VTTW Board Index
March 29, 2024, 03:02:32 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Game and TV Information - Next football game: Tennessee at Missouri, November 11, 2023, 3:30 p.m. ET, CBS. Go Big Orange!

Message Board Links - Wayne and Hobbes' Auburn Board, Mudlizard's Vitual Swamp
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I wonder if Joe Paterno is involved in the scandal at Penn State?  (Read 15178 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WoodstockVol
All-SEC
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2998


View Profile
« on: November 07, 2011, 03:23:53 EST »

Jerry Sandusky was defensive coordinator at Penn State for decades and a friend of JoePa. I wonder if all this will cause JoePa to finally decide to retire? For those who didn't know Jerry Sandusky was supposed to have molested 8 or more Boys who were being helped(supposidly) by His Second Mile organisation.
Logged

Lets go Braves,win the National League East!

LETS GO VOLS,KICK SEC A&& IN 2013!!!
BigOrange Maniac
Guest
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2011, 04:49:51 EST »

I don't see how JoePa survives this. And what a sad way it will be for a legend of the game to go out.

FWIW, I don't think he should be forced to resign IF his story is on the up-and-up. (His story being, of course, that the GA who caught Sandusky in the shower with a 10-year-old boy in 2001 didn't give Paterno all the specifics and he passed along what he knew to the AD.) A growing number of pundits are saying he should be forced to resign, but if he followed proper procedure and informed the AD of the report he had been given, it seems to me that it's in the AD's hands at that point. Sandusky wasn't on his coaching staff at the time; he retired in 1998, so I'm not sure what else JoePa could have been expected to do.

At the same time, you do have to wonder just how much Paterno knows that he isn't telling. It's more than a little troubling that a former coach would have enough access to the school's facilities to sneak little boys in like that. Presumably it didn't happen on campus after the '01 incident, but how freaking shameful is the PSU athletic department to know that was happening and cover it up???
Logged
TallVol
Starter
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 503


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2011, 05:02:40 EST »

From what I briefly read of the Distric Attorney's report, the GA specifically told Joe Pa and then he passed on the information a day later to the AD and basically was not involved much moving forward.  He was probably right from a reporting standpoint but morally wrong in not doing more once he knew.   By the way, that DA's report is terrible. This is probably the darkest story assoicated with college athletics I can remember.
Logged
TheRealOrange
Guest
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2011, 05:08:08 EST »

Jerry Sandusky was defensive coordinator at Penn State for decades and a friend of JoePa. I wonder if all this will cause JoePa to finally decide to retire? For those who didn't know Jerry Sandusky was supposed to have molested 8 or more Boys who were being helped(supposidly) by His Second Mile organisation.

We'll see how this shakes out, but it seems to me that Paterno did everything correctly under the PA law if when he first learned of a report of abuse he immediately reported it to Curley.  The PA mandatory reporting statute does not even appear to apply to Paterno, Curley or Schultz, but even if it does, they are "staff" of PSU.  The law states that staff members of a public institution, school, facility or agency, who "in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children" have an obligation to "immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge."  The AD (Curley) would be the designated person to who Paterno would report.  Also, it appears to me that none of the people involved are mandatory reporters, but I guess a judge will decide that when the motion to dismiss those charges is filed, as it will be.  As for Paterno, I don't think he should be forced to retire, and I don't think he should retire unless that is what he wants to do.  I am not a fan of the guy, but absent more, I see no reason for him to go unless he really wants to.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 05:10:53 EST by TheRealOrange » Logged
BigOrange Maniac
Guest
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2011, 05:47:13 EST »

We'll see how this shakes out, but it seems to me that Paterno did everything correctly under the PA law if when he first learned of a report of abuse he immediately reported it to Curley.  The PA mandatory reporting statute does not even appear to apply to Paterno, Curley or Schultz, but even if it does, they are "staff" of PSU.  The law states that staff members of a public institution, school, facility or agency, who "in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children" have an obligation to "immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge."  The AD (Curley) would be the designated person to who Paterno would report.  Also, it appears to me that none of the people involved are mandatory reporters, but I guess a judge will decide that when the motion to dismiss those charges is filed, as it will be.  As for Paterno, I don't think he should be forced to retire, and I don't think he should retire unless that is what he wants to do.  I am not a fan of the guy, but absent more, I see no reason for him to go unless he really wants to.

