RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,599
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 28, 2011 22:30:22 GMT -5
The 1998 investigation of Sandusky by the police was closed by the DA, Ray Gricar and no criminal chargers were filed. Paterno could have found nothing there, just like Boeheim since the Pennsylvania police, DA and Pennyslvania Child Welfare services concluded that there was no problem with Sandusky and the boy. "Insufficient evidence, on balance, to secure a conviction in the DA's estimation" is not the same thing as "nothing there." The conviction standard is quite high, especially when the "he said" being accused is a highly prominent and respected member of the local community. Clearly, however, Paterno could not "have found nothing there," since he promptly told Sandusky that he would not be his successor. The exact circumstances surrounding Sandusky's (forced?) retirement have yet to be divulged, but it is inconceivable that Paterno would not have been deeply involved in such a major personnel matter. A couple more corrections: 1. It was Penn State University police, not Pennsylvania police, who investigated in 1998 and produced a very lengthy report (again, not the same thing as "found nothing there"). The investigation was ultimately concluded on the orders of Thomas Harmon, then-chief of PSU police. 2. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare interviewed Sandusky, and he admitted to showing with and at that time "hugging" Victim 6 and that it was wrong and promised that he would not shower with children again. Because Victim 6's mother was the one who called the PSU cops, and she would not be allowing Sandusky access to her child again, there was no threat of additional harm to that particular Victim. Since the criminal authorities were investigating as well, DPW's interest in the case was at an end. Not the same as "concluded that there was no problem with Sandusky and the boy." How much of this Paterno knew is unclear, but it is highly improbable that he did not know any of it, especially since he informed Sandusky that he was no longer his heir apparent soon thereafter.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Nov 28, 2011 22:42:13 GMT -5
So basically the lesson in all this is that if you're a single victim your word means nothing against a no-name employee of a large athletic department even if you deliver a smoking gun to the media. Their explanation makes sense in everything except the tape. They rush-released the tape after the third victim came forward. The third victim lends absolutely no additional credibility to the tape. They only released the tape after they felt they were getting scooped. It makes absolutely no sense that they have a victim with a smoking gun and they went to no trouble to try to verify that smoking gun in 2003. The only reason they even bothered with the tape - according to their explanation - is that someone googled Laurie Fine and found her on video on the internet. They didn't bother to try to get her on camera. They didn't bother to try to call her and get audio.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Nov 28, 2011 22:55:38 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,287
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 29, 2011 2:56:57 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Nov 29, 2011 8:11:09 GMT -5
This almost reads like a hagiography. The guy molested children.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 29, 2011 10:50:51 GMT -5
This almost reads like a hagiography. The guy molested children. Should Thamel be disclosing the fact that he went to Syracuse? This is an honest question. I'm not going to take anything he wrote seriously (which would argue against his disclosing, since I'm sure many others would feel the same way) but I also feel like there's something wrong about the NY Times publishing his work on the Cuse scandal w/o mentioning that he went there and may have biases.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Nov 29, 2011 11:17:01 GMT -5
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Nov 29, 2011 13:00:36 GMT -5
I think Whitlock (to the extent that's actually Whitlock) is dead on about this. ESPN, after standing on a soapbox for weeks about what Paterno's moral responsibility was, turns out to have shirked its moral responsibility on the exact same issue. You'd think they would leave it to the cops to corroborate the audio recording. But no, they fulfilled their legal obligation and apparently now, that's enough, though it wasn't enough three weeks ago. Of course, they control the sports media so this angle will get swept under the rug pretty quickly.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,632
|
Post by DallasHoya on Nov 29, 2011 14:11:53 GMT -5
According to ESPN yesterday, there are virtually no NCAA schools that take their ball boys on road trips. But Syracuse and Fine did. How did this not raise a red flag with Magoo, especially after the initial investigation?
Who wouldn't be suspicious of a grown man that wants to spend his personal time with a teenage boy (who is not his own kid) in a hotel room, or sets up a bedroom for the boy in his own house?
|
|
PhillyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by PhillyHoya on Nov 29, 2011 14:18:22 GMT -5
According to ESPN yesterday, there are virtually no NCAA schools that take their ball boys on road trips. IUPUI had one yesterday but he was probably the coach's kid or something.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,533
|
Post by DanMcQ on Nov 29, 2011 14:19:44 GMT -5
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,661
|
Post by seaweed on Nov 29, 2011 15:06:02 GMT -5
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,908
|
Post by Filo on Nov 29, 2011 15:15:01 GMT -5
The tragic irony here is that the statute of limitations had not run in 2002 if the abuse occurred until the victim was “around 27." That would mean that the victim is now alleging abuse up to 1999, which he reported in 2002 (and a 5-year state of limitations applied, I believe).
