VTTW Board Index

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.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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


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.

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.

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.

:crazy: :wow: 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.

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.

I don't understand all the angst, either

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.

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

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

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

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.

Um, what's a Facebook?  :doh:

 :evillaugh:

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 (http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2011/11/6/2541500/jerry-sandusky-allegations-and-obligations)

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. :frown:

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....

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.

I have gone back and forth about whether to post on this topic or not considering the way the thread is going.  However, I will say what I heard on the radio this morning from a Penn State fan makes me wonder about the situation.  According to this guy, it took the Penn St AD 10 days to interview anyone about this situation.  10 days!  Something this serious, the AD should have interviewed people within 10 minutes, not days.  Also, something this serious, the AD should have turned it over to the Police to investigate since they know how to handle these types of situations.

Rather Joe Pa did everything legally that he should isn't the real question here.  When he heard that something like this was going on, he should have been morally obligated to report it to the Police.  If coaches from Ohio St, Miami, etc are forced to resign because of things that aren't nearly as serious as this situation, then Joe Pa should be forced to resign too.  Just my two cents....

By the way, the Penn St fan I mentioned above was very upset that the officials at Penn St handled this situation the way it did. 

My two cents..

I've never cared one way or the other about Joe Pa.  I always had a respect for his longevity, and that's about it.  Even if he did all he was legally required to do, I think his failure to go above and beyond his legal requirements is embarrassing and shameful enough that he should step down. 

Rape is actually considered in TN as the forcible penetration of a sexual nature with another person.  This is direct form a criminal attorney of the highest repute and this is where Tony was going.  Rape is not just a sexual act like oral sex.  Sexual Battery defines the other cases where there was not penetration of the person (and this is all per a criminal attorney here in Knoxville.)  We were discussing this and what Sandusky should be accussed of (if he was arrested in TN) is Sexual Battery and Sexual Predator.  When the person is below the age of 17 in TN the person comitting the offense is also potentially charged wiht the Sexual Predator portion of the Statues.  They may not call it that in the statues but that is what it really is. 

Tony was and is correct in what he was stating......and he was not arguing on the requirements of letting JoePa off the hook as well as the PSU authorities he was just stating that you were in error concerning the legal definitions you were throwing out. 

 

I know he wasn't arguing that Paterno or anyone else should be off the hook.

But I can't let you sit there and tell me I was in error when I know I am right. My pride won't allow it.  :naughty: If Sandusky's alleged actions with the 10-yr-old had occurred in TN, he would almost certainly be charged with rape of a child. You're correct that rape requires penetration...and that was what is alleged with Sandusky. The GA supposedly walked in and saw him sodomizing the kid. If you go back and read the statutes that were posted by TRO as well as myself, they read that if penetration is involved, whether or not it was technically consensual, it's statutory rape if the victim is under the age of 17 but at least 13, aggravated statutory rape if the perpetrator is at least 10 yrs older than the victim, and child rape if the victim is under the age of 13.

I'm not an attorney, but I do cover criminal court proceedings on a weekly basis in an area where child abuse is way too common. I see these indictments handed down and plea deals made all the time. If an abuser has actual sex with a child under the age of 13, regardless of whether it was consensual, it falls under the statute as child rape. If it's just fondling or some other sex act, it falls under sexual battery and other charges. It may be that every prosecutor in TN wouldn't seek an indictment on those exact charges, but I think most do - and I know the ones I'm familiar with do.

So, anyway, all of that really has absolutely no bearing on what happened in Pennsylvania. I merely brought all of it up because that was the basis of my describing Sandusky's actions as "rape" earlier in the thread, and I thought TRO was telling my I was being hyperbolic (though in hindsight I really don't think he was).

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/08/penn-states-paterno-faces-pressure-to-quit-over-sex-abuse-case/?hpt=hp_c3



Agree 100%..............................how could you be a moral person and just let it go no where?   :hurl:

 :powert: