Former Penn State President Graham Spanier has been charged with several counts

[nittanylioness234]

Like Curley and Schultz, Spanier is trying to get his charges dropped:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/05/spanier_weighs_in_with_additio.html


http://espn.go.com/ncf/conversation...ns-president-seeks-dismissal-criminal-charges

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Like Curley and Schultz, Spanier is trying to get his charges dropped:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/05/spanier_weighs_in_with_additio.html


http://espn.go.com/ncf/conversation...ns-president-seeks-dismissal-criminal-charges

He is making the same attorney-client privilege argument. I don't think it will work out too well: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4c9cbbc0-2075-45de-8eb4-bb173ff6bba6

These give the PA rules:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/pa/narr/PA_NARR_3.HTM

Here is the case cited: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...1520.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7

To cut to the chase, if Baldwin reasonably thought that they were committing perjury, she had an obligation to tell the court. Attorney-client privilege would not apply.

 

[nittanylioness234]

I don't see how the lexology example applies. In the example, the lawyer wasn't "lawyering" at the time he was asked to deliver the envelope. But Baldwin was functioning in an official capacity at the grand jury. There is confusion and disagreement over who, or what, she was representing, but she was "lawyering" at the time. I'm no lawyer, but I don't see the relevancy of the example.

 

[nittanylioness234]

A discussion of the PA child abuse law, the confusion over who is a mandatory reporter, and how it relates to those involved in the Sandusky scandal:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/loc...cle_2826412f-5e2f-5504-a381-45c575a4c5d5.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't see how the lexology example applies. In the example, the lawyer wasn't "lawyering" at the time he was asked to deliver the envelope. But Baldwin was functioning in an official capacity at the grand jury. There is confusion and disagreement over who, or what, she was representing, but she was "lawyering" at the time. I'm no lawyer, but I don't see the relevancy of the example.

That was cited for the last line: "The court also ruled that it was not unethical for the lawyer to turn his client in and testify against him under the circumstances, including the ethical rules in effect at the time of the conduct."

The circumstances were that the client was arranging perjury.

 

[Rlaub44]

A discussion of the PA child abuse law, the confusion over who is a mandatory reporter, and how it relates to those involved in the Sandusky scandal:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/loc...cle_2826412f-5e2f-5504-a381-45c575a4c5d5.html

Thanks for sharing this. I have mentioned previously that because of the way the law was written at the time, none of the Penn State administrators or coaches were mandated reporters due to the "child coming before them in their professional capacity" wording.

However, with that said, Spanier probably has the weakest argument, because he was the head of the agency whose employees reported to him that they suspected abuse may have occurred.

This is a situation where I would love to know what advice Wendell Courtney gave to Schultz when he researched (and billed for) the 2001 incident.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The mandatory reporting requirement might be triggered up the chain of command, however, when it came to a point where it was handled by someone with the statutory responsibility.

The underlying charge, failure to report in 2001, was a summary offense, with a maximum penalty o $500 and 30 days in jail.

Where Spanier, Curley, and Schultz run into a problem is the conspiracy to cover it up, and perjury related to it.

 

[nittanylioness234]

This is a situation where I would love to know what advice Wendell Courtney gave to Schultz when he researched (and billed for) the 2001 incident.[/QUOTE]


I'm very curious as well. I wish we could find out.

And regardless of whether anyone was required to report Sandusky, I certainly wish someone would have - a boy, a man, naked, in a shower, alone, after hours....even if they didn't grasp what McQueary was trying to convey, someone should have reported it, just in case something unsavory was happening - just to be on the safe side, if nothing else. They failed to protect the university, and much worse, the children.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm very curious as well. I wish we could find out.

And regardless of whether anyone was required to report Sandusky, I certainly wish someone would have - a boy, a man, naked, in a shower, alone, after hours....even if they didn't grasp what McQueary was trying to convey, someone should have reported it, just in case something unsavory was happening - just to be on the safe side, if nothing else. They failed to protect the university, and much worse, the children.

Paterno testified that it was clear to him that it was sexual.

I feel a bit for McQueary in the circumstance. He has to go up to Paterno, and icon and probably a father figure and try to tell him; he wasn't going into details. Paterno got it instantly.

Curley and Schultz didn't have that status.

