Ray Blehar....MM caught in lie?

[Obliviax]

Which is why Joe should have taken the coward that was MM to the police station and had him fill out a report. Clearly, MM was incapable of doing it on his own.

I disagree because it was the next day. Joe took the time to look up what he should do when a subordinate is reporting something that he saw. It is different is MM was the person assaulted, raped or whatever. In this case, MM wasn't harmed and that is where you are confused. At the same time, MM gave him a watered down version (MM has testified and stated this several times and why JVP added the "I don't know what you would call it" line because JVP didn't know). So Joe did EXACTLY as Joe should have done; report it to those responsible for such things. And that is the AD (since it was in an athletic facility) and to the head of police. And, again, Joe followed up with MM "on several occasions" as MM testified.

 

[GTACSA]

None. The real question you should be asking is why isn't it protocol to call the police. Guys like Osprey and GMJ will never try to find out because they won't like the response and ignore it. I ask them all to seek out experts, but they never will. Not to do so and still hammer these people shows bias. That is why there is no point arguing with them.

"None."

Finally an honest answer.

However, while there may be reasons why it isn't protocol to call the police (I'm accepting your assertion at face value) that doesn't seem to be relevant to a scenario where a report of sexual assault was buried in house and not reported to proper authorities. (As far as the record currently stands.)

What would be the protocol (if there is any) for a situation where a teacher observes a faculty member sexually assaulting a student, and who then reports it to the Principal of the school, who then places the report in File 13?

 

[Obliviax]

Exactly. Could you imagine the backlash if Joe got fired for reporting suspected CSA? LOL.

Here's what would have happened had Joe called the police:

Joe: I'd like to report a potential crime.
Police: when and where did you see this crime committed?
Joei: I didn't, one of my employees did.
Police: have him or her call me, you've got the number

click.

 

[rmb297]

"None."

Finally an honest answer.

However, while there may be reasons why it isn't protocol to call the police (I'm accepting your assertion at face value) that doesn't seem to be relevant to a scenario where a report of sexual assault was buried in house and not reported to proper authorities. (As far as the record currently stands.)

What would be the protocol (if there is any) for a situation where a teacher observes a faculty member sexually assaulting a student, and who then reports it to the Principal of the school, who then places the report in File 13?

To answer the latter question, under the current PA law the Principal would be criminally liable for not reporting.

As to the former, it has not been established that there was a report of a sexual assault. The plea agreements of Tim and Gary are based on their inaction of Paterno's "horseplay" report of February 11, 2001. It is not for their inaction on Mike's dubious report.

 

[pandaczar12]

None. The real question you should be asking is why isn't it protocol to call the police. Guys like Osprey and GMJ will never try to find out because they won't like the response and ignore it. I ask them all to seek out experts, but they never will. Not to do so and still hammer these people shows bias. That is why there is no point arguing with them.

They will avoid responding to that topic like the plague. They want to pretend Joe screwed up, they want it to be his fault and not the procedures. They don't want to admit that they think the procedures are flawed and that they are doing nothing to fix them.

 

[rmb297]

Well, I suppose that could be true. If we assume that Gary Schultz and his entire defense team are among the most oblivious, stupid bi-peds to walk the Earth.

1) A first year law school drop out knows that it is the Court, not the Prosecutors, who impose sentence

And

2) Here is the document that Schultz signed:

http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Documents/3-13-17 Amended Criminal Information and Guilty Plea - Schultz.pdf


Some of the "highlights":

"Agree that the sentence is in the sole discretion of the sentencing court."
"Nothing in this agreement shall limit the Commonwealth in its comments in, and responses to, any post-sentencing matters."
"The defendant understands, agrees and has had explained to him by counsel that the court may impose statutory maximum sentence of five years total confinement, a $10,000 fine and costs."
"No one has promised or guaranteed to the defendant what sentence the court will impose."


Yea, I'd sign that if I was innocent - with the certainty in my mind that I couldn't be sentenced to jail time. (sarcasm)

We are in agreement that Schultz's attorney was not the sharpest tool in the shed.

The plea doesn't even make sense. On February 11, 2001, how did Gary prevent or interfere with a report to the authorities? Who did he stop from reporting it? Who did he interfere with?

As I've written on several occasions, this was a case the Commonwealth could never have gotten a conviction on had Gary stuck to his grand jury testimony and then testified that a report was made. At that point it's up to the Commonwealth to prove a report was not -- and there's no way they could prove it -- especially because DPW/CYS cannot investigate an abuse report UNLESS it can identify the child. That report would have been screened out and not make it to "intake." It is highly unlikely that CYS would have records from February 2001 to show no calls came in from PSU phone lines.

 

[PSU2UNC]

And that is fine, you would have advised MM to contact police so it would have been reported. The fact that the Dr never got clarification as to what MM saw/heard is a massive failure on his part.

I know this won't help you (because you refuse to think critically), but maybe this will help others on this board, so I offer a real life example that (I believe) shows why your "they just should have called the police" argument is crap.

This incident occurred this past summer. I live in a rowhouse in DC, so there are a lot of "city noises" (traffic, sirens, loud drunk people walking home from bars, arguments, the occasional fight or gunshots). One Saturday night, I was in my man cave watching TV while my girlfriend was upstairs in the bedroom reading. Things were relatively quiet when I heard an extremely loud, piercing, prolonged, high pitched scream that sounded like a child in distress.

I bolted up the stairs and my gf had come down to the first landing on the staircase.

Her: "What was that?!"
Me: "It sounded like a kid screaming."

I went outside to investigate. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary from my porch, so I walked down the block a bit. There were some kids (8-10 years old) chasing each other around a parking lot with squirt guns, laughing and squealing. I didn't see anything unusual or suspicious, so based on the data I had, I determined it was most likely that the kid's scream was related to the squirt gun fight.

I came back inside.

Her: "Did you see anything?"
Me: "Just some kids playing."

Based on what jive (and others) seem to think, even thought I declined to call the police immediately (based on my observation), my girlfriend should have called the police and by not doing so committed either an actual or a moral crime.

