In the comments section of an article in an SI online blog post by Joe Posnanski, Columbia Univ. Adjunct Professor Scott Semer assails Joe Paterno for not taking greater actions in the Jerry Sandusky case (Link is to the actual Grand Jury Report. It is not for the squeamish.)
Semer rests his opinions as a lawyer and an Adjunct Professor of Transactional Law at Columbia Univ. in NYC. He takes what I believe is the majority opinion as to Coach Paterno's decisions which is that he did the least he could do to cover himself but owed a moral duty to do more.
I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct.
After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."
Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation.
Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities. The Courts have consistently held that: it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take. If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another. Pattern is not a witness and arguably isn't even an "outcry witness." ( an outcry witness is one who verifies that another witness was so distraught that what they are saying must be true. To be an outcry witness the original witness must make his statement to you first and within a few minutes top hours after witnessing the incident. More than a couple of hours usually spoils the outcry's reliability. It gives the maker too much time to make up the testimony)
3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.
Noone wants to see kids hurt, and I believe Coach Paterno heads that list. People suggesting he needed to do more either don't understand the law of criminal investigation, or have a different ax to grind ( like the head of the PA State Police who is grand standing in saying people have a greater responsibility than to report crime to the local Authority. He would be the first guy to defend a civil rights suit against his agency, (brought by a crime victim claiming that the failure to arrest caused her injuries) by invoking the Warren case.)
Paterno handled this exactly as he should have and to suggest otherwise is to use 20/20 hindsight to judge what was a fluid real time situation. I guess the path is always clear for the Monday Morning Quarterback.
233 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 233 of 233I dare you to explain your "logic" to the boys who were molested by Sandusky after 2002.
I am an attorney and it is unscrupulous attorneys like you that give the rest of us a bad reputation. As you have two teenage boys, how would you feel if either one of your sons was one of Sandusky's victims? I would hope that you would not write an article like this. This article is a slap in the face to all of the victims and their families.
You make a well-reasoned legal argument (assuming that Paterno knew the matter had in fact been referred up to Schultz).
I have not had time to read the 190 comments already posted, so this point may have already been made, but you asked what more could he have done? This past year I hit a pedestrian with my car. I brushed his hand with my side view mirror going very slowly, but he was an elderly man who fell over in the street as a result. I was mortified. I only had the man's first name. I followed up with the cops twice, with my insurance company three times, and with the hospital twice to try to find out how he was. I didn't stop until each possible source told me that they weren't allowed to tell me anything. I even googled "Leroy" and the city where I hit him, but obviously, that was fruitless. My point is that I couldn't do enough. I kept going until I was left with no other options but to stop.
Paterno himself wishes he had done more. It would have been completely reasonable for him to follow up repeatedly with Schultz to find out what actions were being taken. He should have followed up until he was specifically told by Schultz that they were investigating it and he needed to leave it alone. And even then, he should have asked for and insisted that some measures were being taken to make sure this couldn't happen again in the meantime. Perhaps he is fine legally, but he should have done more.
And I'd like to challenge you to do more. Perhaps you could add an addendum to your blog post to encourage your readers to do more than they are legally obligated to do with any crime, but particularly those perpetrated against children and other vulnerable people. I want to raise my son in a world where people care enough to do more than the minimum required by law...it is possible to do this while still remaining within the law, which your blog post seems to challenge.
Perhaps JoePa not going further to protect the victims was legally prudent in this case, however that does not excuse his actions on ethical grounds. There are times in all of our lives where we must choose between doing what is morally right and doing what is in our best interest. Joe failed here, it is obvious, and your defense of him disingenuous at best and at worst, well, I would say some of the previous comments sufficiently address this.
On a more personal level I would like to know if the author has any children and if he does, how would he feel if one of them were raped and the employer of the rapist behaved as Joe did in this instance?
If Joe was the grandson of the boy in the shower and someone else was the head coach at Penn State do you think Joe would have agreed that the coach had handled the situation the the way it should have been handled?
Great guy that Joe. He is really concerned about the kids. Mr. arrogant couldn't just resign to do what was best for the victims and his school but instead he decided that he wanted to complete his final year of coaching. Because that's what was most important to him with this whole sick twisted situation.
Lawyer up Joe. You may not be charged criminally but you are going to take a bath on the civil charges. It is better than the shower those victims had to take because you were to big of a coward to step up and do what is right.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely!!
Again and again people insist that Paterno "should have done more", yet they usually offer no examples and when they do they border on the edge of absurd.
These are the facts:
1) Sandusky was no longer a coach and Joe Paterno has no authority over him. He likewise had no authority over those privileges Sandusky was using to get on campus. So, how is Paterno supposed to revoke them?
2) As far as we know Paterno knew of nothing more than that one incident. Is he supposed to go on some jihad against Sandusky -- a fellow who was (or at least had been) a friend and fellow co-worker? If a good friend of yours was accused of such a crime and you knew of nothing definitive that in your experience backing up that accusation would you just ignore that and automatically declare him guilty anyway? If you say that you would then you are probably lying.
3) People also forget that if Paterno had tried to take things farther he could have opened himself up to legal problems. Is he supposed to do that even when actual law enforcement had passed on prosecuting Sandusky?
Everything I see from those insisting that Paterno is as guilty as they come tells me the same thing -- that when it comes to a terrible crime like child abuse/molestation too many people just can't deal with it logically or fairly. They just want to lash out and condemn convenient scapegoats no matter what evidence or common sense tells them. And, by doing so they just compound and worsen an already terrible tragedy.
Anthony, thank you for this. It is increasingly difficult to find people who look at the facts of this case objectively. Two days ago I heard the name "Paterno" hundreds of times while not hearing the name "Sandusky" once. That is a crime. The real monster here (allegedly, though it sure seems like a strong case) is Sandusky - charged with 40 counts of sexual abuse. Yet all we see is condemnation of Paterno.
Most people are ignorant of the facts and will happily remain that way even when presented with them. I have heard people argue that Paterno didn't go to the police, despite calling Schultz (the commissioner of the campus police) and Curley to a meeting on a Sunday. We don't know what McQeary told Paterno and we never will. We do know what Paterno says it was. In any case, he took it seriously enough to contact his direct superior along with the head of campus police and put the actual witness in touch with them. Having not witnessed the attack, there isn't anything more Paterno could really have done.
Having worked prosecution in the past, I can tell you that most of the people that are suggesting that Paterno should have done more are advocating for not one but two particularly dangerous things. One is reporting hearsay to the police. You are probably aware that there are legal reasons not to do this. You can encourage the witness to go to police (or, in the case of Paterno, set them up directly). The second would've been to confront Sandusky personally. While this could be construed as premeditated vigilantism (also a bad thing) the real harm comes from tipping off a potential target of a criminal investigation. This is what is extremely frustrating - well-intentioned or otherwise, somebody who tips off the target of an investigation has just ruined weeks, months, or even years of evidence gathering. People disappear when they're guilty.
What I also find particularly troubling is that people are claiming Paterno should've been some mythical combination of Sherlock Holmes and Marshall Dillon. He should've been able to track down everything that had happened and then don his duster and go take care of the situation. Many are advocating that he should've used his status to exert powers others don't have (as far as I know, the police don't give hearsay more weight if it comes from a respected individual). Paterno's expertise is in college football. His opinions on law and order are no different than anybody else.
McQueary, the coward, was a 28 year old 6'4" football player who saw a child being raped and turned and walked away.
Football and Joe Paterno were more important than a child who was being raped.
He should have stopped the rape. He didn't. He should have called the police. He didn't. He called his Daddy. And they went to good ole Joe.
Paterno never went to the police. He never took any of this seriously. It was just a glitch that got in the way of football.
But, keep telling yourself Paterno did the right thing. I'm sure Paterno and McQueary and the entire bunch who covered for a sexual predator appreciate your undying support.
@HMelvilleMD
Your response is a classic example of how many people clearly can't deal with this case logically or rationally.
You codemn Paterno without giving any plausible example of what he could have done. You also falsely repeat that he didn't go to the police despite the fact the original post and many replies have repeatedly shown that he did.
You then denounce McQueary, apparently because he was a large fellow and therefore shouldn't have been afraid to play Rambo. Okay, are we supposed to come up with a law that says that if you are larger than X size you are obligated to risk your life (however small a risk that might be) even if you've ever been trained for such duties? If he was just six feet tall would that mean he'd get a free pass? Five and a half? Four and half? A midget? Just how small would be too small? Don't you see how absurd your reasoning here is? You can't write law like that.
You and many others clearly just want vengeance at whatever easy target comes your way and don't care about pesky things like facts. If there are any people to vent upon it's law enforcement for not doing a better job and getting Sandusky. We SHOULD NOT be condemening non-police like Paterno and McQueary for daring to not act like full fledged cops.
Likewise, do you not understand that your uncompromising, irrational reaction is only going to encourage future witnesses to NOT report anything? Why should they take the risk if they're going to be villified no matter what they do? We want to encourage people to report these sorts of crimes, not frighten them with the near certainty that the mob will crucify them for the mistakes of others if they do.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/12/us-crime-citadel-abuse-idUSTRE7AB12F20111112?irpc=932
Exactly, Alan Hoch.
"Everything I see from those insisting that Paterno is as guilty as they come tells me the same thing -- that when it comes to a terrible crime like child abuse/molestation too many people just can't deal with it logically or fairly. They just want to lash out and condemn convenient scapegoats no matter what evidence or common sense tells them. And, by doing so they just compound and worsen an already terrible tragedy."
You see exactly the same thing in the case of Judge William Adams. The public is, dare I say it, extremely stupid, extremely judgmental, extremely naive. We are a nation of simple-minded sheep who think whatever the media tells us to think.
Not only do I think any criminal case against Paterno is baseless, I don't see the civil case against him either.
First, the grand jury report--which consists of allegations and not indisputable fact, by the way--never once suggests that Paterno knew anything until 2002. The result of this is that the only plaintiffs who could possibly base negligence claims against him are those who were injured after the 2002 attack. It's possible that the 2002 victim could sue Paterno as well, but that victim hasn't been identified.
Second, the only possible cause of action against Paterno would be based on negligence, requiring a breach of duty. The statutory duty in this case was for Paterno, as a hearsay witness, to report what he saw to others responsible for reporting the incident to law enforcement officials. Paterno did that.
What other duty did he have that would give rise to a negligence claim? I don't know Pennsylvania law, but(at least where I practice) there is no general duty to report a crime. This is especially true of a hearsay witness, given the inherent unreliability of that type of evidence. Without a duty, there is no negligence claim, even of Paterno somehow could have "done more."
Okay, so assume that he did have a duty as a general matter. What was that duty? He didn't have a right to any further information about the investigation, so even if he insisted on it, he wasn't entitled to it. So was his duty to contact some other police authority about what he heard as a hearsay witness? It is clear that campus police have the same power as the municipal police force, so how was it Paterno's duty to contact an outside police force? He would have to have had better knowledge of the jurisdiction of the campus and municipal police forces than the police forces themselves.
Okay, so assume he had a duty to "do more" and to contact some other police force on his own as a hearsay witness. How far would he have to push this case for him to not to breach his duty of care? Does he need to tell the municipal police force to supersede the authority of the campus police force for him to meet his standard of care? Does he need to call the campus police force and tell the campus police that even though the administrator who oversees the police department hasn't done anything that the police department should launch and investigation? This is really the standard of care?
I won’t even get into foreseeability, which is a problem in itself.
Anyway, I am not showing a lack of sympathy for these victims. I hope these victims receive compensation in whatever form is appropriate. And I hope that compensation is able to allow them to build a life that is somehow better than what they have experience so far. But I also believe in due process. I am concerned with who is held responsible, whether criminally or civilly. It is not enough to be held criminally or civilly liable in this country based only on assumptions and some frankly irrational and illogical opinions. The grand jury report, which pulled no punches, was not directed at Paterno, nor does it establish facts that come anywhere close to proving his liability. And strong feelings of anger about what happened and what some (or even many) want the result to be will not change the facts establishing legal fault on the part of Joe Paterno.
And though I know football records and so forth pale in comparison to the horrors these victims faced, Paterno's sentence is that he has lost his life's work. And he lost his life's work because of public opinion that is based on an incomplete picture drawn by assumptions and irrationality. If that is the expectation in today's era of "justice-this-second" then we've devolved as a society to the point that we might as well start forming lynch mobs to handle this justice. It makes me ill.
