Let me preface this by saying, outside of my love for B10 athletics, I have no connection to PSU. Regardless of what happens to JoePa, my life will go on. I also don't want to minimize the alleged victims' trauma, as no one should have to experience this.

That said, I agree with you, psusue.

Everyone is piling on JoePa because of his position. I haven't seen anything about Second Mile allowing Sandusky to interact with children until 2008. I have seen few articles addressing the fact that the police and child welfare were aware of the 1998 event. Why weren't there any charges filed at that point? Why wasn't a caseworker tasked with following up with Sandusky after that?

Most of what I've seen has said that JoePa should have taken this a step further by banning Sandusky from campus. Yes, football is a big deal, but that's not his job. The person whose job it is (Schultz) HAS been charged.

Yes, people in positions of power will be expected to do more. Such is life.

If they knew and allowed him to interact with children until 2008, they are also to blame. Those are legal and moral dynamics that Second Mile will have to work through as it pertains to their founder.

A March 2011 article: http://www.ydr.com/sports/ci_17744809

There is plenty of accountability and legal or moral dynamics to go around. This is not about either/or.


But, you have seen articles, right?

That is good. People are saying that it seems as though JoePa handed it off to Schultz when these types of things are difficult to hand off (no pun intended) and seemingly keep moving.

Agreed, especially since the alleged victims were participants in that charity/program. Many people are saying that the assaults would have been prevented had JoePa stepped up more, but I have not seen an article saying that they would have been prevented had Second Mile cut off Sandusky's contact with the children.

Yes, but that part was glossed over or hidden in the "What happened to Gricer?" diatribes.

Do we know when Second Mile found out about the allegations?

That March 2011 article that I posted states: "Penn State police investigated an alleged 1998 incident involving Sandusky and a 12-year-old boy the shower of a football building on campus. No charges were ever filed against Sandusky."

Who knew about this 1998 incident (or incidents prior to 1998)?

Quote:

That, however, was at least the third time in 10 years that the organization had been made aware of allegations involving Sandusky's contacts with children. The organization knew in 1998 that Sandusky was investigated for alleged sexual misconduct in a Penn State shower involving a different boy from the program, according to a presentment by a statewide investigating grand jury. State College lawyer Wendell V. Courtney was apprised of the investigation in 1998 because he was counsel for Penn State and the Second Mile. He has not responded to interview requests. That investigation, by university police, was closed when the Centre County District Attorney's Office decided not to file charges. The Second Mile learned of another investigation involving Sandusky in 2002. In its statement, the agency said its chief executive officer, Jack Raykovitz, testified before the investigating grand jury that he had been told by Curley that an internal Penn State investigation found no corroboration for an allegation of inappropriate contact by Sandusky with a youth in a university locker room shower.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/na...133505273.html

ETA: Looks like he was involved past 2008:

Quote:

It wasn't until November 2008 that the program took steps to keep Sandusky away from children. "Mr. Sandusky informed the Second Mile that he had learned he was being investigated as a result of allegations made against him by an adolescent male in Clinton County, Pa.," the nonprofit said in a statement. "We immediately made the decision to separate him from all of our program activities involving children." Sandusky, who retired as Penn State's defensive coordinator in 1999, was still affiliated with the Second Mile until he retired from there in September 2010.

So, they stopped him from interacting with children, but allowed him to leave the program on his own accord.

From what I understand, the DA and child welfare were aware of the 1998 incident. For whatever reason, the DA declined to press charges (he has since gone missing/been declared dead) and didn't leave notes for his successors.

Then Second Mile should share the blame with JoePa and others.

The ultimate blame is on Sandusky. But, this all reeks of an institutional cover up on the part of Penn State and Second Mile (which is even loosely affiliated with Penn State). Even a missing/declared dead DA with no notes for successors is like an episode of Law and Order.

The fate of those kids rested with the legally and morally obligated adults who could help them. That was clearly not Sandusky and it should have been the many adults who were supposed to be a refuge. I pray that they do not find that they were running a pedophile network of sorts and Sandusky was just one of many adults who were engaged in this with the Second Mile kids.

There are now rumors surrounding his disappearance that are looking a lot like a conspiracy theory as to why/ how he went missing after initially investigating Sandusky.

Yea, I came across those when reading some of the articles.

I cannot say whether Paterno did all he could or should have -- I think we have to know all the facts before we can say that. That said, I have to join others in vehemently disagreeing with this statement. Morals can and should supercede protocol.

I think this is the fear of the Penn State Trustees. The last thing they want to see is Penn State being associated with this type of thinking. God forbid something like that actually happened. Now is the time for damage control to save the university which is bigger than a football program and one man...no matter who thinks he's their "grandfather".

Pennsylvania ought to seriously consider rewriting its child abuse reporting statutes. Leaving such decisions to the chain of command is ridiculous. In this case, Schultz was several degrees removed from the situation. He had less information than anyone involved. Why not place the onus on the person with the most information to make that call and everyone after that?

I am reminded of

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

William Butler Yeats

and I think I have a new signature, thanks to MysticCat *unless he objects*.

No objection, especially not for anyone who quotes Yeats.

And Paterno will retire at the end of the season.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way (or maybe I watch too many episodes of Law and Order :p), but I would think a lawyer would have the opposite view.

Would (general) you advise an officer to arrest someone you "know" committed a crime without first making sure the allegations had merit?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.