OT: UNC Academic Fraud Investigation

[Icebear]

Didn't know the McQueary was abused. How sad. Why do you think it is relevant?

Regarding your notion that plenty of people in this matter lacked personal courage, I think we can agree upon that. There are always reasons why doing the right thing is difficult. We can only hope and pray that when each of tested that we find the courage to find and listen to the better angels of nature.

It is relevant because it may well explain the inconsistency in his reports all of which lie at the center of what Joe and anyone may have known.

 

[CL82]

Forget all that. I just wanna hear what Joe Paterno should have done differently. We're talking about destroying a man's reputation, plus a school's reputation, for being squeaky clean.

I think Paterno should gone to the police directly rather than an administrative official within the university. I also think he should have followed up with them to ascertain the status of the matter. Sandusky had a direct relationship with Paterno. There reputations were and are interlinked.

Now let me ask you a question. Could Paterno have done less and still met his legal obligation? If the answer is no. Is doing the absolute minimum under the law enough when children were in jeopardy?

I think you, and not even Ice, are the only one who views this matter primarily through the lens of Peterno's legacy. The rest of us kind of think we are talking about the well being of children. That's a very different lens.

 

[CL82]

It is relevant because it may well explain the inconsistency in his reports all of which lie at the center of what Joe and anyone may have known.

I suppose, although, I'm not quite ready to make the leap that the victims of sexual abuse some how lose their right to report a crime along with their loss of innocence, well being and sense of security.

 

[Icebear]

I think Paterno should gone to the police directly rather than an administrative official within the university. I also think he should have followed up with them to ascertain the status of the matter. Sandusky had a direct relationship with Paterno. There reputations were and are interlinked.

Now let me ask you a question. Could Paterno have done less and still met his legal obligation? If the answer is no. Is doing the absolute minimum under the law enough when children were in jeopardy?

I think you, and not even Ice, are the only one who views this matter primarily through the lens of Peterno's legacy. The rest of us kind of think we are talking about the well being of children. That's a very different lens.

He went to the head of the police that is who Gary Schultz is. You simply are ignorant of the facts of the case and the structures involved legally. PSU campus police are an official police department in PA. They are not simply campus security.

 

[CL82]

He went to the head of the police that is who Gary Schultz is. You simply are ignorant of the facts of the case and the structures involved legally. PSU campus police are an official police department in PA. They are not simply campus security.

Perhaps you can educate me. Did Gary Schultz have any police training or was he simply an administrative official? What was his exact title?

 

[Icebear]

I suppose, although, I'm not quite ready to make the leap that the victims of s e xual abuse some how lose their right to report a crime along with their loss of innocence, well being and sense of security.

I didn't say that. Of course all victims present or former have the right, responsibility and need to come forward. The fact he was inconsistent in his reports increases the difficulty of using his testimony as basis for prosecution without corroberating evidence or testimony. It, also, helps to explain the variations reported concerning what he told others including his father, the doctor who was a friend of the family and who met with him prior to his going to Joe, what he told Joe, and what he told Curley and Schultz, and what he said on the witness stand all of which vary widely in language.

And yes, you used the term of "courage" here, "Joe did his job, met the legal minimum to avoid prosecution. I think that sums up how people feel about the Icebear. People expected more of Paterno both because he was a larger than life figure and because they hope they'd have found the courage to do more."

 

[CL82]

I didn't say that. The fact he was inconsistent in his reports increases the difficulty of using his testimony as basis for prosecution without cooberating evidence or testimony. It, also, helps to explain the variations reported concerning what he told others including his father, the doctor who was a friend of the family and who met with him prior to his going to Joe, what he told Joe, and what he told Curley and Schultz, and what he said on the witness stand all of which vary widely in language.

And yes you used the term of courage here, "Joe did his job, met the legal minimum to avoid prosecution. I think that sums up how people feel about the Icebear. People expected more of Paterno both because he was a larger than life figure and because they hope they'd have found the courage to do more."

Mmm I think you are making an assumption that his reports were inconsistent due to his prior assault. I'm not ready to decide that victims inherently lack credibility. Not if you have some proof of your assumption in this specific case, please let me know. Until then I not ready to assume a lack of credibility based upon his being a victim.

I think that you said I accused Paterno of lack of personal courage. I didn't.

You haven't answered these questions: Did Gary Schultz have any police training or was he simply an administrative official? What was his exact title? You said that I was ignorant about Schultz was I pointed out he was an administrative official. Do you have an answer to these questions?

 

[Icebear]

Perhaps you can educate me. Did Gary Schultz have any police training

Mmm I think you are making an assumption that his reports were inconsistent due to his prior assault. I'm not ready to decide that victims inherently lack credibility. Not if you have some proof of your assumption in this specific case, please let me know. Until then I not ready to assume a lack of credibility based upon his being a victim.

I think that you said I accused Paterno of lack of personal courage. I didn't.

You haven't answered these questions: Did Gary Schultz have any police training or was he simply an administrative official? What was his exact title? You said that I was ignorant about Schultz was I pointed out he was an administrative official. Do you have an answer to these questions?

Well, I have a degree in psychology and have worked with physically abused and sexually abused men, women and children over 35 years of ministry. Schultz was the VP overseeing the campus police. He was the person responsible for reporting and initiating the investigation when it came to light. I'm sorry you don't understand the laws and procedures but there are real reasons for them. Was Joe in anyway a perfect human being, no, but you are engaged in unreasonable myth making about what happened and should have happened. Read Posnanski's book and you will have a more multi dimensional image of who Joe was.

 

[CL82]

Well, I have a degree in psychology and have worked with physically abused and s e xually abused men, women and children over 35 years of ministry. Schultz was the VP overseeing the campus police. He was the person responsible for reporting and initiating the investigation when it came to light. I'm sorry you don't understand the laws and procedures but there are real reasons for them. Was Joe in anyway a perfect human being, no, but you are engaged in unreasonable myth making about what happened and should have happened. Read Posnanski's book and you will have a more multi dimensional image of who Joe was.

You side stepped the questions but I think that you agree that Schultz had no prior police training and that his title had nothing do with law enforcement. Given that, does the characterization that he was an administrative official seem "ignorant" or informed?

Ice take a look at our respective posts and see the tone in each. I've been civil while have been quick to use phrases like "ignorant" and mythmaking. All the while you misrepresented Schultz as a law enforcement official, I think we both know that he was not. You might want use that psychology degree and ask why this issue resonates so personally with you. I feel like continuing the conversation isn't headed anywhere good so I will bow out. Feel free to have the last word.

Peace padre.

 

[UConnChapette]

You side stepped the questions but I think that you agree that Schultz had no prior police training and that his title had nothing do with law enforcement. Given that, does the characterization that he was an administrative official seem "ignorant" or informed?

Ice take a look at our respective posts and see the tone in each. I've been civil while have been quick to use phrases like "ignorant" and mythmaking. All the while you misrepresented Schultz as a law enforcement official, I think we both know that he was not.

I have stayed out of this until now. And probably should stay out of it now. But I cannot.

CL82…In my opinion, you have been a bit on the attack on Icebear, perhaps unfairly so.

I carefully reread his posts and your responses.

It was another poster that asserted Paterno reported the incident to a “duly designated law enforcement official” but it wasn’t Ice. Ice has never characterized Schultz in this way.

Ice indicated: “Your assumption is he didn't follow up which is wrong. He followed up with the authorities to whom he reported it and was told the investigation was proceeding. Sandusky was not convicted of anything, had never been charged with anything. Joe did his job others not so much.” No assertion here it was law enforcement.

You responded to several of Ice’s comments (your replies in red)

Without having been an eye witness how was he to discern for himself the validity or emptiness of McQueary's fuzzy report.By following up with the police, and not just a university administrator?Joe put it in the hands of the professionals.Debatable didn't he just contact an administrator?

Ice never said the professionals were “law enforcement”. I believe you inferred that was what he was saying. Words can be interpreted in other contexts which it seems to me what happened here. It appears your interpretation of “Professionals” is law enforcement. But all universities have an administrative official overseeing the university police as part of their professional responsibilities. Likewise, town/city police chiefs report to an administrator in the town/city government. They don’t always have a law enforcement background. This is how I interpreted Icebear’s comment.

Ice did post: “He went to the head of the police that is who Gary Schultz is.” This is as close as I can find where it could be inferred that Ice meant he reported it to law enforcement. But Ice’s comment is nonetheless correct. Schultz is the administrator over the PSU police force. Doesn’t mean that he has any law enforcement training or experience, nor did Ice ever make the assertion that he did. From an administrative standpoint, Schultz is the head of the PSU police and is exactly who Paterno was obligated to report the allegations. Some may not like it, but it is how the system was designed to work.

Re your own professed civility:

You posted:

“Joe did his job, met the legal minimum to avoid prosecution. I think that sums up how people feel about the Icebear.“ – In my opinion, you made this personal right here.

Your further response to Icebear (again, your response is in red) “As to others' thoughts about me what does that have to do with the price of tea in China.I don't think I said anything about other peoples thoughts of you. I'm not a big fan of personal attacks in lieu of reasoned discussion.” Maybe the comment “I think that sums up how other people feel about the Icebear” has some other meaning that I am not understanding. Maybe in this case I am inferring a personal attack you did not mean. It happens all the time.

