Paterno's statue removed, Penn State sanctions announced

[WestCoastJoe]

Wow.

It is a sick world. We know that. This Penn State situation sounds like the Maple Leaf Gardens scandal. And the guy that molested Theoren Fleury.

Paterno is in his 80's. Now he will no doubt be wishing he retired at 65 or so.

His friend, coach Sandusky, is bringing great damage to that university, and to people who treated him as friend, as well as his own family, and of course all those victims.

Paterno reported what he heard to his boss. It ended there. Not good enough. I'm guessing Paterno was in denial, or just could not rat out his friend.

I'm not getting up on any moral high horse here. Just kind of taken aback.

[notahomer]

Been surprised at how long Joe Paterno has held out (nothing to do with this scandal). He must just love his job because he's been head coach of Penn State longer than I've been alive and I'm in my early 40's. Apparently I've heard he's terrified of dying because of how quickly Bear Bryant died after he retired.

As for the scandal itself, it just sounds weird. I guess I don't get the facts yet. He did pass it on right? But not to the right people (the police). Penn State has always been my favourite NCAA team with the plain uniforms and the black shoes. Based on the limited facts I have heard, I'm surprised he was fired because he did say he'd step down at the end of the year. Message needed to be sent, I guess. Then again, if he knew and because of that more boys were molested, then I agree Penn State should have fired him and why didn't he resign first.....

I know its not a sport but the WWE (prowrestling) had a similar sounding scandal but it certainly didn't end up hurting the company the way it probably should have considering how the Penn State situation is being handled. Sexual abuse is probably the only thing a perpetrator won't get a second chance on once it gets the public realm (apparently Sandusky did get second, third chances, based on what I have heard). Drugs, dog-fighting, guns= okay we hope you learned your lesson. This unacceptable, as it should be....

[TheLionKing]

Paterno is an icon in US college football. The university trustees did the right thing in terminating Paterno effective immediately rather than let him finish the season.

[WestCoastJoe]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/11/09/fl ... on-twitter

Henry Burris tweets about Paterno and draws a reaction from Theo Fleury. Not the first time Henry has gotten into trouble tweeting.

Fleury feuds with Burris on Twitter

IAN BUSBY, Calgary Sun

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Henry Burris said he was just trying to start a discussion about the Penn State abuse scandal.

By taking to Twitter to do it, the Calgary Stampeders quarterback brought out criticism from one of Canada’s most high-profile sexual abuse victims.

Burris woke up Wednesday and voiced opinions on Penn State head coach Joe Paterno’s role in the scandal.

Quickly, former Calgary Flames star Theo Fleury called him on comments about Paterno’s responsibility in not alerting authorities about what he found out about former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky with an underage male in 2002.

After Stampeders practice, Burris was backpedaling.

“I never said whether it was good or bad,” Burris said. “I was merely asking questions.

“When people started weighing in, I was happy to see that. I understand when I say something, people will listen. That was my intention. I want people to know it’s unacceptable.”

This isn’t the first time Twitter has caused a problem for Burris. Earlier this season, a foul message was posted on Burris’ account, but the veteran QB said he didn’t post that message. The Stamps said they were investigating it, but nothing came of it.

In this case, Burris said he agrees with Fleury that anything suspicious that someone sees should be reported immediately.

The conversation on Twitter went like this:

Burris: “Everyones reacting as if Joe Paterno was in the shower! Let’s be upset and debate his going to the AD but everyone has protocol!!#ESPN”

Fleury: “@HenryBurris So protocol take precedence over a kid being sodomized in the shower. You report that to the police ASAP.”

Burris: “@TheoFleury14 if its your best friend for 30 plus years u don’t call police immediately u talk to him first! Anyone can say they saw smthng.”

Burris: “If Paterno had seen it happen with his own eyes he should report it but he didn’t! He received info from someone who say he did! What to do?”

Fleury: “@HenryBurris ok so they talked covered it up and allowed Sandusky to keep molesting boys. Come on Hank. Your better than that.”

After that final message, it seemed like Burris was backing off his statements, but this is another example of how comments can get misconstrued in just 140 characters.

“I’d like to thank @TheoFleury14 for making those points!” Burris added on Twitter. “As u know I value lives of young people and I sympathize for the victims involved!”

If it is not reported to the police, it becomes a coverup. And that is what happened. The difficult thing between friends (Paterno and Sandusky) is that the police have to know. False accusations can happen also, but what was told to Paterno has to go to the police, from Paterno or from his boss. In this case, it would have stopped further molestations. Horrible between friends, but if Sandusky says to Paterno, "How could you turn me in?" Paterno could answer, "How could you do those things to kids, and bring this shame on your family, friends and the university?"

