More dodging the question.
Was there reasonable suspicion at that point or not? Of course the answer for 99.99% of people is yes, you can certainly have a different opinion, but it’s an outlier.
The 24 hour thing is the requirement for mandated reporters, verbal report within 24, written report may follow.
I’d say Paterno’s more like the mayor.
The officials who were going to go to the authorities until they had a talk with JoPa are like Brody and the coroner.
There’s not really a parallel for F-P since as far as I remember no one in Jaws said, “Sure two people got eaten unnecessarily but I don’t see why people are blaming the mayor; after all, the Kintner kid could’ve just been playing the victim in a play and taken the Method a little far.”
(If there was a Hooper parallel at PSU: “You are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and sticks a paper towel tube up your ass!”)
The shark needed professional help. It had issues.
The reason people do it (or advocate it) is solely to protect the reputations of those involved, particularly that of the accused, by presumably allowing things to blow over if it looks like they will.
You’re confusing two people.
The psychologist whose report Lauro did not have was Chambers. Chambers was a private psychologist who had been treating the kid, and she concluded it was a classic case of grooming.
DPW assigned the case for evaluation to Seasock, and he was in the position of the expert that you guys are so enamored of. Lauro obviously had his report. Seasock “ruled out” grooming, said that he “did not find evidence of abuse”, that “Sandusky didn’t fit the profile of a pedophile” and that “he couldn’t find any indication of child abuse”.
(Note to some other posters: it’s on page 44 of the report, not of the PDF file.)
[In addition to the above, your point has no validity in any event. Lauro said years later that he didn’t have the Chambers report, but at the time he didn’t know that, and the DPW investigation was all anyone had to go by. No one is arguing that Sandusky is innocent, but when discussing the reactions of other people who knew of the 1998 incident, you need to reflect that that incident was investigated by DPW and their conclusions - mistaken as they may have been - were as above.]
Absolutely true. That’s a point that certain people here need to consider when arguing that “they must have known he was a molestor or why did they pressure him to get treatment etc.”
It’s not a black and white either or. Either Sandusky is pure as the driven snow or he is a child raper. As far as these guys knew from the 1998 incident, based on the DPW investigation, Sandusky was not a child molestor but was a guy whose actions fell into a gray area and who acted inappropriately around children and he needed to knock it off and had previously promised to do so.
What I’m suggesting is that if there is reasonable suspicion at some point but it later becomes cleard up, and in the opinion of the mandated reporter there is no longer reasonable suspicion, then they would no longer be required to report it. You’ve asserted otherwise, but have not provided a source.
The 24 requirement is correct for the State of CT, which is apparently the source of the doctor incident that you dug up. You need a cite for PA.
[FWIW it seems to me that the 24 requirement was the crux of the issue in your doctor case. The problem was that the first doc didn’t get the results of the second pregnancy test within 24 hours. Had he gotten a negative from a second test in that time span it seems that he would have been OK, even though he had suspicion prior to that result.]
As pathetic as the Paternos’ “we’re doing our own investigation” thing is, I don’t think it can be seriously compared to OJ’s claim he was going to find the real killer. For one thing, Simpson, who of course committed the crime, didn’t make any effort at all to “find the real killer,” and so far as I can recall didn’t even make an effort to look like he was, unless his plan was to find the real killer somewhere on a golf course. Secondly, Simpson’s actions since the trial have been hopelessly doomed, but earnest, attempts to fix his public image. He of course knows he killed his wife and Ron Goldman.
I don’t think these things are necessarily true of the Paterno family; I think they might actually believe Paterno is getting a raw deal. I think they will actually put some effort into examining the facts and trying to rearrange them in a wayto make Paterno look better. He was their beloved grandfather/father/husband and it’s a natural reaction to be defensive about this sort of thing, to deny he screwed up, especially when of course it wasn’t Paterno doing the raping; he was guilty of sins of omission. In time some or most of the Paterno family will come to understand that Joe Paterno fucked up pretty badly, and to accept that and remember the good things about him - and he wasn’t Adolf Hitler, after all, he was a family man about whom they have many happy memories. But right now they’re in way too much shock to have achieved a level of emotional acceptance.
Yeah, but my point was that operating in a “gray area” and having “boundary” issues should have been enough to throw up some very serious red flags. The '98 conclusion was not grounds to dismiss or minimize McQueary’s report in '01.
Of course I know the two are not the same. And I get that the Paternos genuinely feel Joe is becomming something of a scapegoat, but they really need to step back and realize that they are only making things worse.
