But according to Joe's own testimony, he was NOT told this. When he testified under oath to the grand jury, Joe acknowledged that McQueary told him he had witnessed Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature" to a young boy in the shower. That's a lot more explicit and a lot more damning than what Curley claims he was told.
And McQueary and/or his dad is saying that they told Joe very explicitely what happened.
Two separate points in time, stam, I am suggesting that if Joe followed up as many say he should have after the fact with Curley that he may have received a similar response. I have not heard reports from the McQuearys regarding specificity with Joe, they have certainly said that about Curley and Schultz. I admit it is hard to keep everything straight.
The problem with established policy and laws, such as, report it up to the appropriate administrator, is that then shapes one's expectations of the limits of one's responsibilities and one then expects them to take all appropriate actions and that involves an implicit trust in their response if you later follow up. IF, huge IF, Joe asked any follow up question he could well receive the same response. We have at least the report at Second Mile that that explanation was used once.
Fleud, win, and others with experience in the psychological field can add to what I am about to say and should feel free to correct anything. When one studies sociopaths like Sandusky would appear to be one of the overwhelming traits they have is incredible ability to charm those around them. In the aftermath of discovery everyone looks at the situation and says "How the ..." Lies, gifts, smiles, interest and attention, and much more all help to create the image of the nicest guy you could know. Someone seemingly above reproach. The greater Hartford area just went through that with a pediatrician beloved in the community who abused his trust and was charged with child . How many times did someone say "He is such a nice guy," and dismiss something that didn't feel just right because "It couldn't be." How many people had that moment and because they never knew someone else had that same discomfort they never said or did anything.
Pedophiles of this type exist within families and communities doing their damage for years because their public face is one thing and their private horribly different. In the aftermath, everyone asks, "How did that happen?" and tells themselves, "It couldn't happen here." or "I would have done something." because to contemplate the reality is too horrible. The statistics and studies of why people don't report tell us otherwise. If we gave into that fear we would be paralyzed with fear of everyone around us.
Nebraska has the toughest reporting law on the books it makes everyone responsible for reporting child abuse. Yet the law still says "reasonably expects" and to the layman what is reasonable has huge variation. The clarity of that law, however, would have made it clear that everyone involved in this mess Curley, Schultz, the janitors, anyone at Second Mile, Joe and McQueary all had a clear legal responsibility to contact the legal authorities and the local Youth and Family Services. No questions, ifs ands or buts we all do it. That removes the institution from being between you or me and our responsibility to protect the child. If the institution wants it reported to them, too, fine, but that doesn't relieve or supplant the responsility to contact the police and Child Welfare or whatever the agency responsible for in PA, CT or wherever.
Sadly, at the very first reported event in this mess it got to all those people, the local police and the state Department of Child Welfare, and still no legal action was taken by people who should have heard the worst of that original case. Lauro the representative from the department of Child Welfare says he perceived it as a situation of boundaries not sexual abuse but knowing what he does now says that was clearly wrong. That is a professionally trained outsider who was completely fooled. All of that is on Jerry Sandusky, the sociopath and molester who had them all fooled.
The most dangerous thing in the world is thinking you would do what others did not, statistics tell us that is unlikely. It is one of the reasons events like these go unexposed for so long. Human behavior is remarkably consistent. That is why profiling works and why we can finally recognize sociopaths albeit after the fact. Consider how remarkably consistent each report of Sandusky's abuses is to the others. He had a clear pattern of behavior.
If one wants to increase your odds of doing the right thing get training. BTW, this thread may already be a step towards acting differently just because you have already had to think about these things prayerfully, BEFORE encountering them.
Btw, who among us knows exactly what CT or your state requires of you about when, what and to whom you report if you "reasonably expect" a child has been abused?