It is truly amazing what a huge story this has become. It will continue to fill the airways because as events proceed, it will be proven that Paterno did not have knowledge of the specific details of what transpired in 2002, and in the big picture, Paterno has more class and accomplishments in his pinkie finger than his envious detractors have in their entire bodies.
One other point to you Pennsylvania lawyers when it comes to civil liability: isn't the university and all of the employees protected by sovereign/qualified immunity? I know that Pennsylvania has a tort claims statute, but in most jurisdictions, a plaintiff has to prove that the act falls within some specific provision of the tort claims statute, which usually focus on things like damage to real property caused by the city's negligence or damage to an individual due to an employee's intentional tort. As far as I know, all of the employees, other than Sandusky, were acting within the scope of their employment, and that the negligence claims would be based on a failure to report. Again, I don't know if there are other provisions in Pennsylvania, but in my state, I think all of these parties are filing motions for summary judgment immediately, claiming immunity.
Yes, non-lawyers are going to eat this up.
One poster wrote: "I dare you to explain your "logic" to the boys who were molested by Sandusky after 2002....I am an attorney and it is unscrupulous attorneys like you that give the rest of us a bad reputation."
I don't believe for one second that the anonymous poster who wrote this is an attorney. Attorneys neither say something like this nor do they even think like this. You are saying that a lawyer, and a criminal defense attorney at that, shouldn't provide an objective defense based on sound legal analysis? You are saying that this legal analysis shouldn't be based on the actual facts because what happened to the victims is so bad? You appear to be clueless about the fundamental rights we have in this country, and if you are indeed licensed to practice somewhere, I would hate to see the results you have achieved for your clients.
I am amazed at the vilification you receive on this comment list as well as the vilification of Joe Paterno. I would point people to these comments by Jon Ritchie who knows Sandusky, Paterno and McQueary for insight into the nature of the monster who kept himself well hidden for so long
http://awfulannouncing.com/2011-articles/november/jon-ritchie-speaks-about-his-personal-interaction-with-jerry-sandusky.html
Sandusky was almost above reproach as "saint" who gave his self-less life to the underprivileged. That was his image. He was a family friend to the Sr McQueary and coach and longtime mentor to Mike. To wrap his mind around what he thought he saw must have been a process for him as well as Joe. But even given this process both did the right thing and took what they knew up the proper chain of command without the benefit we have from hindsight and history.
You justify Paterno's not going to the police because it could be viewed as insubordination? Or because he "would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams."
See, that's the problem. The individuals in this case who failed to report or follow through put countless boys in jeopardy because they placed a higher priority on maintaining their precious athletic program or business/personal relationships over doing the right thing.
When Paterno saw that nothing was being done, he should have made further inquiries and gone to the police himself. Who cares if that is viewed as insubordination? And we get that the police have no duty to an individual citizen. That doesn't excuse Paterno from at least speaking with them and making sure that they were aware of the allegations. Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of a whistle-blower. What if Frank Serpico had said, "Well, I've told my immediate supervisor about these dirty cops taking payoffs. If I go over his head, I'll get in trouble for insubordination."
Why don't the 'gutless wonders' who have their wonderful opinions sign their name?
John Jeselnick
To poster at 11:36 a.m. on 11/13, I am an attorney licensed to practice in two states. I specialize in civil litigation and so far, am undefeated at trial.
I am not saying this attorney should not post this article. I happen to disagree with him on his standpoint. What to do you think the law is about? If there were no disagreements on the law, then there would never be any lawsuits.
I can assure you that there are many people who disagree with this author (as seen by the many posts). Also, there will most certainly be civil lawsuits brought by the victims who feel quite differently from those who think the Penn State organization did everything they "should" have done in 2002.
I posed moral and ethical questions to the author as he included them in the title of his article.
From a fellow lawyer and psu alum, thank you for this post Anthony. I have been outraged by the media coverage of Paterno. Just once I would like for someone to make the argument that he did go to the police when he spoke to Schultz. And I believe if my memory is correct, Paterno actually did speak with both Curley and Schultz, not just with Curley.
JoePa supporters we are currently at 971 signatures on this petition with many many people commenting. Please tell your friends to sign this as I will be printing it out this week and personally taking it to the current interim PSU Presidents' office and Gov. Tom Corbett's office. I am planning on video taping and posting it on youtube so the people who took the time to sign and comment on this petition know I followed through with it. I will also be distributing copies to as many media outlets as possible. Thank you for your support!
Here is a link to a petition for Joe Paterno
http://www.change.org/petitions/penn-state-board-of-trustees-and-gov-tom-corbett-reinstate-joe-paterno-as-head-coach-of-penn-state-immediately
Penn State Board of Trustees and Gov. Tom Corbett: Reinstate Joe Paterno as Head coach of Penn State
www.change.org
So when Mr. Paterno so Mr. Sandusky on the sidelines at games like the Alamo Bowl or the Cherry Butt Bowl or whatever with little 8-12 year old boys - because Sandusky was given passes to those areas to take his children -
When Mr. Paterno saw that he just said to himself "Oh look, even though I've been told Jerry rapes those kids, there he is being all special to that little boy over there with those tickets I gave him."
And never thought twice about that hotel room.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
@alahHoch:
"You then denounce McQueary, apparently because he was a large fellow and therefore shouldn't have been afraid to play Rambo. Okay, are we supposed to come up with a law that says that if you are larger than X size you are obligated to risk your life (however small a risk that might be) even if you've ever been trained for such duties? If he was just six feet tall would that mean he'd get a free pass? Five and a half? Four and half? A midget? Just how small would be too small? Don't you see how absurd your reasoning here is? You can't write law like that."
No, we say that when we see a grown old man butt-boinking a 10 year old boy in the shower, you stop it immediately either with words or a baseball bat. You also use 9-1-1. To report a RAPE. IN PROGRESS.
THAT is what you do. Not "Lawyer up"
Your argument is horribly flawed. Even if one accepts your argument that Gary Schultz was effectively the Police Commissioner, a Commissioner is not a sworn officer, and doesn't constitute an "authority". Otherwise, how could he be charged with failing to report the allegations to a legal authority if he was one? The VP doesn't have police powers, he has no badge or ability to apply for warrants on his own authority. Any "investigation" wasn't a criminal investigation, and Paterno should have known that, and a lawyer like yourself certainly should.
Agreed. Everyone who is saying otherwise have a different axe to grind. People need to get down from their high horse and realize they, more than likely, would have made the same decisions as Joe Paterno.
So, Paterno somehow would have been way beyond his rights and responsibilities to, once a week, call the folks he reported this to and say, "Hey, uh...what ever happened with that whole coach raping children investigation? How'd that turn out? Still working on it. Okay, I'll call next week?"
You know society has gone to hell when lawyers preach morality and ethics.
Tell me where ethics and morality play into Socrates dialetical methods? This is about getting to a desired end, and the methods be damned, that's what the Socratic method is all about.
First to all who have participated here in a positive way ( whether you agreed with me or not) THANK YOU!! For those of you who have defended me against personal attacks, THANK YOU TOO!!! For those that have asked why I chose to allow some of these comments, it was to allow the conversation to proceed. It was also to let everyone see the difference between logic driven, civil discourse, and the yelling name calling stuff that passes for political debate today. If you found some of the negative comments to be offensive, well so did I. Feel bad for those who are unable to find the language to posit a position w/o calling someone you disagree with a scum or wishing harm on their family. Both your education and the leaders you follow have failed you. I hope you stick around and learn the patience it takes to convince someone of the righteousness of your position through civil discourse as opposed to threats name calling and thuggery.
The author appears to have good credentials, so I'm not going to make this personal, although I, too, am a criminal defense lawyer and former prosecutor board certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. Paterno's actions were morally indefensible.
First, persons to whom Paterno reported the incident were not, AFAIK, sworn law enforcement officers. That VP for Business might have had administrative responsibility for the campus police; that doesn't mean that he was an actual sworn law enforcement officer.
Second, granting that Paterno was not an eyewitness to the alleged conduct, he had supervisory responsibility over the eyewitness, McQueary. Paterno had a moral obligation to give his blessing to McQueary's reporting to the police, something along the lines of, "Kid, I appreciate the heads up, but you are a witness to a crime, and you've got a duty to make a police report.
Lawyer Dude:
Could the grad student be considered an outcry witness? Does the law require that the victim verbalize their story? Or would any form of of verbal utterance the child may have made,indicating that abuse was occuring considered to be an outcry? I hope this makes sense. I appreciate your feedback and your insight.
It's hard to trust the author's reasoning as unbiased when they are clearly enamored with Joe Paterno. I believe you can justify anything when you have the will to do so. And when you have the legal training, you can easily present that justification in a cogent manner.
The debate about Joe Paterno's actions, for the layman, is simply did he do all that a man in his position could do to ensure that the rape allegation was properly investigated. Current information suggests that given his knowledge of the 1998 incident, and his position of almost ultimate power at Penn State, morally, he did not do his due diligence. I am not a lawyer, but it they can find a way to put together a civil suit and present it in front of 12 ordinary people - people who have no affiliation to Penn State - no matter what you might think, and as is proven in the comments of your own blog, Joe Paterno is toast.
I wanted to respond to some of the comments and now that I have some time, this might be long but here goes:
I think that for the most part, Joe Paterno had a big say in what happened at Penn State but in the end he is the ultimate company man. I don't see him breaking the chain of command not because he fears he will lose his job, but because he believes in the chain and that if he does what he is supposed to do, the right result will occur. This is not an apologist position. It is accurate as to who this man is, and what he believes in.
My Father in law is about as old as Paterno is, he too is Roman Catholic. He hated the Roman Catholic Church sex scandal of the last decade or so, but he still religiously attends Mass and other Catholic Rituals. Ask him why and he will tell you that it is what he is supposed to do and if he does, then things will be alright and if he doesn't they won't be okay. He also served in the service, same concept. You follow orders and you follow your chain of command because in the end, it saves lives. As long as everyone in the chain has the same commitment the correct result should occur. I do not think it ever crossed Paterno's mind that he had not done what he should do concerning what he knew and how he knew it.
As for the comment that I am so enamored of Paterno as to be bias in this matter, well you don't know me very well. I have no horse in this race or dog in the hunt as is said. I think of Paterno as one who has given much and not asked for that much in return. I think he is honorable and I think he is a good leader. That is not enamored, that is just acknowledging facts. I also think that anyone who has done as much for kids and for a University as Paterno has, deserves the benefit of being believed until his story doesn't hold anymore. I mean is FACTUALLY false not by innuendo or conjecture (as in He MUST HAVE KNOWN or He is Penn State. etc)
Factually he claims and I believe he did not know about the 1998 claims. I believe he told both Curley and the Grand Jury the same things. I believe him when he says he didn't control the keys to the building and I think he tells the truth when he says he had no reason other than McQuade to believe something had happened that night in 2002. I also believe he wishes he had done more, I just don't think he knows what more he could have done.
To the person who asked about McQuade being an "outcry" witness, I think he can be depending on the state of Pennsylvania law on the issue. However I am not sure based on what I've read that there was any outcry so he is better as an eyewitness. He clearly knows who Sandusky is so ID is not a problem, He has been consistent in his statements so impeachment is not a problem, and both he and Sandusky are Caucasian, so there are no cross racial ID issues here I think I would use him as an eyewitness.
Mr. Colleluori, How would you respond if it was your child that was abused and someone knowing of it sat on it for 9 years because they thought they did all they should by just reporting it up the ladder?
BTW, the skuttlebutt in State College is that there were plenty of people who had suspicions (some of them firm) about Jerry S and who did nothing. It was no secret in State College for many years that nothing regarding the PSU football program happened without Joe's knowledge and or approval.
Let's face it he dropped the ball, big time, on this one.
Thank you for your analysis. I think the media drove this story and "innocent until proven guilty" has been forgotten. Someone from the Atty Gen office said they were concerned how Joe Paterno was being treated considering that he was a cooperating witness - who will agree to come forward if your life will be ruined in the process. Plus the grand jury report is not all-inclusive. Shouldn't we wait for all the facts to come out before passing judgement?
Post a Comment