OT: Drip, Drip, Drip...Penn State never Ends

[msf22b]

Lawyer says he told Penn State official to report Sandusky | Fox News


Lawyer says he told Penn State official to report Sandusky

(Fox News)

 

[DaddyChoc]

 

[Big Fan]

In 1999 Sandusky was investigated by the state and local police and the district attorney and they determined that there was insufficient evidence that he had molested a child. And yet this continues to be a Penn State thing? He was retired in 2001. So even though the local laws enforcement agencies knew, it was Penn States job to keep track of him? He was running a charity for underprivileged boys. What about the responsibility of the school administrators, guidance counselors, parents, teachers, and child services employees who dealt with the boys and Sandusky on a daily basis and also should have been aware of the 1999 charge and they did or said nothing, and yet a university who had no formal dealings with children at this age and had no real contact with Sandusky - they are responsible. How about somebody place the blame on the actual people who had the responsibility to monitor who had contact with the children and didn't do their job ever.

 

[msf22b]

In 1999 Sandusky was investigated by the state and local police and the district attorney and they determined that there was insufficient evidence that he had molested a child. And yet this continues to be a Penn State thing? He was retired in 2001. So even though the local laws enforcement agencies knew, it was Penn States job to keep track of him? He was running a charity for underprivileged boys. What about the responsibility of the school administrators, guidance counselors, parents, teachers, and child services employees who dealt with the boys and Sandusky on a daily basis and also should have been aware of the 1999 charge and they did or said nothing, and yet a university who had no formal dealings with children at this age and had no real contact with Sandusky - they are responsible. How about somebody place the blame on the actual people who had the responsibility to monitor who had contact with the children and didn't do their job ever.

Did you read the article I posted?

 

[meyers7]

Did you read the article I posted?

 

[msf22b]

but time to write an extended rebuttal?

 

[meyers7]

but time to write an extended rebuttal?

Exactly.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Did you read the article I posted?

A rebuttal typically takes specific points and addresses them. The "reply" was more of a STATEMENT on the whole (continued) affair. The media, with glee, had a story line to fill air time for days on end. The news media got hours and hours of coverage, some reputations were wrongfully destroyed, one properly. The problem with public media lynchings is the truth generally is what the media can make of a bad situation. They at times drive the juries. One reason we have so many "Knee jerk" laws (pet peeve).

I tend to agree with MOST of what Big FAN wrote.

This is not a rebuttal ---

PaPa Joe--(I'm not a college or otherwise a football fan) --had his reputation destroyed and this I believe led to his death earlier than it would have occurred without this stress and strain.

Sandusky (nice town-terrible person)--if all written about him is facts--is where he belongs. Convictions , we are learning every day, do not necessarily mean they are guilty. However,
in this case I choose to think he is guilty.

 

[stamfordhusky]

In 1999 Sandusky was investigated by the state and local police and the district attorney and they determined that there was insufficient evidence that he had molested a child. And yet this continues to be a Penn State thing? He was retired in 2001. So even though the local laws enforcement agencies knew, it was Penn States job to keep track of him? He was running a charity for underprivileged boys. What about the responsibility of the school administrators, guidance counselors, parents, teachers, and child services employees who dealt with the boys and Sandusky on a daily basis and also should have been aware of the 1999 charge and they did or said nothing, and yet a university who had no formal dealings with children at this age and had no real contact with Sandusky - they are responsible. How about somebody place the blame on the actual people who had the responsibility to monitor who had contact with the children and didn't do their job ever.

There is a lot of responsibility, and I agree with much of the above. However I wouldn't say that PSU had no real contact with Sandusky after 1999. At that point, he retired but was given full access to the locker rooms, football facilities, their fitness center, and the rest of the campus. He continued to have an office in the PSU football building. They also allowed him to run a camp for young boys on one of the PSU campuses until 2008.

Also in early 2002 - three years after the allegations and his retirement - he was caught molesting a young boy in the shower of the PSU football building, to which he had been given full access. Only after that incident is he banned from bringing children onto the campus, although he continues to have access himself.

Plenty of blame to go around, including all the ones you named plus PSU administrators.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Did you read the article I posted?

I did, which doesn't negate much of what reply you were responding too said.

While Penn State ultimately did much to enable what went on (I believe), there were indeed an awful lot of other folks around the whole sordid business that were not directly connected with Penn State that did the same. And in many ways, Penn State behaved much like other large organizations have and continue to behave, being unwilling to do what seems right because of the negatives surrounding it. In a case like this, not only the concept of Penn State's reputation (which I don't think would have suffered all that much) but more importantly the risks of lawsuits if the accusation was made and found without merit. I see this sort of fear causing bad decisions all the time - Doctors ordering unnecessary tests is a prime example.

As Broadway pointed out, in spite of records of lots of folks unjustly convicted, I can't see any doubt that Sandusky is right where he belongs.

 

[BroadwayVa]

I did, which doesn't negate much of what reply you were responding too said.

While Penn State ultimately did much to enable what went on (I believe), there were indeed an awful lot of other folks around the whole sordid business that were not directly connected with Penn State that did the same. And in many ways, Penn State behaved much like other large organizations have and continue to behave, being unwilling to do what seems right because of the negatives surrounding it. In a case like this, not only the concept of Penn State's reputation (which I don't think would have suffered all that much) but more importantly the risks of lawsuits if the accusation was made and found without merit. I see this sort of fear causing bad decisions all the time - Doctors ordering unnecessary tests is a prime example.

As Broadway pointed out, in spite of records of lots of folks unjustly convicted, I can't see any doubt that Sandusky is right where he belongs.

I too read the article and got nothing really new from it. Therefore, I thought it a statement not a reply.
AZ--We must have gone to different schools together, at different times, apparently we think alike.
I didn't want to go into the Cost/image issues caused by Sandusky to the school. I must say teams and students got to pay a huge price for incidents they never would have accepted had they known.
Why the NCAA thought this was in their realm is beyond me. Didn't the courts do their damn-est?
In high media cases I lean more for waiting for the smoke to clear--we live in unfortunate times of way too much bad information too early in the events that clouds the legal process.
However I agree the guilt seems determined correctly in this case but others, apparently disassociated, were damaged