Do you appreciate how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[Obliviax]

"None."

Finally an honest answer.

However, while there may be reasons why it isn't protocol to call the police (I'm accepting your assertion at face value) that doesn't seem to be relevant to a scenario where a report of sexual assault was buried in house and not reported to proper authorities. (As far as the record currently stands.)

What would be the protocol (if there is any) for a situation where a teacher observes a faculty member sexually assaulting a student, and who then reports it to the Principal of the school, who then places the report in File 13?

it would be "protocol" to call the police for MM. MM wasn't assaulted, he only believed he may have witnessed an assault. Where PSU comes in is that it was on a PSU facility.

It is no different than if a member of the girls basketball team came to Joe and said that she had seen a retired coach grope a player. the first question would be "can you bring the player in and will she make a report?" If the answer is "no, she's too afraid" (or no for any other reason) it gets reported up through the NCAA's dictated chain of command (AD + someone outside the sports vertical reporting structure). It is different if a player comes to a coach and says "I was groped by a retired coach". You have a victim. In the case with MM, there was no victim to address.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Mike was able to tell Joe that something of a sexual nature occurred. That is all that would be needed to determine if there was suspected CSA.

That's not really what JVP said under oath and you are well aware of that.

 

[denniskembala]

We are in agreement that Schultz's attorney was not the sharpest tool in the shed.

The plea doesn't even make sense. On February 11, 2001, how did Gary prevent or interfere with a report to the authorities? Who did he stop from reporting it? Who did he interfere with?

As I've written on several occasions, this was a case the Commonwealth could never have gotten a conviction on had Gary stuck to his grand jury testimony and then testified that a report was made. At that point it's up to the Commonwealth to prove a report was not -- and there's no way they could prove it -- especially because DPW/CYS cannot investigate an abuse report UNLESS it can identify the child. That report would have been screened out and not make it to "intake." It is highly unlikely that CYS would have records from February 2001 to show no calls came in from PSU phone lines.

I've stated this dozens of times. It was on the prosecution to prove a report wasn't made, not on the defense to prove one was. It's all bullshit. Jacobs and his clown following constantly parrot "it was a sexual nature" and their other stupid shit, but they can't prove any of it.

 

[kgilbert78]

"None."

Finally an honest answer.

However, while there may be reasons why it isn't protocol to call the police (I'm accepting your assertion at face value) that doesn't seem to be relevant to a scenario where a report of sexual assault was buried in house and not reported to proper authorities. (As far as the record currently stands.)

What would be the protocol (if there is any) for a situation where a teacher observes a faculty member sexually assaulting a student, and who then reports it to the Principal of the school, who then places the report in File 13?

Didn't that essentially happen at Central Mountain High with the Sandusky report there?? Nothing happened to those administrators.

 

[kgilbert78]

I disagree because it was the next day. Joe took the time to look up what he should do when a subordinate is reporting something that he saw. It is different is MM was the person assaulted, raped or whatever. In this case, MM wasn't harmed and that is where you are confused. At the same time, MM gave him a watered down version (MM has testified and stated this several times and why JVP added the "I don't know what you would call it" line because JVP didn't know). So Joe did EXACTLY as Joe should have done; report it to those responsible for such things. And that is the AD (since it was in an athletic facility) and to the head of police. And, again, Joe followed up with MM "on several occasions" as MM testified.

Which is, in fact, against standard protocol. Joe actually should not have done that.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

We are in agreement that Schultz's attorney was not the sharpest tool in the shed.

The plea doesn't even make sense. On February 11, 2001, how did Gary prevent or interfere with a report to the authorities? Who did he stop from reporting it? Who did he interfere with?

As I've written on several occasions, this was a case the Commonwealth could never have gotten a conviction on had Gary stuck to his grand jury testimony and then testified that a report was made. At that point it's up to the Commonwealth to prove a report was not -- and there's no way they could prove it -- especially because DPW/CYS cannot investigate an abuse report UNLESS it can identify the child. That report would have been screened out and not make it to "intake." It is highly unlikely that CYS would have records from February 2001 to show no calls came in from PSU phone lines.

I'll only provide the caveat that unless you have been subjected to the corruption and willful malice of the PA courts (as I once was), you cannot pass judgment on the legal decisions Gary and Tim made.

 

[indynittany]

I’m willing to bet that if it wasn’t Jerry in the shower but just some regular bum, the police would have been contacted immediately.

Aside from the fact that Jerry had permission to be there, I think you inadvertently make a good point. The people involved had known Jerry for decades. Whatever they thought of him, you can be sure that his being sexually attracted to young boys was not considered possible. And nothing McQueary told anyone convinced them otherwise.

However, this incident, coupled with the '98 incident, did raise a huge red flag. They realized that all it would take is one angry mom and PSU would be a sitting duck with deep pockets in a civil suit. That risk was real whether Sandusky abused anyone or not. The accusation, along with the negative publicity, was more than enough to do damage to the university. Therefore, to insulate PSU and to protect Jerry from himself, they took measured steps to prevent a one on one situation on PSU property from occurring in the future.

It's obvious the PSU administrators were not concerned in the least that a boy might have been abused. But none of them had direct responsibility for either Jerry or the boy. And none of them were professionally trained to recognize grooming behavior. Regardless of whether the incident warranted a formal report, Tim Curley told the one person who had both the professional training and the legal obligation to make that determination. The minute it was learned that Jack Raykovitz was informed, the entire focus of this incident should have shifted to TSM.

Punishing amateurs for the failure of professionals doesn't make sense. There's an ulterior motive behind why it has happened in this instance. It's about time we started getting to the bottom of it!

 

[Zenophile]

What are your credentials? Why does it matter?

You're sole argument here is that you disagree with a subject matter expert. Great. Based on what?

So one more time: What are your credentials?

 

[Zenophile]

Which is why Joe should have taken the coward that was MM to the police station and had him fill out a report. Clearly, MM was incapable of doing it on his own.

Which was an unnecessary step according to the mandated reporter who queried MM on the night of the incident.