The PSU issue is a volatile one. There are lots of strong feelings, opinions and disagreements about what was done and how it was handled. Hind sight is always 20/20. As vile as the allegations are, I am in agreement with Ice that the process had to be followed and that Joe Paterna followed the procedure as required. There are so many people falsely accused of a crime, heck, even falsely convicted. Reputations and lives ruined. In no way do I minimize the impact to the innocent children who were exposed to Sandusky. Like it or not, even those accused of the most vile crimes are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And we may not like the prescribed reporting and investigation processes. There is a delicate balance between protecting the rights of the accused and the innocent victims.

As a prime example, look at the recent case right here in Connecticut. A couple was accused of s e x ually abusing their adopted children. The accusation was made directly by one of the adopted kids. The news was headlines for days after the accusation was made public. Lead story on the nightly news. Recently, I saw a blurb on the news that the accusation was a complete fabrication. Wasn't the lead story, was buried in the "and in other news" portion of the newscast. Those parents were labeled deviants and the public had found them guilty by virtue of all the initial publicity. But they did absolutely nothing wrong, they were completely innocent. With as little press as the exposed lie received, how many people continue to believe these parents are guilty? Certainly not saying that is the case at PSU, but the point being, sometimes things aren't as clear cut as they may seem at the start.

 

[CL82]

I have stayed out of this until now. And probably should stay out of it now. But I cannot.

CL82…In my opinion, you have been a bit on the attack on Icebear, perhaps unfairly so.

I carefully reread his posts and your responses.

It was another poster that asserted Paterno reported the incident to a “duly designated law enforcement official” but it wasn’t Ice. Ice has never characterized Schultz in this way.

Ice indicated: “Your assumption is he didn't follow up which is wrong. He followed up with the authorities to whom he reported it and was told the investigation was proceeding. Sandusky was not convicted of anything, had never been charged with anything. Joe did his job others not so much.” No assertion here it was law enforcement.

You responded to several of Ice’s comments (your replies in red)

Without having been an eye witness how was he to discern for himself the validity or emptiness of McQueary's fuzzy report.By following up with the police, and not just a university administrator?Joe put it in the hands of the professionals.Debatable didn't he just contact an administrator?

Ice never said the professionals were “law enforcement”. I believe you inferred that was what he was saying. Words can be interpreted in other contexts which it seems to me what happened here. It appears your interpretation of “Professionals” is law enforcement. But all universities have an administrative official overseeing the university police as part of their professional responsibilities. Likewise, town/city police chiefs report to an administrator in the town/city government. They don’t always have a law enforcement background. This is how I interpreted Icebear’s comment.

Ice did post: “He went to the head of the police that is who Gary Schultz is.” This is as close as I can find where it could be inferred that Ice meant he reported it to law enforcement. But Ice’s comment is nonetheless correct. Schultz is the administrator over the PSU police force. Doesn’t mean that he has any law enforcement training or experience, nor did Ice ever make the assertion that he did. From an administrative standpoint, Schultz is the head of the PSU police and is exactly who Paterno was obligated to report the allegations. Some may not like it, but it is how the system was designed to work.

Re your own professed civility:

You posted:

“Joe did his job, met the legal minimum to avoid prosecution. I think that sums up how people feel about the Icebear.“ – In my opinion, you made this personal right here.

Your further response to Icebear (again, your response is in red) “As to others' thoughts about me what does that have to do with the price of tea in China.I don't think I said anything about other peoples thoughts of you. I'm not a big fan of personal attacks in lieu of reasoned discussion.” Maybe the comment “I think that sums up how other people feel about the Icebear” has some other meaning that I am not understanding. Maybe in this case I am inferring a personal attack you did not mean. It happens all the time.

The PSU issue is a volatile one. There are lots of strong feelings, opinions and disagreements about what was done and how it was handled. Hind sight is always 20/20. As vile as the allegations are, I am in agreement with Ice that the process had to be followed and that Joe Paterna followed the procedure as required. There are so many people falsely accused of a crime, heck, even falsely convicted. Reputations and lives ruined. In no way do I minimize the impact to the innocent children who were exposed to Sandusky. Like it or not, even those accused of the most vile crimes are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And we may not like the prescribed reporting and investigation processes. There is a delicate balance between protecting the rights of the accused and the innocent victims.

