Thanks for this. I was planning on reading through the rest of it today after work.
Penn State Grand Jury Report - Full Text
I was listening to talk radio yesterday and they said that people in academia are required to report in the state of Michigan. They then went on to say that after looking it up that Pennsylvania has an equal and/or extremely similar law in place. That is, they are required to report not to higher ups, but to law enforcement if they witness it.
But I believe that only applies to those who regularly interact with children.
See the code section I posted below.
I should have been more clear. It is those that have jobs interacting with children, but I was specifically referring to the academic side of things. I would hope that we wouldn't have these people working in jobs like daycares. However, I think it would be foolish to assume so. These people infiltrate these areas around children much in the same way that the 9/11 terrorists infiltrated our societyto commit their deplorable acts. It is my hope that anyone witnessing it would turn the person in regardless of employment.
Sandusky was having boys stay overnight at his house and sleep in a basement bedroom:
During the 2007 track season, Sandusky began spending time with Victim 1 weekly, having the boy stay overnight at his residence in State College, Pennsylvania. Sandusky took Victim 1 to professional and college sporting events, such as Philadelphia Eagles games, or pre-season practices at Penn State. When Victim 1 slept at the Sandusky residence, he would sleep in a finished bedroom in the basement...
Victim 1 testified that Sandusky had a practice of coming into the basement room after he told Victim 1 that it was time to go to bed...
Sandusky is married to a woman named Dottie. Where was she when this was going on. Why didn't she do or say anything about this?
She's more at fault than anyone except McQuery in my book.
PROVISIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
REPORTING SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE
6311. Persons required to report suspected child abuse.
6312. Persons permitted to report suspected child abuse.
6313. Reporting procedure.
6314. Photographs, medical tests and X-rays of child subject
6315. Taking child into protective custody.
6316. Admission to private and public hospitals.
6317. Mandatory reporting and postmortem investigation of
6318. Immunity from liability.
6319. Penalties for failure to report.
Chapter Heading. The heading of Subchapter B was amended
December 16, 1994, P.L.1292, No.151, effective July 1, 1995.
§ 6311. Persons required to report suspected child abuse.
(a) General rule.--A person who, in the course of
employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into
contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made
in accordance with section 6313 (relating to reporting
procedure) when the person has reasonable cause to suspect, on
the basis of medical, professional or other training and
experience, that a child under the care, supervision, guidance
or training of that person or of an agency, institution,
organization or other entity with which that person is
affiliated is a victim of child abuse, including child abuse by
an individual who is not a perpetrator. Except with respect to
confidential communications made to a member of the clergy which
are protected under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5943 (relating to confidential
communications to clergymen), and except with respect to
confidential communications made to an attorney which are
protected by 42 Pa.C.S. § 5916 (relating to confidential
communications to attorney) or 5928 (relating to confidential
communications to attorney), the privileged communication
between any professional person required to report and the
patient or client of that person shall not apply to situations
involving child abuse and shall not constitute grounds for
failure to report as required by this chapter.
(b) Enumeration of persons required to report.--Persons
required to report under subsection (a) include, but are not
limited to, any licensed physician, osteopath, medical examiner,
coroner, funeral director, dentist, optometrist, chiropractor,
podiatrist, intern, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse,
hospital personnel engaged in the admission, examination, care
or treatment of persons, Christian Science practitioner, member
of the clergy, school administrator, school teacher, school
nurse, social services worker, day-care center worker or any
other child-care or foster-care worker, mental health
professional, peace officer or law enforcement official.
(c) Staff members of institutions, etc.--Whenever a person
is required to report under subsection (b) in the capacity as a
member of the staff of a medical or other public or private
institution, school, facility or agency, that person shall
immediately notify the person in charge of the institution,
school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person
in charge. Upon notification, the person in charge or the
designated agent, if any, shall assume the responsibility and
have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made
in accordance with section 6313. This chapter does not require
more than one report from any such institution, school, facility
Ah, taking a break from a class mostly about legislative code to...read legislative code. Makes me almost wish I could explain my MGoAddiction to my professor. It would make a good story for class.
I'd say according to this, JoePa and McQueary probably didn't have the strict duty to report, because I doubt either of them are considered school administrators under subsection (b). I realize that's not an exhaustive list, but it's hard to pigeon hole division I football coach into a category that is "A person who, in the course of employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children." Even if they were considered to have a duty, they clearly met that duty by going up the chain of their superiors according to subsection (c). Whoever the superior is has the legal obligation to report to law enforcement according to this statute. That's why they're going after the AD and the VP of the University. I know the AD's lawyer has already come out and said they're going to defend the case by saying the duty to report doesn't apply to him. Good luck on that one.