Curley and Schultz may not be criminally liable for failing to report it to a higher authority (though they have also been indicted for perjury, haven't they?), but there's nothing morally or ethically correct about knowing that a man is raping little boys inside your university's facilities and not reporting it to law enforcement.
Logged
TheRealOrange
Guest
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2011, 06:00:17 EST »

Curley and Schultz may not be criminally liable for failing to report it to a higher authority (though they have also been indicted for perjury, haven't they?), but there's nothing morally or ethically correct about knowing that a man is raping little boys inside your university's facilities and not reporting it to law enforcement.

Yes, they were charged with perjury, and I am guessing that will either be dismissed or they will be found not guilty.  That's just a guess.  I am VERY pro prosecution, but these charges seem very odd to me based on what I have read.  Have you actually read that Curley and Schultz knew a man was "raping little boys" inside the PSU facilities?  The charge seems to be based solely on the report from the graduate assistant in 2002.  Were they aware of any other allegations?  I have not seen that, so perhaps they were.  But, the prosecutor seems to have relied solely on that instance: "Despite a powerful eyewitness statement about the sexual assault of a child, this incident was not reported to any law enforcement or child protective agency, as required by Pennsylvania law," Kelly said.  Even assuming the PA law reference is correct, and the hyperbole about the strength of the eyewitness statement turns out to be accurate, I still have not seen any allegations like those you assert.  If they particpated in a cover-up of systemic child sexual abuse, then fry them, they deserve it.  But, the allegations I have seen about them, not Sandusky, have been far short of compelling.
Logged
TallVol
Starter
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 503


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2011, 06:02:25 EST »

Within the report, the GA is told a couple of weeks later by the AD that Sandusky's keys to the locker rooms was revoked.  That was basically their response.  You could argue that they told him if he was going to rape, at least it was not going to be on PSU property.  Bad person + bad initial response = extreme media pressure.  I think anyone associated with this will suffer.  
Logged
TheRealOrange
Guest
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2011, 06:09:36 EST »

Within the report, the GA is told a couple of weeks later by the AD that Sandusky's keys to the locker rooms was revoked.  That was basically their response.  You could argue that they told him if he was going to rape, at least it was not going to be on PSU property.  Bad person + bad initial response = extreme media pressure.  I think anyone associated with this will suffer.

Ok, I am going to end my participation in this thread now, as people are obviously very passionate about it and throwing words around like "rape" that even the prosecutor has not done with respect to these individuals.  I am not a PSU or Paterno fan, far from it, and I literally could not care less about Curley and Schultz.  In fact, I had no idea who they even were until yesterday.  Some day I'll learn.
Logged
BigOrange Maniac
Guest
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2011, 06:11:24 EST »

Even assuming the PA law reference is correct, and the hyperbole about the strength of the eyewitness statement turns out to be accurate, I still have not seen any allegations like those you assert. 

A large part of the case is based directly on the incident I am referring to: when the GA allegedly caught Sandusky in the shower with a 10-yr-old boy in 2001. It has been pretty much admitted, I believe, that the Sr. VP and AD knew about the report after the GA reported it to Paterno and Paterno reported it to them. If, as alleged, they told him not to bring any more boys onto school grounds and then left it at that, what can be morally or ethically just about that?

You have to wonder how many more boys were victimized by Sandusky after '01 because law enforcement wasn't alerted to what the GA saw. Legal semantics aside, a cover-up of that magnitude is extremely shameful and a huge black eye for the entire PSU athletic department.

Your disagreement seems to be on the word "rape." Sorry if you find that to be hyperbolic; I'm not sure what the statute reads in PA. But in TN and a lot of other states, any sexual intercourse with a child at that age is automatically a rape charge because kids cannot legally consent. In TN, for example, any sexual encounter with a child under the age of 13 is automatically rape of a child.
Logged
TheRealOrange
Guest
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2011, 07:13:33 EST »

A large part of the case is based directly on the incident I am referring to: when the GA allegedly caught Sandusky in the shower with a 10-yr-old boy in 2001. It has been pretty much admitted, I believe, that the Sr. VP and AD knew about the report after the GA reported it to Paterno and Paterno reported it to them. If, as alleged, they told him not to bring any more boys onto school grounds and then left it at that, what can be morally or ethically just about that?

