Michigan St: Nassar deserved criminal penalties, but we can't be held liable for his sexual assaults

[ChiTownLion]

MSU: Nassar deserved criminal penalties, but we can't be held liable for his sexual assaults
David Jesse, Detroit Free Press
Aug. 27, 2019

Among the arguments made by MSU's lawyers:

• Because none of the Nassar survivors who are suing made reports to the right person at MSU, MSU can't be held liable for anything that happened because MSU didn't know about Nassar enough to stop anything from happening.
• Nobody at MSU knew of a “'widespread pattern of constitutional violations by Nassar such that their action or inaction could amount to tacit authorization or deliberate indifference to sexual abuse."
• Because more than a dozen of the survivors were claiming to be assaulted away from MSU's campus, MSU can't be held responsible for Nassar's actions in those circumstances. "Title IX imposes liability on a school only when the school exercises substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs. These failures (in the surivivors' legal arguments) are particularly stark to the extent Plaintiffs’ claims are based on a purported failure to supervise Nassar at non-MSU locations or his personal residence."
• MSU can't be held liable for anything Nassar did when he was working for USA Gymnastics or Twistars, a local gymnastics club.
• "Plaintiffs also have not alleged that MSU did anything to create or increase the danger, other than allowing Nassar continued contact with patients and opportunities for abuse. Thus, allegations that the state failed to act and left children in the same perilous position they had always been in — no more or no less vulnerable than they had always been — still do not establish a state-created danger."

Full story is worth the read in the Detroit Free Press: https://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2019/08/27/msu-we-arent-liable-nassars-crimes/2124944001/

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[interrobang]

Too bad Penn State's brass didn't use the same defense

 

[psrurock]

I'm really disappointed that Delaney and Emmert are nowhere to be found on this issue. They took the opportunity to grandstand their higher morals and tell everyone this cant ever happen again on a college campus. Now crickets.

 

[joeparules]

MSU: Nassar deserved criminal penalties, but we can't be held liable for his sexual assaults
David Jesse, Detroit Free Press
Aug. 27, 2019

Among the arguments made by MSU's lawyers:

• Because none of the Nassar survivors who are suing made reports to the right person at MSU, MSU can't be held liable for anything that happened because MSU didn't know about Nassar enough to stop anything from happening.
• Nobody at MSU knew of a “'widespread pattern of constitutional violations by Nassar such that their action or inaction could amount to tacit authorization or deliberate indifference to sexual abuse."
• Because more than a dozen of the survivors were claiming to be assaulted away from MSU's campus, MSU can't be held responsible for Nassar's actions in those circumstances. "Title IX imposes liability on a school only when the school exercises substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs. These failures (in the surivivors' legal arguments) are particularly stark to the extent Plaintiffs’ claims are based on a purported failure to supervise Nassar at non-MSU locations or his personal residence."
• MSU can't be held liable for anything Nassar did when he was working for USA Gymnastics or Twistars, a local gymnastics club.
• "Plaintiffs also have not alleged that MSU did anything to create or increase the danger, other than allowing Nassar continued contact with patients and opportunities for abuse. Thus, allegations that the state failed to act and left children in the same perilous position they had always been in — no more or no less vulnerable than they had always been — still do not establish a state-created danger."

Full story is worth the read in the Detroit Free Press: https://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2019/08/27/msu-we-arent-liable-nassars-crimes/2124944001/

"Plaintiffs also have not alleged that MSU did anything to create or increase the danger, other than allowing Nassar continued contact with patients and opportunities for abuse." Either I am reading this wrong or it is the stupidest statement in history!? They did nothing wrong ... other than ignore complaints for years about Nassar.

"Attorney General investigators leading an investigation into the university's handling of the Nassar scandal say Simon lied about her knowledge to protect herself and the university from criminal and civil liability, court records show."

 

[83wuzme]

I'm really disappointed that Delaney and Emmert are nowhere to be found on this issue. They took the opportunity to grandstand their higher morals and tell everyone this cant ever happen again on a college campus. Now crickets.