Your assessment is probably right but consider this: If JoePa or any other members of the administration visited or attended one of Sandusky's camps, would they then fall under the definition here? Its definitely a reach, if only because I think you'd have to find that the administrator was present in their official capacity of employee of the university (as opposed to being their on their own personal time) for them to be liable. But its not out of the realm of possibility that it occurred.
Oh, I would love to be in the DA's office working on this case. DA's work like dogs for little pay, but cases like these (when they win) make it all worthwhile.
I don't think you can reach that far. The coaches are employed as coaches, not as counselors at Sandusky's camp. They probably don't even get paid if they help out Sandusky's charity at all. The statute says it has to be in the course of employment. Also, the events were probably never witnessed involving Sandusky's charity or camps. It just sounds like this stuff just happened while roaming the halls of the Penn State facilities.
Also, props to you for giving some love to the DA's all around the world.
it be hard to find a DA or Judge willing to put JoePa in jail? The guy is loved like a saint in that state
I dont believe the code provides for jail time, even if you stretched it to cover JoePa.
But to a certain extent Paterno and all coaches are public employees who do work with kids, read minors. In the process of recruiting they visit games, call kids, send them mail, and make in home visits. All to people who are under the age of 18, making them minors. So would they not also have the obligation to report this to police?
This is true. As a teacher, whenever a student reports to me a possible crime, especially involving a minor, I always stop him/her, and remind the student that I am required by law to report any potential crime to my superiors.
What I don't understand is why both McQueary and Paterno put nothing in writing. When I verbally report a potential abuse case (and I have had my fair share), I always send a follow-up email just to CMA. You'd think McQueary wouldve sent an email that began with "Per our conversation ... here's what I saw; here's what I told you; here's what you said you were going to do..."
JoePa would be getting destroyed if he had sent follow up emails but it is very interesting to hear that your institutional policy essentially mirrors that of PSU by reporting issues up and letting supervisors resolve. Even though PSU supervisors declared that there was no evidence of Sandusky abuse; to have realtime knowledge/reports of abuse occuring near you and not immediately addressing and stoping it is indefensible. The institutional reporting system and these individuals failed these young boys miserably and they deserve everything coming their way.
I gotta say, there are times when one questions their own faith in humanity. This is one of those times.
If there is such a thing as "evil", the description of what happened in that shower is its definition. My heart dropped out of my toes when the noise that drew McQuery's attention was described. Even more distressing is the fact that there are many more such stories in this atrocity. I don't know that I will ever be able to forget what I just read.
When the news broke on this story I instantly felt sorry for Paterno. Shame on me, and shame on anyone who feels bad for Paterno. There are many instances in life where we mess up, wish we would have done something different, etc. , and we are afforded the opportunity to own up to the situation-it's a good thing. Tthere are also other instances where we don't, nor should we, get the option to say " I should have done X". This is one of them. I don't want to hear anything that JoePa, or anyone else who had the opportunity, no the obligation to end this has to say.
I hope that those who have been impacted by this are encouraged to and made available the opportunity to seek justice, and to find peace. And to those of you who had a hand in this: Every ounce of goodness you have performed in your lifetime has just been negated, and you do not deserve the slightest bit of leniency.
They never tried to find out who the boy was. Paterno, McQueary, the Penn State admins, they never thought about the kid....
Then 9 years later they offer prayers...
And most of the people involved all had children of their own at the time (except probably McQueary). You hit the nail on the head. I know its not a reality, but a failure of morality in this magnitude really should be penalized as criminal inaction. People that failed to report really need to be penalized, and not simply by losing their respective jobs. This is one of those instances (see, e.g., OJ Simpson) where civil lawsuits are useful.
This is why every one of them should be penalized harshly. There is no excuse, no circumstance, no fathomable reason as to why there was such inaction here. I am obviously something like emotional about this, but even if you take a step back there is no other possible conclusion than to say: All of you failed your duty as members of society in a way that is completely and utterly unconscionable, and you failed to protect the child involved as well as the victims that followed. I know it would be hard to prove cause by inaction in court, but those involved should be criminally charged.
and it's said that Sandusky took these kids to games and golfing events, etc. It's possible that they all know who the kid is (or at least amongst a group of kids) and the lack of a name is just part of their stonewalling.
This is the part that I disagree with. And I seem to be in the severe minority here. It's easy for us to stand up after the fact on the moral high ground and demand that these people be ashamed for what they did NOT do. And that's true, they should feel ashamed. But I don't think we should demonize them (specifically JoePa) and judge their entire life worth based on this sad sad story. When push comes to shove, it's always hard to do the right thing, especially when a close friend is involved. I point to these two stories to prove why:
I think there a few things to take from those famous socialogical studies.
