Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
legal ?s about Penn State Case
Aren't Grand Jury testimonies supposed to be sealed? Why were they released publicly in the Penn State case? Is this normal in all cases or something specific to PA?
It appears that the man that witnessed the locker room rape has caused him to start changing his story. He now says he DID tell police about the incident. http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/16/us/pennsylvania-sandusky-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Isn't he risking perjury charges to change his story now? (I assume he would only do this to try and repair his public image.) Won't this make it hard for him to be a credible witness when the case eventually comes to trial?
According to the story most other universities and thier associated university police forces must comply with PA's Open Records law, but Penn State is one of only a handful of entities that are exempt from that law. Apparently the PA legislature tried to remove the exemption in 2007, but Penn State said that it would make them would lose their competitve advantage in recruiting.
Re: legal ?s about Penn State Case
GJ testimonies are sealed typically I *think* but not necessarily (Bill Clinton's testimony wasn't for example). But they might never be sealed, I'm not sure. Were the specific testimonies released in the case (i.e. the transcripts) - i've only seen the GJ report/summary of findings.
I honestly don't think McQueary has changed his story, he's just wording it differently. He does NOT say he contacted police. He says he had a discussion with the head of the university police (well we already knew that) and the police (which could just mean an officer was in the room.) he doesn't say he called 911. He says he "made sure it [the attack] stopped when he left the room" or whatever but doesn't say that he stopped it right there.
so I actually don't think he is necessarily changing his story. I think he's trying to cover his butt here. but he's walking a fine line in my opinion.
I think he's only risking perjury with these statements if/when they ask him about them under oath, he says these statements are true and the statements to the GJ were not true. But my rules of evidence and trial procedure are really hazy right now.
I also have a big tinfoil hat on for this case so I'm side-eyeing everything.
Edited to correct name
Ditto Becky- the GJ report/summary is what was released, not the actual testimony/witness accounts. If they had released all of that it would have been a lot more than 23 pages.
Re: the asst. coach changing his story- I think weezie is referring to McQueary, the then grad asst. now asst. coach who was the one who witnesses Sandusky "allegedly" raping the boy in the shower. The GJ report outlines that he called his dad, then visited Paterno the next day at his home and told him about the incident and never mentioned him contacting the police, but now he is saying that he did contact the police.
Oh I know who she is referring to - that's my point. He's not saying he contacted the police from what I've read (I'm sure there is more out there.) The email that got leaked is really vague and kind of weird in that regard according to CNN:
McQueary also wrote that he "did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police" after the alleged incident involving Sandusky.
That's not the same thing as saying he called 911. The official at the university in charge of police was the AD as far as I know, and we already know he had "discussions" with him bc Paterno informed Curley about what McQ had told him. But talking with the police - which again, we knew he talked with Curley - is not the same thing as contacting the police himself. Thats why I think he's using this vague language to sort of cover his tracks.
ETA - oh sorry, I said Sandusky in my first post. I meant McQ.
Hmm... I see what you are saying, but I agree that it is walking a fine line. The way I read the CNN article was that McQ was implying that he spoke to THE police, not university police.
However, even if he did speak to university police, wouldn't they be mandatory reporters of child abuse?
I haven't read any of the latest stuff about the case today- but I know that university "police" vary a lot from state-to-state and school to school. I do remember from my orientation @ UMCP a million years ago that the UMCP police are state troopers and they do not mess around, have guns, etc.
This being said, even if the PSU campus police = PA state troopers, from what I have read/heard JoePa was considered the most powerful person on campus and by some in the state, so if he articulated that something should be swept under the carpet, disregarded, etc. it's possible the police would act accordingly.
The fact that Paterno lobbied for Sandusky to get emeritus status (and there for a higher pension, office on campus, etc.) after he learned of at least one of these incidents is disgusting. IMO this shows that he definitely did everything he could to make the reports of these incidents disappear.
Well McQ reported it to Paterno who reported it to Curley and Schultz (fulfilling his obligations.) Curley and Shultz should have reported it to the authorities which is part of the reason they are in trouble now I believe. But McQueary said in the email that "he did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police." the official at the university in charge of the police would have been Curley based on what I have been reading who was in charge of the university police. So like I said, all it takes is for one other person to be in the room from the UP for this to be true. (and based on timelines that have come out, that all happened a week or so later.)
The university police should have conducted an investigation if they were informed of it (and technically they were since Curley was the head of it......) but no investigation took place as far as "we" (the public) are aware right now.
Wait I just googled. Schultz was the head of the campus police, not Curley (but Schultz was in the meeting with McQ as well so same difference - but it was starting to sound weird to me that the AD was the head of the campus police).
For me personally the distinction between the police and the university police is hard - at my collge we had campus security and campus police and they could issue tickets and everything (underage drinking and the like) - I'm not sure when police beyond that (city cops, county cops etc) got involved. We weren't a state school though so we had no affiliation with state troopers or the like.
Anyway, like I said, his language is so vague that I don't think he meant "I called 911." i think he's just trying to avoid getting any more death threats.