I just hope some interviewer asks either of those clowns why they said and did nothing with respect to Nassar and MSU.

 

[demlion]

"These lawsuits are the second wave of Nassar-related suits against the school. The first wave of suits was settled for $500 million, with $75 million set aside for suits not yet filed. Those who filed the second wave of suits have voiced displeasure that MSU was trying to give them less money than the first wave of victims got. The second wave pointed out they never signed the initial settlement and aren't bound by it."

So, this conduct that prompted a HALF BILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT is not and never was conduct which exposed MSU to damages???? Then, um, why did they settle? LOL.

 

[Cletus11]

i recognize that with the metoo movement and all the other scandals that have been exposed the MSU Nasser scandal is just another scandal but still cannot understand how this is not so much bigger. Nasser molested Olympic gymnasts which is a pretty big and a real story. Ok, when the Ohio State swimming coach gets accused then not a big story as no big names. But USA Olympic gymnasts coming out is real news. And nothing.

Just again brings me back that the JS scandal had something nefarious in the background pulling strings and keeping it in the news and focused on Paterno/Spanier/Curley. As literally every other scandal of this nature hit the 24 hour news cycle at most of a few days and went away and yet PSU stayed for months and PSU acted like nobody else has during this whole ordeal in direct opposite of what any competent executive or lawyer would do. Just way too much circumstantial evidence for me to not believe there is something much worse in the background that we will never know.

 

[LoyalandTrueLion]

i recognize that with the metoo movement and all the other scandals that have been exposed the MSU Nasser scandal is just another scandal but still cannot understand how this is not so much bigger. Nasser molested Olympic gymnasts which is a pretty big and a real story. Ok, when the Ohio State swimming coach gets accused then not a big story as no big names. But USA Olympic gymnasts coming out is real news. And nothing.

Just again brings me back that the JS scandal had something nefarious in the background pulling strings and keeping it in the news and focused on Paterno/Spanier/Curley. As literally every other scandal of this nature hit the 24 hour news cycle at most of a few days and went away and yet PSU stayed for months and PSU acted like nobody else has during this whole ordeal in direct opposite of what any competent executive or lawyer would do. Just way too much circumstantial evidence for me to not believe there is something much worse in the background that we will never know.

Homophobia. Yes. Rape of boys is much worse crime in many eyes.

 

[nittany119]

I just hope some interviewer asks either of those clowns why they said and did nothing with respect to Nassar and MSU.

Ask that bastard Delaney that question when he visits PSU this fall

 

[Jovialgent]

Too bad Penn State's brass didn't use the same defense

They were brassholes.

 

[Talpsu]

I just hope some interviewer asks either of those clowns why they said and did nothing with respect to Nassar and MSU.

It will be met with a “we don’t comment on criminal investigations”

 

[L.A.Lion]

i recognize that with the metoo movement and all the other scandals that have been exposed the MSU Nasser scandal is just another scandal but still cannot understand how this is not so much bigger. Nasser molested Olympic gymnasts which is a pretty big and a real story. Ok, when the Ohio State swimming coach gets accused then not a big story as no big names. But USA Olympic gymnasts coming out is real news. And nothing.

Just again brings me back that the JS scandal had something nefarious in the background pulling strings and keeping it in the news and focused on Paterno/Spanier/Curley. As literally every other scandal of this nature hit the 24 hour news cycle at most of a few days and went away and yet PSU stayed for months and PSU acted like nobody else has during this whole ordeal in direct opposite of what any competent executive or lawyer would do. Just way too much circumstantial evidence for me to not believe there is something much worse in the background that we will never know.

Here's my theory: at MSU, Lou Ann Simon and others had heard complaints about Nassar but brushed them off as not credible or believed they were credible but isolated enough that they could ignore them to preserve MSU's reputation.