I guess I'm not ending my participation.  I never addressed morals or ethics.  I was addressing only the law, and Paterno's possible involvement.

Quote
You have to wonder how many more boys were victimized by Sandusky after '01 because law enforcement wasn't alerted to what the GA saw. Legal semantics aside, a cover-up of that magnitude is extremely shameful and a huge black eye for the entire PSU athletic department

If it is that widespread, as I said, fry them.  But I have read nothing that supports that conclusion yet.

Quote
Your disagreement seems to be on the word "rape."  Sorry if you find that to be hyperbolic; I'm not sure what the statute reads in PA. But in TN and a lot of other states, any sexual intercourse with a child at that age is automatically a rape charge because kids cannot legally consent. In TN, for example, any sexual encounter with a child under the age of 13 is automatically rape of a child.

There may be rape involved with Sandusky, but not with the others as far as I have seen.  I did not think you were using hyperbole, but I think the prosecutor was.  I think you were just wrong by using the word "rape," which has a specific meaning.  And, your reference to Tennessee law is also not correct.  The "under age 13" makes a sexual battery an aggravated sexual battery, not rape (which requires sexual penetration and has no provision regarding age).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-504. Aggravated sexual battery

(a) Aggravated sexual battery is unlawful sexual contact with a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:

   (1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act and the defendant is armed with a weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim reasonably to
believe it to be a weapon;

   (2) The defendant causes bodily injury to the victim;

   (3) The defendant is aided or abetted by one (1) or more other persons; and

     (A) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act; or

     (B) The defendant knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless; or

   (4) The victim is less than thirteen (13) years of age.

(b) Aggravated sexual battery is a Class B felony.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-503. Rape

(a) Rape is unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:

   (1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act;

   (2) The sexual penetration is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the penetration that the victim
did not consent;

   (3) The defendant knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless; or

   (4) The sexual penetration is accomplished by fraud.

(b) Rape is a Class B felony.
Logged
BigOrange Maniac
Guest
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2011, 07:31:17 EST »

In Tennessee, if the sexual intercourse is not forcible (as the Sandusky incidents were not alleged to be forcible, apparently), it is statutory rape if the minor is under the age of 17. But if the child is under the age of 13 it automatically becomes rape even if it was technically consensual.

Quote
39-13-522. Rape of a child.
(a)  Rape of a child is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim, if the victim is more than three (3) years of age but less than thirteen (13) years of age.
(b)  (1)  Rape of a child is a Class A felony.
     (2)  (A)  Notwithstanding title 40, chapter 35, a person convicted of a first or subsequent violation of this section shall be punished by a minimum period of imprisonment of twenty-five (25) years. The sentence imposed upon any such person may, if appropriate, exceed twenty-five (25) years, but in no case shall it be less than the minimum period of twenty-five (25) years.
          (B)  Section 39-13-525(a) shall not apply to a person sentenced under this subdivision (b)(2).
          (C)  Notwithstanding any  law to the contrary, the board of probation and parole may require, as a mandatory condition of supervision for any person convicted under this section, that the person be enrolled in a satellite-based monitoring program for the full extent of the person's term of supervision consistent with the requirements of § 40-39-302.
[Acts 1992, ch. 878, § 1; 1997, ch. 406, § 2; 2005, ch. 353, § 14; 2006, ch. 890, § 22; 2007, ch. 501, § 1.]  

Quote
There may be rape involved with Sandusky, but not with the others as far as I have seen.