[WestCoastJoe]

About the law, I felt like I had taken a course after reading this article ... interesting ...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Michael McCann>SPORTS LAW

Paterno hasn't been charged, but he may have violated law by not going to police

Paterno's statements to grand jury will come under scrutiny as case goes to trial

Even if Paterno isn't criminally charged, he could be found negligent in civil trial

Penn State's trustees fired coach Joe Paterno and president Graham Spanier amid a child sex abuse scandal involving former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

Joe Paterno could still be charged with perjury if authorities find he wasn't truthful in his grand jury testimony.

While Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says that her office won't file charges against Joe Paterno for not reporting the alleged child sexual abuse by former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the 84-year-old coach could eventually face criminal charges for perjury, obstruction of justice and violating the state's Child Protective Services Law. Paterno could also become a defendant in civil lawsuits filed by Sandusky's alleged victims. Those lawsuits could allege that Paterno negligently failed to prevent a third party with whom he had a supervisory relationship (Sandusky) from committing abuse.

Perjury and Obstruction of Justice

Under Pennsylvania law, as in other jurisdictions, perjury refers to knowingly lying while under oath. Obstruction of justice describes interference with the administration of justice, such as by concealing evidence or delaying or frustrating a criminal investigation. While Paterno has thus far escaped these criminal charges, his statements and behavior suggest that he remains vulnerable to them. That is particularly evident when considering troubling inconsistencies between Paterno's testimony to the grand jury that investigated Sandusky and the testimony of Penn State assistant Mike McQueary.

These inconsistencies related to Paterno's and McQueary's statements about "Victim 2" in the grand jury's statement of facts. According to the grand jury's findings of fact, McQueary detailed how in 2002 he saw a naked Sandusky sexually abusing a young boy in the showers in the Penn State football locker room. McQueary also testified that he told Paterno what he saw the following day, though it isn't clear from McQueary's testimony how explicit he was in his description to Paterno.

After hearing from McQueary, Paterno alerted athletic director Tim Curley. Yet instead of relaying what McQueary claims to have told him, Paterno conveyed a milder and vaguer description. Specifically, Paterno testified under oath that McQueary had said that Sandusky was engaged in fondling or "doing something of a sexual nature" to a boy.

To be sure, the phrase "doing something of a sexual nature" technically includes forcibly subjecting a child to anal intercourse, meaning Paterno may have been more evasive than untruthful. Then again, Paterno's hazy choice of words could encompass a band of sexual acts, from raping a 10-year-old boy to inappropriately touching or patting a child, that ranges too widely in heinousness to be deemed consistent with McQueary's allegedly more specific statements. The phrase unnecessarily imports ambiguity and generality where none had existed, and dubiously invites the listener -- Curley -- to assign a lack of severity to the incident. From that lens, Paterno appears to have told Curley a different account than what McQueary had told him.

The inconsistent testimonies raise several questions:

• Did McQueary lie to the grand jury about what he saw or told Paterno?

• Did Paterno lie to the grand jury about what McQueary had told him?

• If neither witness lied, did Paterno intentionally misrepresent what McQueary had told him in order to discourage Curley from aggressively investigating the matter or alerting the police? If so, did Paterno conceal the severity of the evidence or delay the onset of a criminal investigation to such an extent that he obstructed justice?

It should be reiterated that Paterno is at least publicly regarded by law enforcement authorities as a witness, rather than as a possible defendant; if authorities thought his actions clearly violated the law, he would have already been charged, just like Curley and former Penn State senior vice president of business and finance Gary Schultz. For purposes of obstruction of justice, Paterno also benefits from Pennsylvania's statute of limitations, which prevents authorities from charging individuals with crimes after a period of years. Although the length of years can be extended or "tolled" under certain circumstances, authorities would likely encounter difficulty charging Paterno nearly 10 years after the 2002 incident. Statute of limitations would not help Paterno deflect perjury charges, however, as his grand jury testimony occurred within the last year, thereby clearly falling within the applicable five-year statute of limitations.