 

[Bob78]

Aside from the fact that Jerry had permission to be there, I think you inadvertently make a good point. The people involved had known Jerry for decades. Whatever they thought of him, you can be sure that his being sexually attracted to young boys was not considered possible. And nothing McQueary told anyone convinced them otherwise.

However, this incident, coupled with the '98 incident, did raise a huge red flag. They realized that all it would take is one angry mom and PSU would be a sitting duck with deep pockets in a civil suit. That risk was real whether Sandusky abused anyone or not. The accusation, along with the negative publicity, was more than enough to do damage to the university. Therefore, to insulate PSU and to protect Jerry from himself, they took measured steps to prevent a one on one situation on PSU property from occurring in the future.

It's obvious the PSU administrators were not concerned in the least that a boy might have been abused. But none of them had direct responsibility for either Jerry or the boy. And none of them were professionally trained to recognize grooming behavior. Regardless of whether the incident warranted a formal report, Tim Curley told the one person who had both the professional training and the legal obligation to make that determination. The minute it was learned that Jack Raykovitz was informed, the entire focus of this incident should have shifted to TSM.

Punishing amateurs for the failure of professionals doesn't make sense. There's an ulterior motive behind why it has happened in this instance. It's about time we started getting to the bottom of it!

However, this incident, coupled with the '98 incident, did raise a huge red flag.

You make good points.
I will argue that the '98 incident actually lowers the flag. They knew '98 was deemed a non-criminal event (rightly or wrongly), and that, coupled with their probable presumption of JS's innocence, made the report as given to them in '01 less alarming that it should have been. Normal human reaction, imo.
Maybe that even reduced it to a 'here we go again', but as you point out, they still took the next step(s) to report to TSM.... and now we learn, probably to CYS as well. And Harmon, too, perhaps. Again your point is well-taken... whether all just CYA or not, proper steps were taken to alert the SMEs.

 

[rmb297]

I'll only provide the caveat that unless you have been subjected to the corruption and willful malice of the PA courts (as I once was), you cannot pass judgment on the legal decisions Gary and Tim made.

Agree on that point. The defense teams had no idea that they were being deceived by the prosecution on a number of things. That said, some very solid research on the workings o the Pennsylvania child protection system and its past (miserable) performance could have made for a very different approach to the case.

 

[rmb297]

However, this incident, coupled with the '98 incident, did raise a huge red flag.

You make good points.
I will argue that the '98 incident actually lowers the flag. They knew '98 was deemed a non-criminal event (rightly or wrongly), and that, coupled with their probable presumption of JS's innocence, made the report as given to them in '01 less alarming that it should have been. Normal human reaction, imo.
Maybe that even reduced it to a 'here we go again', but as you point out, they still took the next step(s) to report to TSM.... and now we learn, probably to CYS as well. And Harmon, too, perhaps. Again your point is well-taken... whether all just CYA or not, proper steps were taken to alert the SMEs.

Agree that it would not only have lowered the flag at Penn State, but would have caused the flag to be folded up and be put away by CYS in 2001.

The AG used grand jury secrecy as a shield and a sword in this case. Many witnesses are still under non-disclosure orders.

I'm a patient man. In the end, the report to CYS will be brought into the light of day.

 

[getmyjive11]

They would have had cause to fire him. Especially as he was not a witness. The standard policy in most places when you have a second hand report of CSA is to give it to the designated authority at your institution and then leave it alone. You are not even supposed to ask about it again. I've worked with a worldwide charity and this is their policy--and we had required training on it before being permitted to work with them.

There are reasons for that. False claims or publicity of CSA can ruin a persons life--to the point of death in some cultures for the accused or accuser or both. It's one reason why the Commonwealth has a rule about expunging accusations after a certain time if found to be unfounded (and incidentally why there would be no record of any report made to the state by CSS or their subordinates if such happened--there's no way to know because it would have been expunged).

Perhaps that protocol was wrong. But it's the same protocol the NCAA put in place after all of this took place.

Joe Paterno would not have been fired. MM would not have been fired. No one would have been fired.

 

[getmyjive11]

By McQueary? I’m not sure about that. He’s has proven himself to be pretty spineless.
If you are referring to Joe, I’m not sure about that either. Joe did take it further. He took it to the people responsible for handling these situations. Once it’s in their hands, it’s out of his (I know you consider this CYA. I consider it taking the proper steps.). I really have no problem with the steps Joe took.

No, my thought is that Mikes Dad and the Dr would have made MM call the police. Jerry is the reason they told him to go to the football coach.

 

[getmyjive11]

Here's what would have happened had Joe called the police:

Joe: I'd like to report a potential crime.
Police: when and where did you see this crime committed?
Joei: I didn't, one of my employees did.
Police: have him or her call me, you've got the number

click.

LOL, come on now. The police wouldn’t push Joe away. They would take his info and then go to Mike.

 

[getmyjive11]

That's not really what JVP said under oath and you are well aware of that.

That is exactly what Joe said under oath, don’t lie. He also talked about fondling.

 

[Connorpozlee]

No, my thought is that Mikes Dad and the Dr would have made MM call the police. Jerry is the reason they told him to go to the football coach.

It’s all conjecture, really. Regardless of why they told little Mikey to talk to the football coach instead of the police (and regardless of why little Mikey needed somebody to tell him what to do if he really saw what he claims to have seen) Joe handled the report properly.

 

[Mixolydian]

Aside from the fact that Jerry had permission to be there, I think you inadvertently make a good point. The people involved had known Jerry for decades. Whatever they thought of him, you can be sure that his being sexually attracted to young boys was not considered possible. And nothing McQueary told anyone convinced them otherwise.

However, this incident, coupled with the '98 incident, did raise a huge red flag. They realized that all it would take is one angry mom and PSU would be a sitting duck with deep pockets in a civil suit. That risk was real whether Sandusky abused anyone or not. The accusation, along with the negative publicity, was more than enough to do damage to the university. Therefore, to insulate PSU and to protect Jerry from himself, they took measured steps to prevent a one on one situation on PSU property from occurring in the future.