At PSU, deep-pocketed trustees and donors had heard enough complaints about Sandusky over the years that one of them (or someone they hired) ran around central PA paying Second Mile victims and their families who had complained to PSU to shut up. If the crime is a felony, paying victims of that crime to keep their mouths shut is also a felony in PA. Accepting money to not report a crime to police is itself a crime in Pennsylvania called "compounding," which gives victims extra incentive to stay quiet. My guess is the wealthy folks connected to the BOT who knew about payments circled the wagons to keep attention far away from their years-long criminal coverup efforts and that pointing the finger at a famous man dying of lung cancer and a couple others who would make convenient villains was the self-preservation strategy they came up with.

It would explain much of the behavior from people connected to PSU that we saw, including Schultz's alleged statement to, if I recall correctly, John McQueary along the lines of "We had heard stories over the years but nothing we could sink our teeth into."

Just my theory. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever know the truth.

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[interrobang]

Yet, judges found that PSU didn't bury claims

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

FWIW: We know (at least I know) that folks on or connected with the BOT made payments - off the grid - to 2nd Mile kids.

For what purpose? Were the purposes purely altruistic? Were they nefarious? Who knows? (Rhetorical question, of course. We will never know - - - - - at least not until that "Federal Investigation" concludes )

What are the implications of that? Who knows?

It's not the right time to say what i know...

 

[IANit]

It's not the right time to say what i know...

Looking for a subpoena?

 

[fastlax16]

Too bad Penn State's brass didn't use the same defense

 

[IANit]

Homophobia. Yes. Rape of boys is much worse crime in many eyes.

That's part of it, for sure. That plus MSU had no Joe Paterno. People just love to tear down icons.

 

[RussianEagle]

Homophobia. Yes. Rape of boys is much worse crime in many eyes.

I don’t think it so much Homophobia as much as the media and the OAG making Sandusky accusers out to be much younger than they actually were, i.e. the “10 year old boy in the shower” myth.

 

[RussianEagle]

Here's my theory: at MSU, Lou Ann Simon and others had heard complaints about Nassar but brushed them off as not credible or believed they were credible but isolated enough that they could ignore them to preserve MSU's reputation.

At PSU, deep-pocketed trustees and donors had heard enough complaints about Sandusky over the years that one of them (or someone they hired) ran around central PA paying Second Mile victims and their families who had complained to PSU to shut up. If the crime is a felony, paying victims of that crime to keep their mouths shut is also a felony in PA. Accepting money to not report a crime to police is itself a crime in Pennsylvania called "compounding," which gives victims extra incentive to stay quiet. My guess is the wealthy folks connected to the BOT who knew about payments circled the wagons to keep attention far away from their years-long criminal coverup efforts and that pointing the finger at a famous man dying of lung cancer and a couple others who would make convenient villains was the self-preservation strategy they came up with.

It would explain much of the behavior from people connected to PSU that we saw, including Schultz's alleged statement to, if I recall correctly, John McQueary along the lines of "We had heard stories over the years but nothing we could sink our teeth into."

Just my theory. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever know the truth.

If its really true that Second Mile kids who complained about Sandusky were being paid off, why did absolutely no accusers make that claim at Sandusky’s trial? If any could prove (or least provide some evidence) that these payoff’s occurred, it would have been real actual physical evidence against Sandusky and would have certainly helped the prosecution’s case.

 

[RussianEagle]

FWIW: We know (at least I know) that folks on or connected with the BOT made payments - off the grid - to 2nd Mile kids.

For what purpose? Were the purposes purely altruistic? Were they nefarious? Who knows? (Rhetorical question, of course. We will never know - - - - - at least not until that "Federal Investigation" concludes )

What are the implications of that? Who knows?

Please provide evidence that kids were being paid off. When did this occur?

 

[L.A.Lion]

If its really true that Second Mile kids who complained about Sandusky were being paid off, why did absolutely no accusers make that claim at Sandusky’s trial? If any could prove (or least provide some evidence) that these payoff’s occurred, it would have been real actual physical evidence against Sandusky and would have certainly helped the prosecution’s case.

First, it wouldn't be actual physical evidence against Sandusky. It would be very strong evidence that someone offering money wished to keep a child from talking to the police, and somewhat less persuasive evidence that the payor believed the child's story would likely be investigated by the police at some point.