I'm not implying that there was rape involved on the part of the others. I'm only saying that the AD and Sr. VP were involved in covering up rape if the allegations are correct. I use the term rape based on what the crime would be defined as in TN and some other states. I don't know what PA's law is. If it isn't rape, I think we can agree that it is a serious case of child abuse. My only argument here is that while the AD and Sr. VP might be criminally immune, they certainly shoulder a lot of blame. And I say that to allude to this: even though JoePa followed proper procedures in reporting what he was told, the possibility cannot be ignored that he knew his former DC had a history of sexually abusing children and was still sexually abusing children but kept his mouth shut. I wouldn't want him as my football coach in that situation.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 07:42:05 EST by BigOrange Maniac » Logged
TheRealOrange
Guest
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2011, 07:49:54 EST »

In Tennessee, if the sexual intercourse is not forcible (as the Sandusky incidents were not alleged to be forcible, apparently), it is statutory rape if the minor is under the age of 17. But if the child is under the age of 13 it automatically becomes rape even if it was technically consensual.

Now I am really done.  From a practical standpoint, you are right, but not technically.  Below is the TN statutory rape section.  I truly hate this place any more.  Maybe today is finally the day I learned, so I'll let others play this silly game.

39-13-506.  Statutory rape.

(a) Mitigated statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant, or of the defendant by the victim when the victim is at least fifteen (15) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is at least four (4) but not more than five (5) years older than the victim.

(b) Statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by the victim when:

   (1) The victim is at least thirteen (13) but less than fifteen (15) years of age and the defendant is at least four (4) years but less than ten (10) years older than the victim; or

   (2) The victim is at least fifteen (15) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is more than five (5) but less than ten (10) years older than the victim.

(c) Aggravated statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant, or of the defendant by the victim when the victim is at least thirteen (13) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is at least ten (10) years older than the victim.

(d)  (1) Mitigated statutory rape is a Class E felony.

   (2) Statutory rape is a Class E felony.

   (3) Aggravated statutory rape is a Class D felony.
Logged
BigOrange Maniac
Guest
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2011, 08:02:01 EST »

Now I am really done.  From a practical standpoint, you are right, but not technically.  Below is the TN statutory rape section.  I truly hate this place any more.  Maybe today is finally the day I learned, so I'll let others play this silly game.

You hate this place and remove your account because of THIS?

Okay. I guess.

FTR, the statutes speak for themselves. The alleged victim we're talking about is under the age of 13, which is why he wouldn't fall under the statutory rape statute you posted last.

But, anyway, using TN law was just for a point of reference that most of us are familiar with. If you're going to get that upset because of that minor disagreement — I wasn't even disagreeing with your opinions — then I don't guess there's anything I can do. I would apologize, but I'm still sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out what you're so upset about in the first place.
Logged
Coupe De VOL
All-SEC
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4494



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2011, 08:11:22 EST »

The whole Sandusky retirement in 98 seems suspicious to me.  it would seem there was an incident back then, and some psu officials knew about that.
Logged

Coupe De VOL
All-SEC
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4494



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2011, 08:15:15 EST »

I don't understand all the angst, either


You hate this place and remove your account because of THIS?

Okay. I guess.

FTR, the statutes speak for themselves. The alleged victim we're talking about is under the age of 13, which is why he wouldn't fall under the statutory rape statute you posted last.

But, anyway, using TN law was just for a point of reference that most of us are familiar with. If you're going to get that upset because of that minor disagreement — I wasn't even disagreeing with your opinions — then I don't guess there's anything I can do. I would apologize, but I'm still sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out what you're so upset about in the first place.
Logged

ReVOLver
Admins
Heisman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43319



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2011, 08:18:07 EST »

You hate this place and remove your account because of THIS?

Okay. I guess.

FTR, the statutes speak for themselves. The alleged victim we're talking about is under the age of 13, which is why he wouldn't fall under the statutory rape statute you posted last.

But, anyway, using TN law was just for a point of reference that most of us are familiar with. If you're going to get that upset because of that minor disagreement — I wasn't even disagreeing with your opinions — then I don't guess there's anything I can do. I would apologize, but I'm still sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out what you're so upset about in the first place.