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,599
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 29, 2011 15:22:22 GMT -5
I think Whitlock (to the extent that's actually Whitlock) is dead on about this. ESPN, after standing on a soapbox for weeks about what Paterno's moral responsibility was, turns out to have shirked its moral responsibility on the exact same issue. You'd think they would leave it to the cops to corroborate the audio recording. But no, they fulfilled their legal obligation and apparently now, that's enough, though it wasn't enough three weeks ago. Of course, they control the sports media so this angle will get swept under the rug pretty quickly. In fairness, I do think there is a substantive difference. In the first case, you had a failure on Paterno's part to do due diligence when Sandusky was abusing a youth in Paterno's facilities, using "professor emeritus" status granted with Paterno's blessing. There was a child who should have been identified and given whatever help he needed. When Davis spoke with ESPN in 2002, he was 29. There was no knowledge of a specific child being at risk and needing help. ESPN was not in any way responsible for Fine as an employer or enabler. The tape belonged to Davis, and presumably ESPN knew that Davis had been in contact with Syracuse police, so there shouldn't have been any need for them to provide it to the cops. I still have a lot of questions about ESPN's handling of this, but their duty was not the same as Paterno's.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Nov 29, 2011 15:57:41 GMT -5
In the first case, you had a failure on Paterno's part to do due diligence when Sandusky was abusing a youth in Paterno's facilities, using "professor emeritus" status granted with Paterno's blessing. There was a child who should have been identified and given whatever help he needed. When Davis spoke with ESPN in 2002, he was 29. There was no knowledge of a specific child being at risk and needing help. ESPN was not in any way responsible for Fine as an employer or enabler. The tape belonged to Davis, and presumably ESPN knew that Davis had been in contact with Syracuse police, so there shouldn't have been any need for them to provide it to the cops. I think there's three levels of responsibility here : moral responsibility, professional responsibility, and legal responsibility. Paterno and ESPN both fail on the moral level. I think they both also fail on the professional level in different ways - Paterno because he failed to accurately report McQueary's account. ESPN didn't have to report it, but on the other hand they took the tape and basically threw up their hands that they had no way of confirming it was Laurie Fine, which is something they could have spent some effort at trying to divine. That has to be an absolute abdication of journalistic responsibility. They didn't even bother to try this time other than apparently googling Laurie Fine. Depending on the chronology of victims in the Fine case, ESPN might also fail the legal responsibility level in civil court.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,743
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 29, 2011 16:02:46 GMT -5
I think Whitlock (to the extent that's actually Whitlock) is dead on about this. ESPN, after standing on a soapbox for weeks about what Paterno's moral responsibility was, turns out to have shirked its moral responsibility on the exact same issue. You'd think they would leave it to the cops to corroborate the audio recording. But no, they fulfilled their legal obligation and apparently now, that's enough, though it wasn't enough three weeks ago. Of course, they control the sports media so this angle will get swept under the rug pretty quickly. In fairness, I do think there is a substantive difference. In the first case, you had a failure on Paterno's part to do due diligence when Sandusky was abusing a youth in Paterno's facilities, using "professor emeritus" status granted with Paterno's blessing. There was a child who should have been identified and given whatever help he needed. When Davis spoke with ESPN in 2002, he was 29. There was no knowledge of a specific child being at risk and needing help. ESPN was not in any way responsible for Fine as an employer or enabler. The tape belonged to Davis, and presumably ESPN knew that Davis had been in contact with Syracuse police, so there shouldn't have been any need for them to provide it to the cops. I still have a lot of questions about ESPN's handling of this, but their duty was not the same as Paterno's. Do most child molesters only molest one child? I'm asking honestly, because the common perception I'd think is no. And so while Davis was no longer at risk, it seems pretty likely other children were at risk. This discussion would be a lot more fruitful if morality was presented not in relation to Penn State. Also, wasn't ESPN withholding potential evidence? I mean, they may not have been asked, but I think the comments about they should have assumed the police had everything is silly. They had some disturbing evidence. You need to go to the police.