It's obvious the PSU administrators were not concerned in the least that a boy might have been abused. But none of them had direct responsibility for either Jerry or the boy. And none of them were professionally trained to recognize grooming behavior. Regardless of whether the incident warranted a formal report, Tim Curley told the one person who had both the professional training and the legal obligation to make that determination. The minute it was learned that Jack Raykovitz was informed, the entire focus of this incident should have shifted to TSM.

Punishing amateurs for the failure of professionals doesn't make sense. There's an ulterior motive behind why it has happened in this instance. It's about time we started getting to the bottom of it!

Great post.

 

[Obliviax]

LOL, come on now. The police wouldn’t push Joe away. They would take his info and then go to Mike.

You don't know that...can't even speculate. If Harmon was called, he'd have gone to Schultz and the same thing would have happened. The reality is that there was no identifiable victim because only JS knew who the kid was. And, TSM didn't keep notes. MM's situation, by itself, was no more actionable than 1998. So the only thing that could have happened is for PSU to go back to TSM to see if there were any corroborating reports. That was done and TSM punted.

What made MM actionable, was the other witnesses.

If they arrested JS based on what MM said he saw, without the witness to confirm, MM's case would have been tossed because he really never saw anything other than a man and a boy in a shower....and that is creepy but not illegal.

 

[getmyjive11]

It’s all conjecture, really. Regardless of why they told little Mikey to talk to the football coach instead of the police (and regardless of why little Mikey needed somebody to tell him what to do if he really saw what he claims to have seen) Joe handled the report properly.

He certainly could have done more, particularly months later when nothing happened.

 

[getmyjive11]

You don't know that...can't even speculate. If Harmon was called, he'd have gone to Schultz and the same thing would have happened.

It would be gross negligence by the PD.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

It would be gross negligence by the PD.

Right. Reporting to his "report to" is gross negligence. You are a jive ass turkey.

He would have had to report to his superior.....if it was an issue of this magnitude. If he knew, and if he did not, it was he who was negligent.

Would be very interesting in knowing the name of the political sponsor who put him in that job.

Funny how none of our crack investigative team can give us a sniff on that....or anybody else's political sponsorship.....or the involvement of political people with Names That Cannot Be Spoken. Nobody gets state or county jobs at these levels without political sponsorship. Ever. Not in the days of any of these hires.

 

[Obliviax]

It would be gross negligence by the PD.

No it wouldn't:

• They'd interview MM and get the exact same conclusions that Dad, Dranov, Paterno, Curley and Schultz came to.
• They'd try to find the child but others tried that and were unsuccessful, or the child backed Jerry's claims, we really don't know for sure.
• They'd go back to TSM but TSM didn't keep records, as far as we know, but said that JS was pretty clean with regard to complaints.

In the end, nothing actionable.

 

[getmyjive11]

Right. Reporting to his "report to" is gross negligence. You are a jive ass turkey.

I don’t think you are responding to what I wrote.

 

[getmyjive11]

No it wouldn't:

• They'd interview MM and get the exact same conclusions that Dad, Dranov, Paterno, Curley and Schultz came to.
• They'd try to find the child but others tried that and were unsuccessful, or the child backed Jerry's claims, we really don't know for sure.
• They'd go back to TSM but TSM didn't keep records, as far as we know, but said that JS was pretty clean with regard to complaints.

In the end, nothing actionable.

What?? You cannot believe that.

 

[pandaczar12]

He certainly could have done more, particularly months later when nothing happened.

How was he supposed to know that "nothing happened for months" wasn't the appropriate thing? Just another false alarm like 1998.

 

[Connorpozlee]

He certainly could have done more, particularly months later when nothing happened.

Not his role. Honestly, his responsibility was not to check in everybody in that situation. He got the guy who saw something in touch with the people who handle those situations.
Pretty unreasonable to expect him to do more than that. From the sounds of it, he even checked with little Mikey who said he was fine with how things had been handled. Or something along those lines. What is he supposed to do with that?

 

[JmmyW]

8.B. The policy described in subparagraph (A) shall address the following areas:

8.B.(v) Informing students of their options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying such authorities, if the student so chooses.​

"If the student so chooses." In other words, it is the victim's decision whether or not police are informed. Now, this isn't always the case.

I think you have misread the statute.

The words "if the student so chooses" refers to "the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying (law enforcement) authorities.The first sentence has already established the option to notify proper law enforcement authorities.

Beyond that, there is nothing in the Clery Act that requires a victim to tell anyone of an assault. So obviously a student has that choice.

I think your attempt to use the Clery Act as a justification for not contacting law enforcement authorities in the Sandusky case is misguided.

The provisions that you cited refer to procedures as relate to a known victim; which is not the case in the Sandusky matter.

I would suggest that nobody would seriously contend that the Clery Act prevents the notification of law enforcement of a sexual assault observed on campus by a known perpetrator against an unidentified student.

I attempted to start out in this sub-thread with simple questions. Was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?

I agree that calling police was a rational option. And that the Clery Act doesn't prevent it in cases of suspected child sexual abuse.

I didn't misread the clause in the Clery Act. I used that to explain why certain things were written into the university procedure. (Feel free to ignore that & go back to my original question - was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?)

I am not attempting to use the Clery Act as a justification for not contacting law enforcement. (Feel free to ignore that & go back to my original question - was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?)

You're right that all of those provisions relate to a known victim. That's the point. There's nothing really in the Clery Act, Title IX laws, current or former university procedures, or even in the current CPSL about what to do with an unknown victim. So again I'll ask - was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?

Does all this seem to highlight a big procedural gap existed back then?

Did you know Freeh was specifically charged with reviewing all of the university's procedures and identifying any gaps that existed? The gap was obviously found since it was fixed with the adoption of AD72.

Here's some ore background on all that:

I agree that calling police was a rational option.

However, I disagree with your last sentence, "But the idea that to do so would have been wrong or impossible, or breaking some rule is not reasonable."

There is at least one argument that illustrates that calling police may have broken protocol unless certain other things happened first. And I admit this argument gets pretty messy and nuanced. Bear with me.