FYI, TRO messaged me about this and this thread is not solely why he removed his account. He just feels at this point that it would be better for him not to post here. Straw, camel, back, etc.
Logged

"I think this is the most important non-important thing in the world." - Actor and Tennessee fan David Keith on Tennessee football
Be-the-Vol
In The Two Deep
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 277



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2011, 08:24:31 EST »

Tell your Be-U-T-Ful wife I said "Hello there!"  Is that inappropriate?   
Logged
ReVOLver
Admins
Heisman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43319



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2011, 08:27:57 EST »

Tell your Be-U-T-Ful wife I said "Hello there!"  Is that inappropriate?   

I think the board went downhill when I made her a username, and it hasn't been the same since! That's your fault. 

I will tell her. She wants to know why you aren't on Facebook. 
Logged

"I think this is the most important non-important thing in the world." - Actor and Tennessee fan David Keith on Tennessee football
Inspector Vol
All-American
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8236


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2011, 08:29:06 EST »

The possibility that Joe Pa knew of Sandusky's before his retirement is waaay speculative at best. I don't think the majority of people would want a guy like that coaching for them. If Sandusky is a serial molester of children as the accusations seem to imply that does not mean that anyone would know what he was doing. How many people know what a serial killer is doing? Invariably interviews by neighbors and friends always show shock and dismay that they could know someone who would do that and not see it.

It does look bad on the two people in administration and possibly Joe Pa, but that depends on what exactly was reported to them by the witness. That will all come out in the trial though.

Regardless it is a dark day for PSU and CFB in general. Look for more regulations regarding this issue to come down after the trial.

In Tennessee, if the sexual intercourse is not forcible (as the Sandusky incidents were not alleged to be forcible, apparently), it is statutory rape if the minor is under the age of 17. But if the child is under the age of 13 it automatically becomes rape even if it was technically consensual.

I'm not implying that there was rape involved on the part of the others. I'm only saying that the AD and Sr. VP were involved in covering up rape if the allegations are correct. I use the term rape based on what the crime would be defined as in TN and some other states. I don't know what PA's law is. If it isn't rape, I think we can agree that it is a serious case of child abuse. My only argument here is that while the AD and Sr. VP might be criminally immune, they certainly shoulder a lot of blame. And I say that to allude to this: even though JoePa followed proper procedures in reporting what he was told, the possibility cannot be ignored that he knew his former DC had a history of sexually abusing children and was still sexually abusing children but kept his mouth shut. I wouldn't want him as my football coach in that situation.
Logged
Be-the-Vol
In The Two Deep
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 277



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2011, 08:30:22 EST »

Um, what's a Facebook?  
Logged
ReVOLver
Admins
Heisman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43319



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2011, 08:34:57 EST »

Um, what's a Facebook?  

 
Logged

"I think this is the most important non-important thing in the world." - Actor and Tennessee fan David Keith on Tennessee football
SmokeyJoe
Guest
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2011, 12:45:01 EST »

Well I don't mean to get involved in the riff raff, but according to this site things look pretty damning all the way up the line at PSU.  I simply googled "Jerry Sandusky" so I have no idea of the accuracy of any of this, but 1998 is starting to look suspicious as Coup allowed.  

http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2011/11/6/2541500/jerry-sandusky-allegations-and-obligations
« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 01:01:41 EST by SmokeyJoe » Logged
Black Diamond Vol
Heisman
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32857



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2011, 01:53:22 EST »

As a fan of college football, I'm hoping against hope that this is all a big misunderstanding and that Paterno is not implicated in any way.  You could tell me that a Kiffin, Meyer or Saban was involved in something like this, and I wouldn't blink.  But PATERNO?  That hurts.  That's a stain on the entire game.  If Derek Dooley were involved in covering something like this up, I wouldn't be much more disappointed than I am right now.  This is just a sad situation all around.
Logged

BanditVol
Heisman
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 23637


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2011, 08:25:09 EST »

Guys you gotta realize that TRO is an attorney by trade, he gets paid to parse minor legal distinctions.

Don't stay gone long Tony....
Logged

"The speed of our movements is amazing, even to me, and must be a constant source of surprise to the Germans.”  G. Patton
volmeister
All-SEC
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4830


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2011, 01:32:49 EST »

When Paterno saw that Sandusky had not been reported to the the legal authorities for his actions with the 10 year old, he was morally obligated to call the cops.  Some things you don't let slide.  Paterno should and probably will resign.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!