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Nov 29, 2011 16:05:04 GMT -5
I agree that there is a difference in degree, but not one of kind. ESPN claims it couldn't corroborate the audio recording, but isn't that something the cops should do? If you say, well they knew that Davis had been in touch with the police so they assumed that the police had the recording, that's akin (again, probably not as bad in terms of degree) to Paterno, who knew McQueary talked to the president and could have assumed they'd get in touch with the police if anything was wrong.
What bothers me about this is that ESPN was eventually able to corroborate it through a youtube video. That seems pretty basic, something the cops could have pulled off much more easily than ESPN. Yet they made the independent decision that because they, ESPN, couldn't corroborate it, they didn't need to disclose it to anyone. One of the videos they claim they used involved Laurie Fine and Wes Johnson, so clearly they could have corroborated this at least two years ago. So why did they just now report a story which they thought had no independent corroboration 8 years ago? And why did they wait until another news cycle to release the now-adequate audio recording? I think they sat on this story while doing nothing but the bare minimum legally required, up until the point that it became financially beneficial (because they have the scoop) and possibly politically necessary (because of the outcry against PSU) to release everything they knew about it. After weeks of railing against someone for not doing more, turns out they had a similar failing. Another key difference between ESPN and Joe Pa is that Joe Pa at least didn't try to turn around and take credit for reporting Sandusky.
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Nov 29, 2011 16:06:10 GMT -5
I took too long to type. I agree with both SF and TC.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,599
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 29, 2011 16:42:29 GMT -5
Do most child molesters only molest one child? I'm asking honestly, because the common perception I'd think is no. And so while Davis was no longer at risk, it seems pretty likely other children were at risk. Most sexual abuse of children is committed by relatives. I've not seen this information broken down into categories, but I'd hazard a guess that it's a little bit different for male same-sex abuse. Also, wasn't ESPN withholding potential evidence? I mean, they may not have been asked, but I think the comments about they should have assumed the police had everything is silly. They had some disturbing evidence. You need to go to the police. In terms of a legal standard, I think "withholding evidence" would only apply if either there was an investigation that requested such evidence or reason to believe imminent danger to a child. A specific child, that is. I understand and agree with the logic that if he really is a molester, then he is likely to continue offending, but that's not the standard. Moreover, given the gravity of damage to a person's reputation such accusations can bring, I do think one should be at least reasonably convinced of the validity of the accusations before moving forward. ESPN, obviously, was not. The other complication here is media privilege - as we all know, the media regularly withholds evidence of criminal activity and wrongdoing while working on a story. I don't know all of the particulars when it comes to journalistic ethics - is it legit to go to the cops with somebody else's recording, for instance. A full and transparent accounting is definitely needed. I agree that there is a difference in degree, but not one of kind. ESPN claims it couldn't corroborate the audio recording, but isn't that something the cops should do? If you say, well they knew that Davis had been in touch with the police so they assumed that the police had the recording, that's akin (again, probably not as bad in terms of degree) to Paterno, who knew McQueary talked to the president and could have assumed they'd get in touch with the police if anything was wrong. Paterno doesn't get to assume for the reason that McQueary was his subordinate and the alleged acts took place at facilities under Paterno's control, utilizing access granted with Paterno's permission. That is even setting aside the issue of the child, whom no one took the effort to identify. As I say above, I imagine there are some particular questions of journalistic ethics that go into when something is reported to police, particularly when it involves information given (in confidence?) by a source. A full vetting is necessary for sure. It may be that ESPN was wrong to not have gone to police. It's equally plausible, to my mind, that the answer Syracuse PD gave - that the statute of limitations had expired - would have rendered the taped conversation moot as well. It certainly seems like Chief DuVal had absolutely no interest in pursuing the matter.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 29, 2011 16:59:40 GMT -5
Do most child molesters only molest one child? I'm asking honestly, because the common perception I'd think is no. And so while Davis was no longer at risk, it seems pretty likely other children were at risk. Most sexual abuse of children is committed by relatives. I've not seen this information broken down into categories, but I'd hazard a guess that it's a little bit different for male same-sex abuse. I am pretty sure that child molesters typically are serial molesters. As one child gets older, they seek out other, younger ones. Perhaps someone knows Stats in that regard. But no matter how common the serial aspect is, it is definitely a possibility. That is, the Possibility of additional victims is high enough that the Police and ESPN SHOULD have been looking into the allegations to protect potential additional victims. In my personal opinion, ESPN has a lot to answer here.
|
|