It's important to highlight one of the key differences between the 1998 and 2001 incidents. In 1998, a mother got concerned after hearing her son showered with Sandusky so she first contacted her son's therapist (Dr. Chambers) to make sure she wasn't nuts, and then she contacted Penn State police (and Chambers made a Childline report). In 2001, the Child was not identified. There was no complaining parent, guardian, or child.

The next important thing to highlight is Paterno's last public words - his response to the last question in his interview by Sally Jenkins on 1/13/2012:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/sports/paterno-interview/

JENKINS: Again, why didn't you follow up more (in 2002)?

PATERNO: I was shocked. And then I got pretty sad. I didn't know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the University procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise that I did. It didn't work out that way.​

Paterno said he was afraid to jeopardize what the University procedure was.

If you're like me, then you might wonder what procedure Paterno was talking about.

There were multiple investigations that should have uncovered those procedures:

• The Department of Education's Clery Act investigation
• The internal investigation initiated by Erickson appointing an ethics officer to review all procedures
• The NCAA's investigation in which they specifically asked Penn State what procedures were or were not followed
• Freeh's independent investigation in which he claimed to have reviewed all procedures

Any guesses as to which if any of the above investigations publicized their findings with respect to what procedure Paterno might've been afraid to jeopardize?

If you're thinking none of them, then you're right. I hope you're also wondering why that's the case. You'd think someone what have the intellectual curiosity to dig into what Paterno might've been talking about. Freeh even quoted Paterno's response above to Jenkins in his report - once in the executive summary at page 16, and again in the body of the report at page 77.

There was exactly one Penn State policy that addressed sexual assault in February 2001. Policy AD12, titled "Sexual Assault."

Before I get into that in more detail, here's some background on the various investigations that should have uncovered this. To be fair, Freeh included AD12 in a list of relevant policies at page 36 in his report, but he provided no analysis of it or even a copy.


### Clery Act Invetigation, Letter from Department of Education, 11/9/2011
http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/DoE_Letter_110911.pdf

Among the items the DOE requested from Penn State:

2. A copy of the catalog and student handbook for the University and for each separate College, school, division, or location within PSU for the academic years 1998-2011; Indicate (flag/tab) the specific portion or location that relates to the Clery Act.

6. The relevant portion of any applications, brochures, disclosures, forms, and other publications related to the Clery Act that is normally distributed to 1) prospective students; 2) prospective employees; 3) first-time students; and, 4) new hires of the University and all Colleges, schools, etc. within PSU that address campus crime and campus security; ​

In theory, procedures related to sexual assault, suspected sexual assault, and any procedures related to the Clery Act would have been provided by Penn State to the DOE.


### Erickson’s ethics officer was supposed to review all policies, 11/11/2011
http://news.psu.edu/story/153710/20...erickson-shares-promises-penn-state-community

Among Erickson's promises to the Penn State community:

We will revisit all standards, policies and programs to ensure they meet not only the law, but Penn State's standard. To oversee this effort, I will appoint an Ethics Officer that will report directly to me.​

And:

Penn State is committed to transparency to the fullest extent possible given the ongoing investigations. I commit to providing meaningful and timely updates as frequently as needed.​

### NCAA letter to PSU (from Emmert to Erickson), 11/17/2011
http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf

Among other things, the letter outlined four questions for PSU to answer by December 16, 2011, providing them 30 days to prepare answers. Among the questions asked:

2. How has Penn State exercised institutional control over the issues identified in and related to the Grand Jury Report? Were there procedures in place that were or were not followed? What are the institution’s expectations and policies to address the conduct that has been alleged in this matter upon discovery by any party?

4. What policies and procedures does Penn State have in place to monitor, prevent and detect the issues identified in and related to the Grand Jury Report or to take disciplinary or corrective action if such behaviors are found?​

Indeed these questions are relevant in understanding what happened. As it turns out, PSU did request a delay in answering them until after Freeh’s report was released. In pressers after the Freeh report came out, Erickson mentions that it's time to answer the NCAA questions, and Emmett mentioned he was looking forward to getting the answers (since the Freeh report didn't answer them).

The topic of this letter came up in quite a few depositions in the Corman vs NCAA litigation (including Rodney Erickson, Gene Marsh, Mark Emmert, Donald Remy, David Berst and Bob Williams).

During sanction negotiations, this letter was set aside, apparently by agreement between Emmett & Erickson. Penn State never answered the questions in that letter.


### Frazier provides update on Independent Investigation, 1/20/2012
http://news.psu.edu/story/152386/2012/01/20/frazier-provides-update-independent-investigation

The following are partial remarks by Kenneth Frazier from the Jan. 20, 2012 Board of Trustees meeting:

In addition to working to uncover what occurred in the past, Judge Freeh and his team are thoroughly studying, reviewing and testing all of the University’s policies, procedures, compliance and internal controls relating to identifying and reporting of such sex crimes or misconduct. This examination includes, among other things, any failures or gaps in the University’s control environment, compliance programs and culture which may have enabled the alleged misconduct to occur, go undetected, and not be reported and addressed promptly and properly.​

### Frazier provides update on Special Investigation Task Force, 5/4/2012
http://news.psu.edu/story/149114/20...ides-update-special-investigations-task-force

Freeh’s team also is reviewing all University policies, procedures and controls related to identifying and reporting sex crimes and misconduct, including failures or gaps that may have allowed alleged misconduct to go undetected or not be promptly reported and addressed.​

The above is a condensed version of Freeh's remarks at the 5/4/2012 Board of Trustees meeting, at page 8 of the minutes:
http://www.psu.edu/trustees/pdf/may2012minutesbot.pdf

Additionally, as I previously have reported, besides working to uncover what occurred in the past, Judge Freeh and his team are thoroughly studying, reviewing and testing all of the University's policies, procedures, compliance and internal controls relating to the identifying and reporting of such sex crimes and misconduct. This examination includes, among other things, any failures or gaps in the University's control environment, compliance programs and culture which may have enabled the alleged misconduct to occur, go undetected, and not be reported and addressed promptly and properly.​

So here we have Frazier promising his fellow board members and the Penn State community that Freeh would be conducting a comprehensive review and test of all university proceedures, to include a procedural gap analysis.