As near as I can tell, “Counselor” Seasock got whatever diploma he had in the mail after eating three boxes of Fruit Loops.
Seasock’s wonderful opinion was that, since the kid didn’t tell Sandusky he was uncomfortable, then well, it probably wasn’t sexual abuse. Because we all know that nobody would ever feel afraid/pressured/uncomfortable about telling someone in a position of power to stop doing what they’re doing. And kids especially! They’d never have a problem telling an adult to stop. And they’d know that everyone would believe them.
Seasock further added to his reputation as being about as dumb as a box of fucking cork screws with the brilliant insight that ‘52yr olds don’t suddenly become pedos’.
YEAH THINK??? :smack::smack::smack:
So rather than think, 'Shit, there might be more here - we better dig deeper", his conclusion is, “well, the kid didn’t seem to be complaining. He must have enjoyed it. No abuse here!”
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick.
What part of ‘acted inappropriately around children’ are you perfectly fine with?
You still want to stick by your bullshit statement that pg 44 says that “Sandusky was cleared by the investigator in 1998, who concluded there was no crime and that he was not a pedophile”? You know, that same report that investigators later said hampered efforts to bring charges against Sandusky in 1998?
It’s shitstains like you that are perfectly happy to turn a blind eye that helped keep Sandusky free to roam and abuse for another 15-odd years.
F-P, the 1998 incident is being offered here only to bolster the “reasonable suspicion” these dirtbags should have had upon Sandusky’s ‘love in the shower’ being relayed to them. Had it never occurred, or had he actually been definitively cleared by, say, unshakable alibi witnesses to his presence in Alaska for the years 1997 and 1998, nothing changes the facts of what Sandusky was witnessed doing in the shower.
Reasonable suspicion that a prohibited act occurred cannot be denied, despite all your protestations to the contrary. It should have been immediately reported to the relevant authorities.
And no, as others have said endlessly, you do not wait around to see if some developing circumstances change your impression of the incident you became aware of. You certainly do not investigate it yourself. You don’t tell the accused perpetrator “Knock it off or we are gonna get serious! We really mean it!”.
You report it. Period.
PA requires an immediate call, written to follow 48 hours later.
Yeah, but doesn’t the law have a horseplay exemption?
That’s true, but it would have made them inclined to assume that what Sandusky did in 2001 was more of the same, especially since it was largely the same story (naked hugging in the shower) if McQueary’s story was somewhat ambiguous, as they claim.
This, again, is just an empty claim. I am not going to keep responding to these claims.
In addition, as noted this entire discussion is something of a tangent, created by another poster who objected to the notion that they should have spoken to the kid. As it happens, they didn’t speak to the kid, so it’s irrelevant to the actual events. And while I don’t object in principle to discussing theoretical issues, the fact is that many or most of my opponents in this thread are very feebleminded and have a hard time following the discussion of one aspect, let alone keeping separate in their minds two separate exchanges, one relating to what actually happened and one relating to what the law would be had someone taken an alternative course of action. As a result, these nitwits persist in mixing the two and treating comments that presuppose that the incident turned out to be a misunderstanding as if they were comments about what actually happened. As such, I’m not inclined to continue this particular sub-discussion altogether.
If that’s correct, then I retract my position. But what’s your source? (Also, what’s “immediate”? The DA said JP technically complied with the law, and he waited a day.)
When a completely unrelated (2nd/3rd/4th) person relates the exact same story, several years apart, this would give a normal person MORE inclination to believe the allegations against Sandusky. Hugging naked boys in a shower is not normal behavior.
But it doesn’t matter, because it wasn’t up to Paterno to draw conclusions. His duty was to report.
I am going to recommend that we all stop arguing with F-P, this is going nowhere.
From here
I figured that shit out 40 pages ago.
“Let’s just say he died of natural causes”, quipped Encyclopedia Brown, who gave a big wink.
WHY DID HE WINK?
(Turn to page 72
for the solution to
The Case of the
Abridged Author)
(Just trying to bring a breath of fresh air to an increasingly maddening thread)
Thanks. But is that the applicable statute in this case? Because it sounds from that language that these guys weren’t mandated reporters altogether. This refers repeatedly to “a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity”, which wouldn’t seem to cover kids who were not enrolled at PSU. Is there some other statute elsewhere which covers this situation?
Conversely, why was JP not indicted for waiting a day?