Nonetheless, the potential exists for Paterno to face both perjury and obstruction of justice charges, especially as the investigation intensifies and as other witnesses, as well as defendants and potential defendants, talk. Also, should Curley and Schultz and, if eventually charged, university president Graham Spanier seek plea deals, they may be willing to implicate Paterno in exchange for more favorable treatment. Paterno, conversely, could seek the same type of arrangement with prosecutors, implicating Curley, Schultz et al. in exchange for avoiding prosecution. It is thus very possible that Penn State officials who worked closely together may wind up in a "prisoner's dilemma" where they will have an incentive to cut a deal and implicate their former colleagues before those former colleagues cut a deal and implicate them.

Child Protective Services Law

Under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law, certain individuals, including teachers and school administrators, have a legal obligation to immediately report suspected child abuse to child protective services or law enforcement, or to a "person in charge" (supervisor), who must then report the alleged abuse to the authorities. The reporting must be honest. When in writing, the reporting must also include known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse, along with other material details.

Within one day of learning from McQueary of the alleged abuse, Paterno notified Curley, his boss. By doing so, Paterno satisfied an obligation to immediately report to a person in charge.

On the other hand, one could read the Child Protective Services Law to classify Paterno as himself a person in charge of McQueary and as one who had a subsequent obligation to report to the authorities. Still, Curley's status as Paterno's boss likely insulates Paterno from liability, at least for failing to notify child protective services or law enforcement.

Paterno may have nonetheless violated the Child Protective Services Law by failing to tell Curley the specific story as told by McQueary and by failing to provide known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse. As discussed above, if McQueary's testimony is true, Paterno appeared to downplay the severity of the incident while speaking with Curley. His portrayal seemed incomplete, if not outright disingenuous. Also, while Paterno made his initial report of the suspected child abuse to Curley by phone, any written communications would have required the known information.

In Paterno's defense, law enforcement authorities have indicated that, in their current view, while Paterno appeared to do the bare minimum, he technically satisfied his legal obligations under the Child Protective Services Law. Whether that viewpoint proves sustainable could depend on the development of new and more incriminating facts and public pressure.

Negligence

Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.

Sandusky's alleged victims could file lawsuits against Penn State for negligently failing to protect them from Sandusky. Under tort law, employers have a duty to prevent their employees from committing crimes or civil harms on others while their employees are engaged in their employment. Even after Sandusky retired, Penn State, by allowing him on campus despite questions about his treatment of children, could have breached a duty of care to children whom Sandusky allegedly abused. Penn State, for its part, could maintain that it took preventative steps, including prohibiting Sandusky from bringing children to campus and taking away his keys to university facilities. It could also portray Sandusky as no longer an employee but rather a retired individual who was permitted to use a very limited range of campus resources.

The alleged victims could also sue Paterno on similar grounds. While Paterno was not technically Sandusky's "boss" after 1999, it seems plausible to assume that Sandusky -- still actively involved with the team, albeit in an informal capacity -- continued to view himself as Paterno's subordinate. Victims of Sandusky could allege that Paterno negligently failed to protect them or to adequately warn authorities of Sandusky's alleged abuse of children.

Should tort lawsuits be filed, expect Penn State, Paterno and other targeted Penn State officials (e.g., Curley, Schultz and Spanier) to attempt to settle the claims before they go to trial. At a minimum, such trials would paint the university and its top officials as immoral and irresponsible, and as embracing a "hear no evil, see no evil" approach to what appears to be the actions of a sadistic man.

Michael McCann is a sports law professor and Sports Law Institute director at Vermont Law School and the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law. He also serves as NBA TV's On-Air Legal Analyst. Follow him on Twitter.

[TheLionKing]

Henry Burris couldn't have pick a worse time to tweet as his team is preparing for the semi final.

[WestCoastJoe]

Henry Burris couldn't have pick a worse time to tweet as his team is preparing for the semi final.

Just between you and me, TLK, IMO Henry's elevator does not always go to the top floor. His mouth runs a lot faster than his brain. He also sulks, just like when he said he did not want to run the short yardage plays. IMO I would expect there is a very good chance he will not be back in Calgary next year.

On the positive side, he has a lot of talent. And, as quarterback, he led Calgary to that Grey Cup. OK, Hufnagel led them.

[sj-roc]

Very tragic story without question, will stain PSU for a long time. And who knows how far back this goes, beyond what has already been disclosed?

Maybe just a coincidence, but the timing of all this coming out, so soon after JP became the all-time winningest Div I coach looks suspicious to me.

Reactions from some current and former PSU players (including one who spent time in Calgary recently) have been collected here: http://psuinthenfl.com/other/penn-state ... o-scandal/

[Sir Purrcival]

This is not surprising me for a variety of reasons. There were all kinds of reputation issues that Penn State would have wanted to protect. Paterno himself is from another generation where you "didn't speak of such things" and then there is that little annoying habit that Universities share in general, the one where they are like a community unto themselves.