 

[nittanylioness234]

And yet, I'm not sure if Curley and Schultz got the message that it was "sexual in nature." I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have done anything if they really understood what McQueary was saying, that it wasn't just "horsing around" or "horseplay." But they should have asked the difficult questions to be clear, no matter how upset McQueary might have been. And even if they failed at that, they should have reported it, just in case.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And yet, I'm not sure if Curley and Schultz got the message that it was "sexual in nature." I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have done anything if they really understood what McQueary was saying, that it wasn't just "horsing around" or "horseplay." But they should have asked the difficult questions to be clear, no matter how upset McQueary might have been. And even if they failed at that, they should have reported it, just in case.

Schultz actually testified that it sexual, though not the specific act. These are three people, adults, with master's degrees; you don't need to draw a picture. Paterno, who was not comfortable with these kinds of things, understood.

 

[Rlaub44]

And yet, I'm not sure if Curley and Schultz got the message that it was "sexual in nature." I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have done anything if they really understood what McQueary was saying, that it wasn't just "horsing around" or "horseplay." But they should have asked the difficult questions to be clear, no matter how upset McQueary might have been. And even if they failed at that, they should have reported it, just in case.

They had to understand that it was sexual, based on their planned course of action. One wouldn't report poor judgment to DPW, nor would they have suggested that Sandusky seek help for the problem if the problem were just horseplay. Spanier made that clear when he wrote to the others that if the message wasn't heard by Sandusky, they would become vulnerable for not having reported it.

Schultz actually testified that it sexual, though not the specific act. These are three people, adults, with master's degrees; you don't need to draw a picture. Paterno, who was not comfortable with these kinds of things, understood.

Plus, McQueary testified that he went into greater detail when he spoke with Curley and Schultz than in his contact with Paterno, out of respect for his elderly coach.

 

[nittanylioness234]

If they knew it was sexual, then why would they think a crime had not been committed?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If they knew it was sexual, then why would they think a crime had not been committed?

Stupidity or perjury?

 

[nittanylioness234]

Stupidity or perjury?

Are those the only choices, lol? I suppose the court will decide if it's perjury. But if it was a cover-up, how could anyone think that everyone who knew something in 1998 or in 2001 would keep silent for the rest of their lives?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Are those the only choices, lol? I suppose the court will decide if it's perjury. But if it was a cover-up, how could anyone think that everyone who knew something in 1998 or in 2001 would keep silent for the rest of their lives?

Things get stayed hidden for a while. They were arrogant and thought they could pull it off.

They were also older. This wasn't a 20 year old worried about something coming out in 30 years. In 30 years, they'd all be dead.

 

[nittanylioness234]

Things get stayed hidden for a while. They were arrogant and thought they could pull it off.

They were also older. This wasn't a 20 year old worried about something coming out in 30 years. In 30 years, they'd all be dead.

Is that what you think? I don't know what to think. Maybe that is the answer, and if it is, then they deserve everything that they get. If it is true, they miscalculated severely, since it took much less time than 30 years. I suppose my next question would be why any intelligent person would bank on it taking 30 years? But the more pressing question would be, did they really not give any thought to the probability of additional victims in the future? And, if not, they can all spend the rest of their lives in jail as far as I'm concerned.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Is that what you think? I don't know what to think. Maybe that is the answer, and if it is, then they deserve everything that they get. If it is true, they miscalculated severely, since it took much less time than 30 years. I suppose my next question would be why any intelligent person would bank on it taking 30 years? But the more pressing question would be, did they really not give any thought to the probability of additional victims in the future? And, if not, they can all spend the rest of their lives in jail as far as I'm concerned.

They kept a lid on the Sandusky scandal for more than a decade. The AG's Office investigated it for more than a year before they discovered the Penn State connection. These folks are in legacy protection mode. It wasn't Paterno's, or even PSU's. It was their own.

Some of it is trust of people in authority; I've actually written about how that is used to suppress people in some cases. I have suffered from it too.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Are those the only choices, lol? I suppose the court will decide if it's perjury. But if it was a cover-up, how could anyone think that everyone who knew something in 1998 or in 2001 would keep silent for the rest of their lives?

In thinking about some more, I should not call this arrogance. It was hubris, and a near total detachment from reality.

 

[Rlaub44]

If they knew it was sexual, then why would they think a crime had not been committed?

Not that I necessarily believe this, but possibly because of the outcome of 1998?