1) People are naturally afraid to take responsibility for something when they know something wrong has happened. 2) They will almost always defer to the person in charge. Failure to report laws are actually set up knowing this, because it gives a person one small responsibility of telling their immediate supervisor, in the hopes that it will eventually make it up the chain. The chain broke in this case, and the AD and VP of the Univesity are paying for it now. We should celebrate the people who stand up and do the right thing. We should not make villains out of the people who do the bare minimum, because I truly believe it could be any one of us. I hope I would be one to stand up and say something if I was in a situation like that, but honestly you never know until you're put in that situation.
I agree with everything you write - all of us hope that we would be stronger, braver, and more protective of the victims in a situation like this. I know I hope more than anything that I would have the courage to do what McQueary could not, for example. And you're right, none of us know what we'd do in that situation. However . . .
Sometimes, people in positions of power (senior-level management) need to be held to a higher standard of care. President > AD > Joe Paterno > Mike McQueary. McQueary had his own problems being a first-hand witness of the abuse, but I think JoePa had a much higher legal duty to report than McQueary. Sometimes, people need to be held liable for their mistakes.
But you're right - I find more and more that I am in the minority as someone who is proud of being able to admit my mistakes and own the punishment. (Not self-congratulating here, just agreeing that self-preservation is man's natural first response.)
Legally I still think McQueary and JoePa did everything they were supposed to do. But morally, we put those people in positions like that because we expect them to be leaders of men. Sadly, they were not in this situation. We all thought JoePa was exceptional, but he is not. I think it's right for him to get out while the getting is good, and I'd let him retire on his own terms. He's done a lot for that University, and this shouldn't undo everything. But he should not be celebrated as a legendary leader. (Big Ten, are you listening?) He should be allowed to go his own way, and we should focus all our anger on the actual child molester.
If you get 1,000 people together, some of them will lie, cheat, steal, etc. That should be taken for granted in a sense. We also have to try to be better that than that. We shouldn't be tolerant of lying, cheating, stealing just because they are, from a certain perspective, part of human nature. Our intolerance of those things may in fact be all the more important because they are part of human nature. Conscience obviously won't make people do the right thing all the time. It's important to recognize, then, that Mike McQueary may have done more than he did if his concern for his job was equaled by his concern for being punished (even informally) by society for not acting.
At the risk of getting too far afield, humans are probably the only animals that have the paradoxical ability to recognize their natural inclinations but then try to overcome them. We will never stamp out the lesser angels of our nature, but we have to incessantly try to be better than they would have us be. The condemnation of McQueary is an important lesson, however harsh it may be.
My guess is that JoePa was afraid to go to the police. Going to the police puts a good friend of his in jail, probably for life. It would be much easier for him to report it to the higher-ups, letting them report it to the police. Instead of him doing it.
Not saying that's the right thing to do, but definitely the easier thing.
I am really very familiar with both the bystander effect and the Milgram experiment, and I would say that neither of them are of particular relevence as to how we should view JoePa, in particular. In my view he was the authority figure(Milgram) to which the instance was initially reported, and I also tend to believe that at that point in his career there was really no authority figure over him. In my opinion he was autonomous.
The problem I have with using the bystander effect to talk about McQueary(sp?) is: At which point do we look at him through that lens? I mean, the initial event is contrary to what the bystander effect says. That is, he(and people in general) are much more likely to intervene when alone(and if I remember correctly if there are roughly around 3 or fewer bystanders) than when in a group of people. I can see that maybe after he reported what happened to JoePa he would then assume that he was no longer responsible to follow-up, and this instance could be explained by Milgram. But, that still doesn't explain the non intervention while witnessing the event, and psychology would say that he would actually be motivated to intervene.
"When push comes to shove, it's always hard to do the right thing,"
Bull shit. This is what cowards say.
"We should not make villains out of the people who do the bare minimum, because I truly believe it could be any one of us."
I've heard a handful of people peddle this trash response to the situation and it sickens me. It comes off as an excuse, when the situation, the timing, requires and demands a stern, violent, and just response instead.
Try telling victims that it happened and kept happening because it's 'tough' to do the right thing.
I couldn't make it past the 2nd page without getting sick to my stomach....this whole situation is fucking sick.
You have kids
You like children (in a non creepy way)
Even remotely resemble a normal human being with feelings of empathy, rage, or morals
I wish I had not read it over the weekend, and I didn't read the whole thing. I have two children and ties to the university. I have not been able to shake the emotions out of my head.
