Why did Penn State officials conceal Sandusky at all?

[Marley23]

I am not sure why he hasn't been charged. And I'm pretty sure "duty to report" doesn't mean you tell your boss. It means you tell someone equipped to handle the complaint, meaning the police or the child protective service agency.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by corkboard

For the life of me I can't understand why none of them thought it through. Stupid. Although it makes you wonder if Sandusky had something to leverage his position.

The likeliest explanation IMO is that none of them thought Sandusky was really a hard core molestor. (Discussed at length in a Pit thread.)

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I have to say I'm curious as to why Spanier is NOT facing criminal charges (for the moment, at least). Even if Spanier didn't testify, or he used vaguer term in his testimony so they couldn't charge him with perjury, wouldn't he too be considered a mandated reporter? It seems to me that Curley and Schultz could point to Spanier and say, "He's our boss, it was HIS duty to report" -- basically just what MacQueary and Paterno claimed.

I don't think Curley & Schultz could point to Spanier. You don't automatically get to point to your boss. You get to point to whoever the employer has designated as the guy who deals with such things. For a typical employee that would indeed be their supervisor. But once you get to the level of C&S, I don't think that holds anymore. I don't think Spanier was designated as the guy that C&S were supposed to report these types of things to. To the contrary, it was their job and not his to deal with these types of issues.

And that might get Spanier off the hook as well. Once C&S knew about it, I don't know if Spanier had an independent duty to report it, since the guys who were supposed to deal with these types of issues had the information.

Of course, this is could be wrong etc.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Marley23

...And I'm pretty sure "duty to report" doesn't mean you tell your boss....

I don't really think it is either, but that's what Paterno and McQueary both said and they didn't get charged. Perhaps only "supervisory personnel" need to report, which would get McQueary off the hook, but certainly not Paterno.

So if Paterno could walk by pointing up at Shultz and others above Paterno, why can't Schultz and his gang walk by pointing at the guy over them?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I don't really think it is either, but that's what Paterno and McQueary both said and they didn't get charged.

I'm not sure. It could have something to do with their job status- but it's also true that the failure to report charges are secondary to the perjury charges. If Paterno were still alive, he probably would be charged with perjury based on what Freeh found.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'm not sure. It could have something to do with their job status- but it's also true that the failure to report charges are secondary to the perjury charges. If Paterno were still alive, he probably would be charged with perjury based on what Freeh found.

I'm not sure about that, either. I may be wrong, but the evidence against Parterno may be hearsay. It's the other people who referred speaking with Joe in their 1998 emails, but nothing directly from Joe. I wonder if he even used email. I don't recall seeing a reference to any email he sent to anyone in the whole 14 year time frame.

Also, I have no doubt that had Curley and Shultz testified truthfully about their rationale for not reporting, they still would have been charged with not reporting even if they couldn't be charged with perjury. The two charges are entirely independent of one another AFAIK.