### Freeh's Press Release, 7/12/2012
http://www.psu.edu/ur/2012/Press_Release_07_12_12.pdf

Here is part of Freeh's press release on the day his report was released:

In our investigation, we sought to clarify what occurred, including who knew what and when events happened, and to examine the University's policies, procedures, compliance and internal controls relating to identifying and reporting sexual abuse of children.​

### Freeh Report – What did it say about whether procedures were followed in 2001?
Freeh’s focus on PSU policies is largely centered on the Clery act compliance and the fact PSU did not have formal policies in place to ensure compliance with the Clery Act.

What Freeh failed to do was examine what policies were in place that Paterno might have consulted.

The Freeh Report, at page 36, listed AD12 in the list of relevant procedures. But it made no further mention of it. And he made no mention of the Sexual Assault Protocol.


### Freeh Claims to Have Performed Detailed Legal Analyses on the Clery Act and PA reporting requirements, 6/6/2016
Penn State's and Pepper Hamilton's Joint Memorandum of Law in Support of Privilege Claims in Paterno vs. NCAA
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA PEPPER HAMILTONS JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PRIVILEGE CLAIMS.pdf

At page 5:

... the Freeh Report also contains detailed legal analyses of the Clery Act ...​

The detailed legal analyses of the Clery Act provisions in the Freeh Report amounted to three pages (p.112-114) summarizing just four provisions of the Clery Act. This was hardly "detailed legal analyses".


### Penn State received the Department of Education's Clery Act Report, 11/3/2016
http://news.psu.edu/story/435576/20...receives-clery-report-us-department-education

In response to the Clery report, University leaders issued a statement that reads in part:

Penn State provided the federal government with unfettered access to all requested information in the Department of Education review. This review, in scope and duration, is unprecedented by the Department of Education. The review is focused on past incidents, policies and procedures from 1998-2011.​

### The Clery Act Report makes no mention of policies in effect in 2001
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/...center/cleryact/pennstate/PSCFPRD10327991.pdf

The Clery Act report on Penn State makes no mention of the specific policies that were in effect in 2001. However, there are a handful of extracts from the report that are important in understanding what the Clery Act requires.

At page 49:

One of the central precepts of the Clery Act is an acknowledgement of the fact that students and employees in a higher education setting will often opt to not report crimes directly to law enforcement and will instead choose to first, and perhaps solely, report to another trusted source. This required disclosure reflects that reality and stands for the principle that victims and witnesses should have these options and deserve to know where such reports can be directed and what actions will follow from filing a report.​

At page 19:

Under the Clery Act, institutions are required to comply with the policies and procedures established by the institution.​

### Clery Act, relevant extracts
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOD...11-title20-chap28-subchapIV-partF-sec1092.htm

Paragraph 8.B.(v) is most relevant, and describes one of the items that must be included in university sexual assault procedures:

8.B. The policy described in subparagraph (A) shall address the following areas:

8.B.(v) Informing students of their options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying such authorities, if the student so chooses.​

"If the student so chooses." In other words, it is the victim's decision whether or not police are informed. Now, this isn't always the case. And the Clery Act gives universities flexibility in how they craft their procedures. But this is one of the basic elements.

This element was codified in a 1992 amendment to the Clery Act, known as the Federal Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill of Rights.


### The Federal Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights | Clery Center For Security On Campus
https://web.archive.org/web/2013081...al-campus-sexual-assault-victims’-bill-rights

The Federal Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights:​

• • Survivors shall be notified of their options to notify law enforcement.
  • Accuser and accused must have the same opportunity to have others present.
  • Both parties shall be informed of the outcome of any disciplinary proceeding.
  • Survivors shall be notified of counseling services.
  • Survivors shall be notified of options for changing academic and living situations.

The Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights was signed into law by President George Bush in July of 1992. This law requires that all colleges and universities (both public and private) participating in federal student aid programs afford sexual assault victims certain basic rights. Schools found to have violated this law can be fined up to $35,000 or lose their eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs. Complaints about schools that have filed to comply with this law should be made to the U.S. Department of Education.

The “Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights” exists as a part of the campus security reporting requirements, commonly known as the Jeanne Clery Act.​

So how exactly did Penn State craft their sexual assault policy after these updates to the Clery Act? The sexual assault policy that was in effect in February 2001 was initially released in November 1996. That policy referred to a separate document, the Sexual Assault Protocol, for reporting guidance. That protocol was initially released in Fall 1995.


### Policy AD12 in effect in February 2001
Here's the Sexual Assault Policy in effect in February 2001 - "Policy AD12 Sexual Assault":
https://web.archive.org/web/20000817201026/http://www.guru.psu.edu/policies/ad12.html

Reporting requirements from the version linked above referred to the Protocol to Assist Victims of Relationship, Domestic and Sexual Violence. Here is the entire section on reporting from AD12:

REPORTING:

Guidelines for how and when to report sexual assault to University and/or law enforcement officials are contained in the Sexual Assault Protocol, copies of which are available from the Administrative Office of University Health Services. The Sexual Assault Committee, appointed by the Vice President for Student Affairs, will provide University-wide oversight for policy and procedures relating to sexual assault, including data collection, monitoring of trends and establishing educational programs designed to foster an environment that is intolerant of acts of violence.​

Policy AD12 simply refers to another document, the Sexual Assault Protocol, which provides reporting guidance. Copies of the Fall 2001 version of that document used to be available on the University website. They were removed at some point after 6/17/2012.

The version of the Sexual Assault Protocol that was in effect in February 2001 has more relevance to what Paterno might have been referring to when he said he was afraid to jeopardize university procedure. Unfortunately, there are no active internet links to that version. That doesn't mean I've been unable to dig up a copy.


### Sexual Assault Protocol in effect in February 2001
The following are excerpts from the Sexual Assault Protocol that was in effect in February 2001. To my knowledge, this version of the document is not publicly accessible on the internet.