Second and more importantly, there are any number of reasons why none of the victims who testified at trial said they were paid off. First, It's entirely possible that none who testified were paid hush money. At least two (V1 and V6) were in contact with authorities before someone with hush money could find them. The identities of two others (V4 and V8) may never be known with certainty. Why assume that any of the other 6 were paid? And if any were actually paid to be quiet and testified they were but had no corroborating evidence, that testimony would have been as likely to taint their overall credibility as it would have been to make their stories more credible. Not a good trial strategy.

My theory is authorities didn't investigate hush money because (1) they didn't need to in order to put Sandusky in prison; (2) emails provided a couple ready-made villains they could portray as the sole enablers who allowed Sandusky to run wild for years, thus wrapping up the loose ends to the story; (3) they'd need cooperation from people who had already taken money to shut their mouths, which would tend to impair their credibility in any related prosecutions; and (4) if there were a hush money effort, the people behind it had deep pockets of the kind that tend to give some in law enforcement pause before they investigate. I don't think I need to remind anyone here that some of the people involved in this case on behalf of the Commonwealth were not exactly paragons of virtue.

Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

 

[PSUfiji]

I think many folks jumped on the "Sandusky scandal" in an effort to distract and deflect possible investigations into their own intuitions failures in-kind - judging by the ever-growing discovery of apparent widespread sexual misconduct in religion, industry and education. Boorish, repugnant behavior by the lot. imo

 

[artsandletters]

Has Noonan chimed in yet?

 

[psu00]

View embedded media

I admit I haven’t followed the MSU case closely but IIRC it’s much more than ‘plausible ‘ that MSU buried sex assault cases by Nasser. IIRC some of the victims reported that MSU university officials told then NOT to report their abuse by Nasser.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

Has Noonan chimed in yet?

The f^cker is too busy perusing his porn emails...
All eight men, who also include state police Commissioner Frank Noonan, worked under Corbett while he was the state's elected attorney general from 2005 to 2011. Corbett had requested details on the emails in question before determining if the four men employed in his administration should keep their jobs.


A review of the heavily redacted emails revealed an abundance of comments that were sexually suggestive, mostly about photographs that were originally attached to the emails but were not included in the released material. Some of the more than 300 emails that the attorney general's office says Noonan received bore sexually tinged subject lines, such as "Bikini Wax Job." Another message, received by some but not all of the participants, included a slur used against people of Arab descent and others who wear headdresses. Others expressed insensitive remarks about gays.

 

[LoyalandTrueLion]

I don’t think it so much Homophobia as much as the media and the OAG making Sandusky accusers out to be much younger than they actually were, i.e. the “10 year old boy in the shower” myth.

Look across the board at sentencing.

Abuse of underage children of the opposite sex get lighter sentences more often. Same reason that female teachers get lighter sentences because its tacitly accepted in a way.

 

[RussianEagle]

Look across the board at sentencing.

Abuse of underage children of the opposite sex get lighter sentences more often. Same reason that female teachers get lighter sentences because its tacitly accepted in a way.

I acknowledge you could be right.

However, the biggest reason Sandusky’s sentence was so harsh compared with other child sex offenders was that Sandusky maintained his complete innocence the entire time and did not seek a plea bargain. Very few individuals charged with child sex abuse take that path.

Also, it’s well known Harvey Milk committed sex acts with teenage boys as well, but he gets a postage stamp. I think most of the ire toward Sandusky is because we were told his victims were “little children”, when the truth is they were teenagers who were having sex with girls during the exact same time they alleged abuse by Sandusky.

 

[NittPicker]

However, the biggest reason Sandusky’s sentence was so harsh compared with other child sex offenders was that Sandusky maintained his complete innocence the entire time and did not seek a plea bargain. Very few individuals charged with child sex abuse take that path.

Not speaking of Sandusky specifically but if someone is truly innocent, why would they seek a plea bargain?

 

[Kiber]

I acknowledge you could be right.