I went back in and edited my post to apologize in advance and provide a real warning. It really is horrible. Here's another horrible exercise: Feeling how you do now, put yourself in McQueary's shoes and try to imagine walking the halls at PSU and seeing Sandusky on a regular basis for 8 years after witnessing him with that little kid. How McQueary did not run from his job like a maniac is beyond me. He must really like coaching . . .
He lived in the same complex as me when I was there. He's genuinely a dick himself, although not a pedophile as far as I know.
Another thing to know about McQueary is that he is from an influencial family in the area. His father, John, is COO of a medical services firm and intimately involved with the medical system in State College. Also has strong ties to the university.
I think I remember, but cannot confirm, that McQueary had at least one brother who also worked for the university.
I hate to think this way, but by going to his father instead of the police he was getting career advice more than anything. If I witnessed this, assuming I didn't intervene immediately, my first thought would be to call 9-1-1. Instead, he reports it to his supervisor???
Add in that McQueary grew up in State College, with some of Sandusky's adopted kids, who also played football, and therefore likely knew Sandusky as a classmate's dad long before he knew him as a coach. I don't blame him for shutting down when he witnessed the rape.
To not follow up by going to the police, and to see him around the facility, with other kids, for 9 years, and not do anything, that is blameworthy.
I blame him. I 100% blame him. He was a a 6'4", 225 pound athlete who walked in on an old man raping a little boy and his reaction was to run and hide. Not to yell...not to bash the old pervert in the back of his head....not to call the cops.. not to do anything to stop the assult.....his response was to TO RUN AND HIDE.
Which meant he left "good old Jerry" free to continue his raping of the boy unabated that night and beyond. He makes me sick - sorry.
that is a point of contention, what exactly did he walk in on. There's 3 people that seem to think it was "horseplay" (which, ewwww) and McQueary hasn't told a consistent story on it.
It outlines in horrid detail exactly what he witnessed. That detail either came from McQueary or someone else. If it came from Mcqueary than we can assume he either actually witnessed those events, or made them up. Which, I doubt that he made up something worse than he witnessed (Sandusky is a close family friend). If the details came from someone else, then McQueary once again was the source.
I read the report Monday night, and had to pause several times. I found the most striking aspect was the similarity of the victims statements, the sickening pattern of abuse. It could have been stopped in 1998, it should have been stopped in 2002, but it wasn't. Very sad.
Pedophiles generally have a sort of dance that they go through with kids to see how far they can get with them. They also see what they can and can't get away with as far as being noticed by third parties. The former is often why you see kids who are already the most vulnerable being abused. Like wolves, abusers find the weakest members of the group and then go after them.
Now, it says that Schultz oversees the University Police, so does that mean that JoePa technically reported the incident to the police?
But that guy is not himself in law enforcement. He is a bureaucrat. We're not talking about a chief of police or sheriff.
Ask some beatcops if they think their chief of police or sheriff is a bureaucrat or a law enforcement official. Its not as clear a definition as you might think.
There may be a continuum of what a "real police officer" is, but the VP of PSU is even farther away from "real police officer" than any chief of police or sheriff. The latter two are at least trained law enforcement officers.
It seems pretty simple to me. The NYPD chief might be a very political official with no actual policing responsibilities. However, if he were to walk out on the street with his uniform on, he can legally make an arrest, carry his gun, ect. Power of arrest should be the distinction, and it seems pretty obvious to this layperson.
The University Police reports to Schultz, but he didn't notify anyone in that organization about these allegations, even though the University Police fully investigated the 1998 incident. That smacks of a "let's keep a lid on this" approach by Curley and Schultz (at a minimum). I really hope the PSU Board of Trustees does start an investigation and find out how far this info went.
I just finished this.
As a father of two young boys (although I imagine I would have felt the same even before I had kids), I have to say that this is the single most disturbing thing I have ever read. I actually had to stop for a few minutes on several occasions just to get through this.
This Sanduskly guy is about as sick of an individual as I have ever heard of.
How Paterno, McQueary and Co. could pass this guy in the halls - knowing what he did and knowing that he ran a charity that put him in regular contact WITH KIDS - and not go screaming to the police, is beyond me.
That's the sickest thing I've read... probably ever. I got 3/5 through it and just had to stop for my own sanity. I felt sick the rest of the day and still do. This man, if found guilty, cannot receive a punishment harsh enough. Everyone at the University that had knowledge of this and didn't report it should be immediately terminated. It's a sick, sick world we live in sometimes.
Even more horrifying: There are thousands of other Sanduskies (fun pluralization) running around free, some of whom we may encounter on a daily basis. Let that soak in for a few minutes. Horrifying. Speechless.