At page 1 under "I. Philosophy":

Due to the extremely sensitive nature of the crime of rape, it is important to provide confidential services to victims. There is a reluctance on the part of most victims to seek services and to report: thus, it is especially important to provide those who come forward with a protected environment. When certain protocols require that the incident be reported, such as in the case of hospital treatment or injury resulting from the rape, the victim must be informed of the notification that must take place.​

At page 3 under "II. Procedures, B. Staff Responsibilities, 1. Victim Contact":

At University Park

Centre Community Hospital Reports all sexual assaults to police. It is the victim's choice whether or not to talk to the police.​

At page 4 under "Reporting to Law Enforcement Authorities":

The University encourages victims to report sexual assaults to law enforcement authorities. If the assault happened recently, whether or not to report to police is a decision the victim will need to make fairly soon.​

At at page 5 in the same section under "(b) Reporting to Law Enforcement Authorities":

If the victim chooses to report, encourage her/him to make the phone call.​

It should be obvious at this point that the language in the Sexual Assault Protocol exists largely as a result of the requirements dictated by the Clery Act, which is federal law.


This is where it gets messy. We're talking about university officials in 2001 who had no real experience or training in responding to allegations of child sexual abuse. However, there were established procedures for dealing sexual assault allegations in a university setting, whether it was among students, faculty, or staff.


And it was the Clery Act that provided guidance on the types of things that universities in general needed to include in their procedures that dealt with sexual assault. Unfortunately, that guidance was specific to adult (or university student) victims, not child victims. Worse yet, it was aimed at identifiable victims, or those who had access to and could read those university procedures. That's another key part of the Clery Act - not only do the procedures have to contain certain things, they must be readily available to the university community. Today, that means they must be on university websites & easy to find.


University procedures in 2001, in general, at least with regard to requirements set forth by the Clery Act, were never designed for child victims and certainly not unidentifiable child victims.


Sally Jenkins asked Paterno why he didn't follow up more. He said, in part, that he was afraid to jeopardize university. Was he talking about the Sexual Assault Protocol? Did he read it back in 2001? If so, he read the following phrases:

• Due to the extremely sensitive nature of the crime of rape, it is important to provide confidential services to victims.
• When certain protocols require that the incident be reported ... the victim must be informed of the notification that must take place.
• whether or not to report to police is a decision the victim will need to make fairly soon.
• If the victim chooses to report, encourage her/him to make the phone call.
• It is the victim's choice whether or not to talk to the police.

Now imagine it's you reading these phrases in 2001, without knowing anything about child sexual abuse, you have uncertainty about whether there was an assault, and you have no idea who the victim is? Would you have a clear idea on what to do? You'd probably hand it off to your boss. You might even show him this procedure and explain you're not sure if calling the police is the right thing to do. You might explain it's not really our right to make that decision. You might also say that we need to hear from the child and his parents. And if they do want to report, and they choose to, I don't think they're going to come to us, they'd probably go right to the police.


### Almost Done
I've written about parts of this before, in the context of how a deposition of Freeh might have played out:
https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/freeh-deposition-in-paterno-v-ncaa-lawsuit/

I got some feedback on that blogpost from Jim Clemente. He summed up the issues quite well and noted the procedural gap that existed. Here is part of what he said:

It's clear the Clery Act & PSU Policy wasn't meant for child sex cases. In those cases it is never up to the child whether a report should be made. So it is in fact a gap that existed & should have been addressed.

Problem is most Universities did not consider themselves "youth serving organizations " when in fact they were.

Adult students are and should be capable of making informed decisions about whether or not to report sexual assault, rape, etc. but children should never be involved in that process. The law is meant to protect them. They are not developmentally capable of making such a decision.​

Importantly, Penn State fixed the procedural gap that existed.

Among the first (and perhaps best) recommendation Freeh made was that the university should create a procedure specific to reporting child abuse. At page 130-131, in Chapter 10 on recommendations, in the subsection on policies and procedures, he noted: "the absence or poor enforcement of policies relating to the protection of children".

Even before the Freeh report was released, Penn State adopted one of his early recommendations. Namely, to institute a new policy aimed specifically at reporting suspected child abuse. It's policy AD72 which was approved on 5/14/2012. You can find a copy of it at the end the Freeh Report, at page 254.


Why haven't we seen this type of discussion and analysis before? It's obvious a procedural gap existed. It's equally obvious that this procedural gap was effectively closed. Is it simply that the explanation is too nuanced? Had Freeh put forth a similar analysis in his report, how do you think the public would have received it? Or did Freeh have a narrative he had to stick to? Did Penn State seek out the sanctions and the Consent Decree so they wouldn't have to answer the NCAA questions? Did the Department of Education avoid this type of discussion in their Clery Act Report on Penn State? Did the DOE purposely avoid this discussion by their own choice? Is it possible this was addressed in the preliminary DOE report that Penn State was given in 2013 to comment on? Why did it take more than three years for the final DOE report to be made public?


### One more thing
Penn State's internal ethics officer, the DOE, the NCAA, and Freeh aren't the only investigators that failed to allow this information to become public.

At the 12/16/2011 preliminary hearing, during cross-examination of McQueary, there was this brief exchange at page 103:
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...chultz/12-16-Preliminary-Trial-Transcript.pdf

Q: In all of the conversations, meetings you've had with Coach Paterno since that first time you talked to him about this incident, he never said the police should have been called?

MR. BEEMER: Objection to the relevance of what Coach Paterno said should have been done.

THE COURT: Sustained. ​

It seems not even the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General was interested in hearing the answer.


/sorry for the length, and the tendency to overload on quotes, and the rambling; I wish I had more answers

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/memory-issues.171360/page-6#post-2743277


To be clear, I am not trying to make excuses for anyone. I'm trying to understand what might have happened and identify any lessons learned that should have been communicated but weren't.