However, the biggest reason Sandusky’s sentence was so harsh compared with other child sex offenders was that Sandusky maintained his complete innocence the entire time and did not seek a plea bargain. Very few individuals charged with child sex abuse take that path.

Also, it’s well known Harvey Milk committed sex acts with teenage boys as well, but he gets a postage stamp. I think most of the ire toward Sandusky is because we were told his victims were “little children”, when the truth is they were teenagers who were having sex with girls during the exact same time they alleged abuse by Sandusky.

I also think Sandusky/Penn State story was the "perfect storm" in terms of media coverage, and media "outrage", which made harsh sentencing almost "required". In black & white numbers, what Sandusky did pals in comparison to the Catholic Church, MSU/Nassar and the Dr at Ohio State. But for whatever reason the media grabbed onto PSU/Sandusky with cataclysmic proportions. It was literally 24/7 coverage across every news outlet, media outlet and social network outlet. You had the President of the United States giving his opinion. I am not saying 1 was worse than any of the others, just saying that when you compare the media coverage, the stories did not receive comparable coverage. I think this created a tidal wave of opinion that pre-determined the outcome of Sandusky's trial.

 

[RussianEagle]

Not speaking of Sandusky specifically but if someone is truly innocent, why would they seek a plea bargain?

That’s one of the reasons people cite when arguing for Sandusky’s innocence. Not only did he not attempt a plea bargain, but did not confess prior to or after sentencing. He may have been able to get some leniency had he claimed he had a psycho-sexual condition and needed help.

 

[RussianEagle]

First, it wouldn't be actual physical evidence against Sandusky. It would be very strong evidence that someone offering money wished to keep a child from talking to the police, and somewhat less persuasive evidence that the payor believed the child's story would likely be investigated by the police at some point.

Second and more importantly, there are any number of reasons why none of the victims who testified at trial said they were paid off. First, It's entirely possible that none who testified were paid hush money. At least two (V1 and V6) were in contact with authorities before someone with hush money could find them. The identities of two others (V4 and V8) may never be known with certainty. Why assume that any of the other 6 were paid? And if any were actually paid to be quiet and testified they were but had no corroborating evidence, that testimony would have been as likely to taint their overall credibility as it would have been to make their stories more credible. Not a good trial strategy.

My theory is authorities didn't investigate hush money because (1) they didn't need to in order to put Sandusky in prison; (2) emails provided a couple ready-made villains they could portray as the sole enablers who allowed Sandusky to run wild for years, thus wrapping up the loose ends to the story; (3) they'd need cooperation from people who had already taken money to shut their mouths, which would tend to impair their credibility in any related prosecutions; and (4) if there were a hush money effort, the people behind it had deep pockets of the kind that tend to give some in law enforcement pause before they investigate. I don't think I need to remind anyone here that some of the people involved in this case on behalf of the Commonwealth were not exactly paragons of virtue.

Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

I disagree. V1 and V6 would have been the perfect candidates for payoffs. V1 made his original complaint in late 2008, but was not able to testify under oath that he had oral sex with Jerry until late 2011, and almost decided to not testify at all until shortly beforehand, when he learned that other accusers came forward.

Likewise with V6, despite he incident occurring in 1998 and the authorities learning about that incident in 2009-10, It wasn’t until the summer of 2011 that he agreed to testify against Jerry. He was actually still having dinner with the Sandusky even after the 1998 incident became public knowledge in March 2011. Even after the arrest, he told another accuser he was still questioning Sandusky’s guilt and felt his mom was pressuring him.

V8 does not exist, and if he does, he was molested by someone other than Sandusky. The actual witness to that event is on tape saying the man he saw was not Sandusky. The man who did testify was a heresy witness who greatly contradicted his Grand Jury testimony at trial.

V2, not V4 is the other unknown victim, but The prosecution knows damn well who V2 is. They were just too afraid to bring him to testify because he ardently defended Sandusky several times even after the arrest. They were scared he would refute McQueary’s story.

