell his boss in order to help cover it all up.
DeleteBoth you and Ray are bringing up the anal rape strawman. I am just pointing out that Paterno's own words in both the GJ presentment and his later interview with Sassano, both times with his own lawyers sitting with him and I assume advising him to speak the truth, describe Indecent Assault. Which is a Sex Offense per PA State Code.
Thanks for finding that. I am not sure how it changes the situation though. The idea that Paterno took the report in order to cover it up is patently absurd considering he never told Mike not to talk about it, it was reported outside Paterno's chain of command by his own wishes even if you believe Freeh's email to be legit (i.e. to Raykovitz). Not to mention that two people outside his chain of command already knew of the incident and were free to tell whoever they wanted (there is no evidence that anyone at PSU attempted to silence Dranov or John McQueary). Then Paterno and all others at PSU who testified all told different stories, with varying dates despite supposedly being told by Baldwin what year to look for information from. These guys were so close as to formulate the cover up, but not to meet and get story straight before testimony?
ReplyDeleteIf Paterno was such a criminal mastermind to orchestrate the cover up as Freeh alleged using a suspicious email, he apparently never took cover up 101.
I'm not arguing any of those things, and I am not arguing JVP broke the law. I am saying that if Sexual Assault policy is pertinent (you were arguing it was since you brought up the current NCAA Sexual Assault policy) then the policy in place in 2001 offered a clear path to report and under the mandatory reporting criteria JVP, as McQueary's supervisor, probably should have directed him to report. But no laws were broken in just passing the buck up to Curley.
Delete- Best option was to tell McQueary to call CYS or police
- Second best would be to do it himself
- Third best would be to set up immediately a report by McQueary to Curley
- Fourth best would be to carry the story himself to Curley (game of telephone and he said-she said ensues)
- Fifth best would be to do nothing
Which do you think would have been in the best interests of the child's welfare?
psunav,
DeleteBased on history, the best thing for the that child's welfare and the rest of the victims would have been for Paterno to get a gun and kill Sandusky.
Turning the case over to DPW and CYS surely didn't stop Sandusky in 1998. It also didn't stop Jarrod Tutko Sr. from contributing to the death of his son, Jarrod Tutko, Jr earlier this month. I've cited the statistics ad nauseum, however, two attorneys representing the victims in the Sandusky case stated that Sandusky was allowed to perpetrate his crimes in Centre County for decades while child welfare looked the other way.
Unfortunately, vigilante justice is not permitted. Therefore, PSU did the MOST they could to stop Sandusky, which was report him to his employer and ban him from bringing children onto the campus. Based on the trial verdicts, those interventions did more to slow down Sandusky's crime spree than did intervention by the state in 1998.
psunav,
DeleteI'll add two other things, which you seem to completely disregard but absolutely refutes your argument that Paterno and PSU officials were made aware of a sexual assault.
1) McQueary testified that he used none of the descriptive terms that define a sexual assault. Interestingly enough, McQueary said he was sure everyone knew it what he was talking about, but when asked the SIMPLE question of whether of not Sandusky and the child saw him in the locker room (after McQ said he looked into their eyes), McQ responded that he couldn't be sure they saw him. If you are looking someone in the eyes, how can you be unsure they saw you???
2) If McQueary was so clear about a sexual assault occurring when he reported the incident, it is inexplicable that his father and Dr. Dranov didn't advise him to call the police.
In short, your assumption (like the AG's) that PSU officials understood what McQueary reported to them was a sexual assault is not backed by any evidence.
Ray, it doesn't really matter what McQueary said he told Paterno. What matters is what Paterno heard, since that is the only information he had to make a decision on. And based on both the GJ presentment and the interview with Sassano, it is clear that he heard a report of indecent assault.
DeleteThat is a sex offense as per PA Code.
I don't care what McQ said he said, or Dranov said he heard, since they have no bearing on Paterno's actions.
Again if you insist on making some distinction between what Mike said and what Joe heard then you have to look at both of their actions in response to those events. Mike never took it any further, and Joe never followed up other than Mike's claim that he asked if he was cool with the resolution. Both of those actions, in conjunction with the lack of any effort to restrict knowledge to the people in their chain of command show that neither took it seriously enough to think it was a criminal action.
DeleteIf they didn't think it was criminal action or treated it as such, that was a failing. Because both described a criminal action, to whit Indecent Assault.
DeleteAgain you misunderstand the events and take them out of context to make your conclusions. In context JVP had no reason to know that a crime had taken place. In fact the sequence of events we know argues against it despite the latter conviction. Dranov, as a trained CSA reporter, knew exactly what questions to ask to determine if it was a crime and still did not advise Mike to report to police. Why would Paterno think any different?
ReplyDeleteIn hindsight it may now appear best option was your first. However at the time the correct and moral course of action is to take into account the entire context of the story, which is that Sandusky had no known prior incident that JVP knew for sure of, that Mike saw almost nothing, and that JS was a known family/church/community man. This is how PCSOs operate and you can't fault Paterno, having no training in the area, to understand that.
Morally and legally JOe did NOTHING wrong at the time in the context he was in. This isn't to say others may have done differently, but that doesn't make it inherently better.
This, then, is the yawning void between us.
DeleteConsidering that the core laws surrounding the event haven't changed, if what he did was right thing to do then, it should be right thing to do now. Would you agree with that?
I have since day 1 argued nothing short of that. It's the entire point of the post and now the NCAA agrees.
DeleteDo you realize you are arguing directly against what current policy is at Penn State? In a similar situation, if McQ and JVP were to do again what they did in 2001, they would be violating Penn State policy AD72 or AD39, depending on if you consider them MRs or not.
Delete"If any University employee willfully fails to report a case of suspected child abuse, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal."
Telling the AD would no longer be sufficient either. A best practice learned from the Sandusky episode.
This policy was put in place in 2012.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/penn-state-sets-new-rules-for-employees-to-report-child-abuse,1061699/
Yes I explicitly do realize that. As I have already stated AD72 and AD39 are mere window dressing, written in direct response to a false narrative of a cover up by Paterno et. Al. Why wouldn't I disagree with that? As I have already shown, the people who studied this determined that more reporting wont fix the problem and is likely to make it worse. So if you want to agree with AD72 on blind faith go ahead.
DeleteWanting to agree with AD72 is no longer an option. It is required of all Penn State employees, and the BOT too. If you feel this is the wrong thing to do in this situation, that would seem to merit some action on your part to help effect a change. Otherwise, AD72 sends a pretty clear message that McQ and JVP didn't do what needed to be done.
DeleteThe NCAA thing you are citing actually addresses a separate issue, one of athletic departments suppressing sexual assault investigations. That's completely different from the idea of checking to make sure it is moving forward.