If it is possible Paterno, Curley, or Schultz consulted that procedure, I am not saying there were afraid to violate it. But the procedure is clear that the victim should have as much control as possible over what happens with any reporting that is made. The whole point of that philosophy is to encourage victims to come forward primarily so they can get medial and psychological services, because it's been long recognized many victims are afraid to come forward because they fear going to police and the thought of having to relive the event in a confrontational court situation.

And yes, there are situations where victims can't be given full control because reporting to police is absolutely mandated, but the procedures are very clear that they have to be informed before that occurs.

So going back to 2001. Did those men receive a clear and unequivocal report of sexual assault? Maybe not. Were there strong suspicions? I think so. Had any of those men been involved in reports of sexual assault before? I think that's likely. How many of them involved a victim who was insistent that things be taken care of, but that they didn't want to go to police? Perhaps some; maybe even a majority? Is it possible they understood the importance of respecting a victim's wishes is the right thing to do, and that the victim's physical and emotional health is an extremely important factor to consider? I think so.

Had that child victim and/or his parent(s) come forward I tend to think they would have all they could to assist him. In the absence of a victim coming forward, what do you think they thought was the right course of action? Find a way to get information to that boy's parent(s) and let them know they were aware of a suspicious situation and had a witness? Maybe talk to the head of the offender's charity - the guy most reasonably able to identify that boy - as a way to get information to the parent(s)? And allow the parents to decide what the best course of action was for their son's emotional well-being?

To be honest - I have no idea if the procedures back then guided any of the actions those men took.


But doesn't it seem reasonable that it should be considered as a possibility, at least as it relates to illustrating potential lessons learned? How many universities do you think adopted specific child abuse procedures since PSU did in May 2012? How many universities only have procedures aimed at university students in order to be compliant with the Clery Act and Title IX?

FYI - I've looked into whether Michigan State has policies that adequately address child abuse. They do. However, I've only been able to find the policy that was updated on 1/1/2015, after MSU had conducted a three month investigation that cleared Larry Nassar of an allegation in 2014, and most recent revision to the policy before that was in June 2011.


Last point for your consideration. Here's some Title IX guidance from the Department of Educations's 4/4/2011 Dear Colleague letter, which was sent to universities to remind them of their responsibilities to take immediate and effective steps to respond to sexual violence in accordance with the requirements of Title IX.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf

Schools also should inform and obtain consent from the complainant (or the complainant's parents if the complainant is under 18 and does not attend a postsecondary institution) before beginning an investigation. If the complainant requests confidentiality or asks that the complaint not be pursued, the school should take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the complaint consistent with the request for confidentiality or request not to pursue an investigation.

 

[colt21]

What?? You cannot believe that.

I know its been 16 pages and I haven't read all of them so I'm just jumping in here at the end but I see you're up to your old tricks again.

Here is the deal - this is not solely for you but for everyone.

I call it - "The Proper Thing To Do"

* MM - if he saw what he says he thinks he saw - DIRECTLY to Police (do NOT pass go; do NOT talk to Dad, DD, Joe or anyone else)

* Joe - when you receive a report from a subordinate like this then you look it up in the book and follow procedures - hmmmmmmmmmmm, that seems like exactly what he did - Great Job Joe !!

* I'll bypass DD and Dad here for the sake of space

* JR - when you are the head of a charity who receives a report of an incident (we all agree he received the report), then NO MATTER how watered down it was, you have a duty to follow up with your state mandated protocols - period, end of story, drop the mic.

The Fact that JR could serve as a "prosecution witness" for anyone is so ludicrous it literally boggles the mind of anyone with a social service background ..............

GMJ - quit trying to pin this on Joe - I'm beginning to think you have some sort of vested interest in this.

Joe did what he should have in his role with the information he had at that time; further, he helped convict JS; and, finally, he was a very minimal player in the whole situation.

Like I said - "If you care about the kids then quit focusing your efforts on a freaking football coach"!

 

[BobPSU92]

By the way - do you have a copy of the University policy in 2011 regarding this type of situation? I have never seen any statement that says "but, go ahead and call police if you want".

You didn't see the multiple-choice policy with a subset of instructions on how to fail morally and do the legal minimum? Sadly, Joe only read that part of the policy.

 

[Obliviax]

I know its been 16 pages and I haven't read all of them so I'm just jumping in here at the end but I see you're up to your old tricks again.

Here is the deal - this is not solely for you but for everyone.

I call it - "The Proper Thing To Do"

* MM - if he saw what he says he thinks he saw - DIRECTLY to Police (do NOT pass go; do NOT talk to Dad, DD, Joe or anyone else)

* Joe - when you receive a report from a subordinate like this then you look it up in the book and follow procedures - hmmmmmmmmmmm, that seems like exactly what he did - Great Job Joe !!

* I'll bypass DD and Dad here for the sake of space

* JR - when you are the head of a charity who receives a report of an incident (we all agree he received the report), then NO MATTER how watered down it was, you have a duty to follow up with your state mandated protocols - period, end of story, drop the mic.

The Fact that JR could serve as a "prosecution witness" for anyone is so ludicrous it literally boggles the mind of anyone with a social service background ..............

GMJ - quit trying to pin this on Joe - I'm beginning to think you have some sort of vested interest in this.

Joe did what he should have in his role with the information he had at that time; further, he helped convict JS; and, finally, he was a very minimal player in the whole situation.

Like I said - "If you care about the kids then quit focusing your efforts on a freaking football coach"!

Very good. Of ALL of the people you named, Joe was the LAST person that should have called this thing vaguely referred to as "the police". Joe did exactly as Joe should have done, which is current NCAA policy for a coach, inform the AD and someone outside the sports reporting structure.

 

[PSU2UNC]

That is exactly what Joe said under oath, don’t lie. He also talked about fondling.

When you omit the "I don't know what you call it" you are purposefully being dishonest. Just like the OAG.

 

[marshall23]

I agree with you totally just would add knowing how CYS held Sandusky in high esteem not sure the phone call would of stopped anything

Most hear who act like a call would have made things any different are influenced by hindsight. They ignore the fact that Jerry was revered and even lauded by the President of the United States. There are people that I have known practically all of my life who were good friends with The Sandusky's and they never believed that Jerry was guilty.