Seems he was the lynch-pin to me.
“Let’s report Sandusky.”
“Ok.”
– one day later –
“Talked to Joe … let’s not report Sandusky”
“Ok.”
Maybe JoPa convinced them to do some experiments with a paper towel tube before jumping to conclusions…
Where do you see that they “apparently had some communication with their legal people over what the reporting requirements were”? I looked over the CNN report and didn’t see that anywhere.
Instead, what I saw was that, according to a February 26, 2001 email, they apparently agreed to a three-part plan that included “contacting the Department of Welfare.” Then, one day later, Curley sends an email saying “After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.” Note that there’s no mention of a discussion with any attorneys, just “Joe.”
Curley then reportedly suggested that, if Sandusky is not cooperative, they will then contact “outside authorities.” And here’s an issue: apparently the deciding factor about whether to contact authorities depended solely on Sandusky’s cooperation with the internal measures taken by Curley, Spanier, and Schultz (and, apparently, Paterno). But either it’s a reportable offense or it isn’t; it doesn’t matter whether Sandusky agreed to cooperate or not.
Both Spanier and Schultz then refer to their solution as “humane.” Not “legal.” In fact, there’s no reference at all of any legal opinion on the matter, at least not that I’ve seen.
I’d prefer to see the actual emails, but, based on what’s been reported, I stand by my opinion that this looks bad for Curley, Spanier, and Schultz (and possibly Paterno).
As for whether they were obligated to report the incident, I’ve seen one lawyer say that they were. And a review of the relevant statutes (here and here) supports that.
I actually have a better impression of Curly, etc. due to the original plan. I had assumed they were the ones that had been the drivers behind not reporting. As it is, it looks like Paterno was and my impression has flipped flopped between him vs the admins.
Email implies they were reasonably sure they should report it both by their statement of being left open if not reporting it, and the fact that the original plan included Dept of Welfare. If they weren’t familiar with reporting requirements then that seems like an unusual move to include that dept.
You are confusing whether they actually were required to report it with whether their emails indicate that they believed themselves to be required to report it. We are discussing the latter. (I’ve discussed the former at some length in this thread, and am not inclined to rehash it with you specifically. See below if you’d like.)
Again, we’ve not seen the entire correspondence, only snippets of it, so it’s hard to make deductions of this sort. But here’s how I see it (and this applies to Raft People’s comments as well).
If the law is clear, then there’s no doubt that they have to report. But suppose they determine, based on what they knew of the incident and were advised by their legal people, that they did not have to report it. That doesn’t mean that they couldn’t report it. In this circumstance, it’s still not clear cut that they should not report it. An abundance of caution would dictate that they report it and cover themselves. But against that, they would have to balance the “humane” consideration.
As previous, I’m not certain that this is what happened. In fact, I don’t really know. But I think it’s more likely than not based on all the other evidence that McQueary did not convey to these people what he is now claiming to have conveyed, so it’s possible that they genuinely didn’t know. And - what’s relevant at this point in the thread - I don’t see any indication in the emails that supports one side or the other with regards to C&S. (JP is another issue, as above.)
If you even think you know of a case of child being raped, how can you even wonder if you have to report it? What principle of morality lets you avoid doing that? The only thing they were basing that decision on was Saint Joe’s personal loyalty to a longtime friend.
And where does this “being humane” stuff enter into it? Not to the children, but to the perpetrator?
Really, dude? Really? :eek:
:mad::rolleyes:
Thanks for pointing me to the bit about the lawyers, Fotheringay-Phipps. Not sure how I missed it before.
You may well be right in your suggested scenario above. But it doesn’t explain Curley’s suggestion that they report Sandusky to outside authorities if he doesn’t cooperate with their internal plan. As I said before, a report should not be contingent on Sandusky’s cooperation. There’s either a reportable offense or there isn’t.
And in my mind, the bar for qualifying as a “reportable offense” is very, very low and certainly includes Sandusky showering naked at night in a nearly-deserted locker room with a young man to whom he is not related–that’s met based on what Paterno himself said McQueary conveyed to him, so any further details about what McQueary may or may not have said aren’t relevant.
In any event, whatever McQueary said and whatever Paterno conveyed to Curley and Schultz was enough for them to come up with a plan that included, among other things, not allowing Sandusky to bring children to the Penn State facilities any longer. That, combined with (1) Curley’s comment (as reported by CNN) that he was aware of the 1998 incident and offered to get Sandusky “professional help” and (2) the minimal facts of the incident as provided above, make it hard to accept that their own view of the facts at the time, whatever it was, allowed them to think it acceptable not to report the incident.
And again, this doesn’t mesh with their statement that they would be “vulnerable for not reporting”. If they didn’t think they had to report, there would be no vulnerability.
This. Absolutely.
Child Welfare people are very good at telling real abuse from false allegations – they deal with false reports all the time, mostly from divorced parents fighting over custody. They are the experts in this area, with the experience (and legal authority) to decide, not you!
This is exactly WHY they are required to report it, because they are in no position to make a determination and they should leave it up to the trained investigators.
beyond the legal aspect, they had some responsibilty to ensure that this type of inapropriate behaviour did not continue, whether to protect the kids or PSU.
IMHO the “kid who is not related” thing is overblown. That would apply to someone who had no apparent business with the kid. But Sandusky was known to have a quasi-parent relationship with all sorts of troubled kids. It’s not the same situation.
I don’t follow the logic here. The fact that they realized they needed to do X can’t be used as proof that they must have known that they needed to do X+Y.
Re the 1998 incident, as noted previously, that incident was investigated by the police “expert” who felt it was a “boundary issue”. If Curley knew about that incident it would only have reinforced his assumption that it was something similar this time as well.
Yup, ladyfoxfyre’s hysterical witchhunts are pretty much as bad as child rape. Hollywood liberals. Duke LaCrosse.
Under what circumstances would the situation have been bad enough to warrant asking Sandusky to stop and reporting him if he didn’t but not bad enough to report him in the first place?
This should put his viewpoint in context:
Possibly if it was another “boundary issue”, or something of that sort.
People like you make me sick.
Which is irrelevant, because it was not their responsibility to determine the nature of what happened, but to pass the information on to authorities who did have the responsibility. And around and around we go.
And also irrelevant because, as noted, their decision has inherent in it the admission that what Sandusky was doing was reportable conduct. They knew it was so and yet opted not to in the hope that it would go away.
That’s fine. Be sick.
There’s inevitably going to be a line somewhere in terms of what counts as suspicion of abuse.
It’s easy and fun to be absolutist when offered the opportunity for santimoniously condemning other people. But I’m sure you would have your own line somewhere, if you had to deal with an actual situation versus pious pontification.
Try to understand what you’re commenting on.
Right: if it’s on one side of the line, you say to someone “Stop doing this stuff, it’s close to illegal, and if it escalates, we will have to report it. It might also be a good idea to stop doing this borderline shit because it creates the impression of a problem”. If it’s on the other side if the line, you report it without having any sort of a conversation.
What you don’t say is that “If you do this exact same behavior a second time, we will report it”. If it’s far enough over the line that it’s reportable, there are no second chances.