As a prime example, look at the recent case right here in Connecticut. A couple was accused of s e x ually abusing their adopted children. The accusation was made directly by one of the adopted kids. The news was headlines for days after the accusation was made public. Lead story on the nightly news. Recently, I saw a blurb on the news that the accusation was a complete fabrication. Wasn't the lead story, was buried in the "and in other news" portion of the newscast. Those parents were labeled deviants and the public had found them guilty by virtue of all the initial publicity. But they did absolutely nothing wrong, they were completely innocent. With as little press as the exposed lie received, how many people continue to believe these parents are guilty? Certainly not saying that is the case at PSU, but the point being, sometimes things aren't as clear cut as they may seem at the start.

Ah, okay, now I understand...

First, thanks Chapette. The text you quoted was a typo. What I meant to say was that was how other people thought about "the issue" not about Icebear. So my mistake and I apologize Icebear. I can see why you'd think that was a shot at you. Please take me at my word that it was entirely unintended. It certainly explains why the conversation devolved.

Regarding issue, I think that Paterno could have and, to be honest, should have, done that just reporting to an PSU administrator but I agree with you Chapette that those types of decisions are far easier in hindsight.

So, again, sorry Ice, mea culpa, but without mens rea. And Chapette, thank for your post, without it I wouldn't have noticed my mistake.

 

[Zorro]

You side stepped the questions but I think that you agree that Schultz had no prior police training and that his title had nothing do with law enforcement. Given that, does the characterization that he was an administrative official seem "ignorant" or informed?

Ice take a look at our respective posts and see the tone in each. I've been civil while have been quick to use phrases like "ignorant" and mythmaking. All the while you misrepresented Schultz as a law enforcement official, I think we both know that he was not. You might want use that psychology degree and ask why this issue resonates so personally with you. I feel like continuing the conversation isn't headed anywhere good so I will bow out. Feel free to have the last word.

Peace padre.

On the contrary, he has answered your questions thoroughly and repeatedly. You seem either unwilling or unable to understand the explanations. The "mandated reporter" laws clearly state what a mandated reporter is both required to do and required NOT to do, and it seems that Paterno followed the law in both regards. Ice says that there are good, practical reasons for both the does and don'ts. That may or may not be so, but the law is the law. By ignoring the law and roaring off to administer justice on his own, or to go public, or whatever you think he should have done, Paterno might have seriously compromised both the investigation and any subsequent prosecution. There was no way he could have known what the officials to whom he reported what he knew (which was only a fragment of what eventually came to light) were or were not doing to follow up on the matter. As someone who knew nothing about "mandated reporter laws" before beginning to read this thread, Ice has made the crux of the matter quite clear to me. Schultz's police training or lack of it would seem to be immaterial; he WAS the appropriate official to whom Paterno was obliged to report and then butt out.

Incidentally, I have come to know Ice pretty thoroughly, as a result of reading thousands of his posts and some pms. To insinuate, as SWHuskyfan did above, that he is such a PSU/Paterno homer that he would put the reputation of either above the safety of a child is not only ridiculous, it is infamous. If you occupy a higher moral ground than Ice, you must be WAY up there. As for insults, if you are not familiar with the reporting laws, then you are ignorant of them (as am I, and are ). And you do seem to be more inclined to accept the popular press version(s) of what actually happened in this matter than in the actual facts that have subsequently emerged, as Ice has tried (very objectively and patiently, it seems to me) to lay them out. So those are not necessarily insults. Because of his location, and because of his acquaintances at PSU, Ice probably knowss as much about the matter as anyone not directly involved in the investigation. And, as I said above, his moral values are above question. The horse shows no further signs of life at this point. Perhaps later it may.

 

[Icebear]

You side stepped the questions but I think that you agree that Schultz had no prior police training and that his title had nothing do with law enforcement. Given that, does the characterization that he was an administrative official seem "ignorant" or informed?

Ice take a look at our respective posts and see the tone in each. I've been civil while have been quick to use phrases like "ignorant" and mythmaking. All the while you misrepresented Schultz as a law enforcement official, I think we both know that he was not. You might want use that psychology degree and ask why this issue resonates so personally with you. I feel like continuing the conversation isn't headed anywhere good so I will bow out. Feel free to have the last word.

Peace padre.

Ignorant was meant only as regards "not knowing", myth making is the simple process of assembling assumptions or expectations to create a storyline that is not consistent to the facts in evidence, nothing more. Myth making in itself has neither negative nor positive connotation.

 

[rford53]

This thread was hijacked a few days ago and never returned to its original purpose. I suggest we start a new thread or let this one go. Where is that beating a dead horse again?

 

[pinotbear]

This thread was hijacked a few days ago and never returned to its original purpose. I suggest we start a new thread or let this one go. Where is that beating a dead horse again?

In the "Oy, vey!" Corral, I believe.