Anybody remember Liam Donnelly, the SFU swimming instructor who got falsely accused of sexual harassment, was fired, reputation ruined etc. The matter was handled internally by a Quasi Legal tribunal at the University who like most such tribunals was made up of a collection of University personnel for whom judging and investigating legal matters is not their day job. It was only when suit was brought against the University, that the situation was rectified.

University's are all guilty of thinking in some ways that they are above the law of the normal rank and file. They have their own security, their own internal codes of conduct and their own disciplinary procedures. Sometimes that leads them down the garden path of thinking they are the sole arbiter of how things should be dealt this. No external influences need apply. It is the inevitable result of the cloistered existence that they create. This situation was compounded by the fact that their were literally millions of dollars at stake in the form of Alumni contributions and such. The motivation to handle this quietly, internally was very high. I'm sure that for current administrators, this is their worst nightmare realized. They have been seen to be actively engaged in a cover up of a horrendous act, but continued to let the chief suspect roam at large to possibly victimize other children. All seemingly to protect their reputation and cash flow.

They had no choice but to let Paterno go. I'm sure he is devastated by this and it mars what would otherwise have been a great legacy but he had a duty greater than his allegiance to his job, university and friend. It was a mistake of judgment but it was a huge mistake and for that he could not stand.

[WestCoastJoe]

There are many questions ...

For example, the assistant who observed the "rape" in the shower back in 2002 is still an assistant with the team. How on earth could he carry on since 2002, knowing what he knew, and seeing Sandusky still around the team? And seeing no legal action taken against Sandusky in all that time. Strange.

See no evil? Hear no evil? Say no evil? ... Those days are past. If you see evil nowadays, you have to speak out.

I agree with those who say "people must have known." IMO such goings on would be known, or at least suspected, by many.

And for Sandusky to have access to the gym, an email account with the University, et cetera, suggests he was never truly blackballed from the university.

Suspicions run wild in a case like this. But when I think about the Catholic Church, and all those boys molested, for decades, and all the ones that knew and did nothing, I can't help but suspect that those fired from Penn State are all very complicit in these crimes. Denial would run rampant amongst those who had suspicions and did not want to think about it. And, even worse, one suspects that some of those fired might also be inclined the same way as Sandusky. Then it starts to seem like a nest of sick people. I know that seems like an over-reaction, but the legal authorities must be wondering and suspecting too. Just one pedophile at Penn State? Who knows? But the tarnish and the stain are going to grow.

As someone pointed out, the students protesting about Paterno's dismissal are not helping the university's reputation. What matters more? The record of the football team? The sanctity of a beloved football coach, who at the very least should have done more to inform the police, and end Sandusky's relationship to the school? Or the violation of children?

Very, very sad. Sad comment on humanity. Sandusky was living a lie with his wife, and his own children. He was living a lie with his friends and colleagues. He was investigated back in 2002, or maybe even 1998, and he survived, with percs at the university until now.

[Tighthead]

I'll wager anything his 1999 retirement, at the height of his career and the relatively young age of 55, was related to the 1998 investigation. Those who knew also knew that he was surrounding himself with vulnerable, at risk children in considerable numbers through his charity work.

[WestCoastJoe]

I'll wager anything his 1999 retirement, at the height of his career and the relatively young age of 55, was related to the 1998 investigation. Those who knew also knew that he was surrounding himself with vulnerable, at risk children in considerable numbers through his charity work.

You know, what strikes me is that he founds that organization for kids "at risk." And then he takes those kids at risk and violates them. He is a predator. A wolf in sheep's clothing. And he tarnishes every person and organization he comes into contact with.

[PigSkin_53]

Please someone tell that this "Jerry Sandusky" pervert, is in no way related to the slotback ex-lion/eskimo Jim Sandusky of the early-to-late 1980's?

Someone please???

[KnowItAll]

Please someone tell that this "Jerry Sandusky" pervert, is in no way related to the slotback ex-lion/eskimo Jim Sandusky of the early-to-late 1980's?

Someone please???

as long as they are not the same person, doesnt matter if they are related or not.

[PigSkin_53]

Please someone tell that this "Jerry Sandusky" pervert, is in no way related to the slotback ex-lion/eskimo Jim Sandusky of the early-to-late 1980's?

Someone please???

as long as they are not the same person, doesnt matter if they are related or not.

Agreed KIA...agreed