I was talking to wifey just last week how I felt like kidnapping and child abuse seemed to be down compared to the '80s, but then it rears its ugly head again.
Really sad we have to look out for these people.
I haven't read it, and don't want to. I've heard enough of these stories through my wife's work to have a pretty good sense of what happened. I do not need the details.
That said, can someone quote for me what Paterno admits that McQueary told him? That is really the only part that matters to me in my judgment of JoePa. As far as I understand from various sources, what Paterno admits being told was enough that he had a moral obligation to call the police, as it was clear that something worthy of investigation had occurred. I just want to confirm that for myself without digging through the report if I can avoid it.
The implication of the indictment is that McQueary told Paterno exactly what he saw. Paterno claims, though, that he was told about "fondling or something of a sexual nature." He also apparently passed on this toned-down version of events to the AD and VP. Either the indictment is written with a lack of specificity (seems unlikely), McQueary lied about exactly what he told Paterno, or Paterno lied about what he was told and failed to tell the AD and VP exactly what he was told.
Thank you. "Fondling or something of a sexual nature" is enough to mandate (morally) calling the police. And if you're not 80, probably beating the shit out of Sandusky with a handy barbell.
Turchetta became aware of Victim 1's allegations regarding sexual assault by Sandusky when the boy's mother called the school to report it. Sandusky was barred from the school distrct attended by Victim 1 from that day forward and the matter was reported to authorities as mandated by law
That one high school principal had more brains than the entire Penn State leadership. Wasn't so hard was it?
The fact that neither McQueary, his dad, Paterno, Curley or Schultz thought to call the police is kind of astounding.
And Curley sounds like he's just lying. The timeline goes: McQueary sees and is "distraught", meets with Paterno next day and tells him about what he saw, then he meets with Curley and Schultz where Curley says that McQueary said that it was "horsing around".
Now imagine if that's true, you really think that a graduate assistant was actually able to get a meeting with the AD and the VP of Business & Finance without those two probably knowing that something big had happened? And if he went in to see these two apparently oblivious administrators and said "Sirs, I saw Coach Sandusky 'horsing around' with a boy" that they would just say "Oh ok thanks for letting us know"
I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like it would be easy to set up a meeting with the AD and a school VP for nonsense like 'horsing around'. I smell a liar
Neighbors, teachers, coaches, even family relatives.
I think people SHOULD read this Sandusky case testimony and report.
I'm speechless too, but more people should let these awful stories sink in because monsters like this are real and they're all around us. It is revolting and profoundly sad, but the very idea that just the 8 victims in this brief could have been protected but were not is so awful....except now we have to acknowledge the high likelihood that there have been dozens of other victims who have not even testified and likely never will.
So was "The Second Mile" just a way to get to these kids? What a sick fuck!
They can all burn in hell so far as I'm concerned: Sandusky, McQueary, McQueary's dad, Paterno, Schultz, Curley, Spanier, the janitor. No one outside of Sandusky wanted to be caught up in this but they were. They all made a conscious decision of not helping. It's black and white man. They didn't have the fundamental stones to help a kid. And for what?
when he stated that Paterno gambled, because that's really what everyone involved did: they gambled that these events would never come to light, that if they distanced themselves from Sandusky it would just go away and they'd never have to deal with what occured in 2002.
that's pretty damning. There are holes that a defense can poke at, but the pattern of behaviour is likely to get convictions on a few of those charges. With no victim in 2 of the cases, and no mentally stable witness in another, those won't be convictable. It sounds like there's a group of 3 or 4 victims that had the same experience, there's a small chance they could have made it up together, but it doesn't seem like it. The case seems to hang on the testimony of victim 1, 3 and McQueary.
If you witnessed ANYONE having any kind of sexual contact with a child, let alone having anal sex as is alleged by McQueary, how in the name of all that is good and right in this world could you NOT LAY THAT GUY OUT!!!! forget about reporting it and not being able to prove it. forget about whose resposibility it is/was to report it. In that moment he had the opportunity to end it there and then. he had the opprtunity to show that boy that what was being done to him was wrong and that someone cared that it was happening. If it had been me, I'd have beat Sandusky's a$$ and then dragged him to whatever authorities necessary with the boy in tow. I'm shaking after having read only a little of the transcript and its going to take me some time to shake this filthy feeling and I don't know that I can finish reading but i do know Jerry would not have wanted to see me that day. end rant.
I sat down and read this on a day of vacation that I took to paint a few rooms in our ongoing Renovationfest at Lorne's Place.
To encapsulate my otherwise lengthy reaction to this: "Holy shit. If you are convicted, Jerry, have a blast in prison. Make sure you let everyone know what you did."