The other accusers were all pretty much friends with Sandusky as adults until receiving repressed memory therapy in summer 2011. Seems like if these guys were really still supporting Sandusky in early-mid 2011 due to payoffs, they would have said so, yet none did.

 

[L.A.Lion]

I disagree. V1 and V6 would have been the perfect candidates for payoffs. V1 made his original complaint in late 2008, but was not able to testify under oath that he had oral sex with Jerry until late 2011, and almost decided to not testify at all until shortly beforehand, when he learned that other accusers came forward.

Likewise with V6, despite he incident occurring in 1998 and the authorities learning about that incident in 2009-10, It wasn’t until the summer of 2011 that he agreed to testify against Jerry. He was actually still having dinner with the Sandusky even after the 1998 incident became public knowledge in March 2011. Even after the arrest, he told another accuser he was still questioning Sandusky’s guilt and felt his mom was pressuring him.

V8 does not exist, and if he does, he was molested by someone other than Sandusky. The actual witness to that event is on tape saying the man he saw was not Sandusky. The man who did testify was a heresy witness who greatly contradicted his Grand Jury testimony at trial.

V2, not V4 is the other unknown victim, but The prosecution knows damn well who V2 is. They were just too afraid to bring him to testify because he ardently defended Sandusky several times even after the arrest. They were scared he would refute McQueary’s story.

The other accusers were all pretty much friends with Sandusky as adults until receiving repressed memory therapy in summer 2011. Seems like if these guys were really still supporting Sandusky in early-mid 2011 due to payoffs, they would have said so, yet none did.

You're all over the place. What exactly is your point? That because none of the victims who testified at trial said anything about being paid off, no victim anywhere over the decades that Sandusky was assaulting children could have been paid off? That's a non sequitur.

 

[RussianEagle]

You're all over the place. What exactly is your point? That because none of the victims who testified at trial said anything about being paid off, no victim anywhere over the decades that Sandusky was assaulting children could have been paid off? That's a non sequitur.

My point is there’s absolutely no evidence that any Sandusky accusers were being paid off to not come forward. I don’t know why you are arguing otherwise. If it turns out there really was a BOT or TSM cover up, it’s not going to make Joe Paterno and PSU look better, it will actually make him look even worse.

 

[L.A.Lion]

My point is there’s absolutely no evidence that any Sandusky accusers were being paid off to not come forward. I don’t know why you are arguing otherwise. If it turns out there really was a BOT or TSM cover up, it’s not going to make Joe Paterno and PSU look better, it will actually make him look even worse.

I said it was a theory that explains in part a course of action set out by trustees. As for evidence, it's pretty clear you don't understand what "evidence" is, the difference between direct and indirect evidence, or how they're used to establish fact in a legal proceeding so all I'm going to say on that point is that there's indirect evidence that has been discussed right here on this board and on the other board over the past 7+ years by people with much stronger connections to central PA than I have.

As for making PSU look better or worse, I couldn't care less. Nobody's changing their perception of PSU at this point regardless of what new details come to light. I live a couple thousand miles from Centre County and no one here without a direct connection to PSU gives a flying **** and none my friends with a PSU connection talk about it any more, either. I, on the other hand, as an attorney licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvani, find the conduct of all the agencies involved in investigating and prosecuting Sandusky to be quite lacking and am still interested in the whole truth of what happened, which has yet to be revealed.

 

[interrobang]

 

[indynittany]

Too bad Penn State's brass didn't use the same defense

If they had, then people would have begun looking into TSM. They couldn't have that!

 

[fizzyskittles]

Homophobia. Yes. Rape of boys is much worse crime in many eyes.

I think it's due to a combination of Penn State's reputation and we were basically the first scandal like this.
Now there's a playbook on how to handle these cases.

 

[UncleLar]

Not speaking of Sandusky specifically but if someone is truly innocent, why would they seek a plea bargain?

It happens all the time. Maybe you're facing the death penalty and you like the idea of living even if it might be in confinement. Or maybe you're facing the loss of your family's pension money if convicted, so you plead to a reduced charge for the sake of your wife and kids. Put your mind to it little and you can think of lots of reasons..