Do you really think people wold congratulate a 50 year old man for sleeping with teen age girls by the dozen?
John Ziegler giving up, says its over now.
- Thread starter bplionfan
- Start date
Do you really think people wold congratulate a 50 year old man for sleeping with teen age girls by the dozen?
hey it's not like there were scads of people who would have jumped at the opportunity to oust Joe in 2001, right??
Since my original post was about the "sports journalists" like Bernstein, Baffoe, Cowherd, and anyone working at ESPN, yeah I think they would. There'd be condemnations, but no doubt there'd be some wink-wink, attaboy comments.Do you really think people wold congratulate a 50 year old man for sleeping with teen age girls by the dozen?
If Ziggy is telling the truth and is really giving up, it would be the first sign of intelligence he has exhibited in this ordeal. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
You realize by the sheer number he would still be labeled a serial rapist and hardly any of the victims were 17. I don't think you'll see ANY national media guy give an atta boy to a serial rapist of teen age girls. Well they could, but they would be gone before the day was over.
The Romans won their wars by continuing to fight until every last one of the people they were fighting was dead, regardless of how much money and how many legionaries it cost them. That is why we speak a Latin-based rather than a Phoenician-based language.
I agree that given the hypothetical scenario you laid out Joe would be extremely unlikely to be fired. However, let's lay out another hypothetical situation...
Let's say Joe reports it in a manner that doesn't comply with university policy and the law, and his report somehow leaks to the public. Remember, at the time in all likelihood Joe knew of one incident for sure (the one McQueary witnessed), and may have had some knowledge of 1998 (it's questionable if Joe knew but regardless it was investigated by the proper authorities). So Joe has no reason to push the report aggressively outside of university policy, he doesn't know Jerry is a serial predator like we all came to learn in 2011 so he has no reason to avoid protocol in the interest of putting a monster behind bars. Now Joe might be blamed for the report going public because he didn't follow the proper protocol and in turn tarnished the reputation of, at the time, someone that had a stellar reputation as a charitable man doing a lot for the benefit of at risk youths. Fast forward and assume Jerry is found not guilty. The blame on Joe would become amplified. He would have been accused of ruining Jerry's reputation, proven to be innocent, because he didn't follow the law and university protocol. Now the backlash could be huge, potentially including termination and legal action from Sandusky.
These are factors that I would say had to be considered in 2001. You have to take steps to protect those that are potentially innocent, because those accused of crimes of this heinous nature are immediately dealt an incredibly severe blow to their reputation even if they aren't guilty. It's even worse for someone publicly known such as Jerry. That's why the protocols exist. To protect the innocent while still getting the information to the right place (confidentially) to ensure an investigation takes place. Then if the person is found guilty, let their reputation (justly) suffer.
Bingo. That's about what my training said. I'll also add that in some jurisdictions (probably not the US), according to my training, this can get folks killed.
You might even take it a little farther. Joe had to take into consideration the potential effect that accusations might have on Jerry's charity. At the time, TSM was considered a helpful organization and unfounded claims might hurt the charity.
Throw in the fact that:
a) there were a lot of people -- including some in influential places? -- that thought Joe should step down and allow Saint Jerry to take over, and
b) we were coming off a losing season (which itself came after a frustrating end to the '99 season when we blew a chance at a Nat'l Championship).
In the scenario you described, Joe could have been accused of trying to eliminate a competitor for his job. That might sound far-fetched, but if you had told me 5 years ago the majority of the country would think he covered up for a pedophile on his staff, I'd have said you're crazy.
There is no circumstance where a good faith, confidential report to ChildLine using knowledge gleaned from a direct eyewitness would bring any legal or civil consequences to Joe or to anyone else. The likelihood of a 2001 report being leaked to the public - given that we already know that the report and investigation made three years earlier in 1998 went completely unknown to the public until 2011 - is remarkably small.
There would be two plausible outcomes to your situation: (1) a 2001 investigation goes nowhere a la 1998, and it gets buried and nobody on the outside learns of it just like 1998; or (2) the investigation yields either an indication against Sandusky by DPW or criminal charges, in which case it would inherently become public with none of the negative consequences you listed. In the alternative, the unlikely scenario where a 2001 report would become public through someone other than Paterno, it would have almost certainly brought 1998 into the public eye in short order along with it, and if anything would have likely resulted in the criminal charges for both 2001 and the ones that should have always been brought in 1998. Your entire premise seems to hinge on the assumption that Sandusky would have necessarily been found to be innocent or cleared in 2001 - as we know, Jerry absolutely committed crimes in the 2001 incident. I think it's a bit of a foolish assumption to make that he would have been cleared in 2001 - especially with what would then be a 2001 report in conjunction with the 1998 investigation. If anything, disclosure of a 2001 report would have led to the same result that we saw in 2011, where other victims learn they weren't alone in their abuse and felt compelled to finally break their silence and speak to authorities. The same would have occurred if word came out that Jerry was being investigated for abuse in 2001.
Again, I don't necessarily blame Joe for not reporting 2001 - but I strongly disagree that there would have been the kinds of serious downsides to reporting that so many have argued here.
You are assuming that Joe making a report that doesn't follow protocol = Joe reporting it to Childline. I'm not drawing conclusions about what approach he may have taken, all I'm saying is that the protocols exists for 2 very good reasons. There are likely more reasons, such as protecting the identity of the alleged victim, this isn't a complete list.
1. To protect the accused until an investigation into the allegations can be completed, reducing the impact if the accusations turn out to be untrue.
2. To ensure the allegations get to the right agency to ensure they can be investigated and if substantiated, the proper steps can be taken to hold the perpetrator accountable for their actions.
The reason my hypothetical scenario places emphasis on Jerry's innocence is because we were discussing a scenario where Joe makes a report and the process still leads to Joe's termination. Even if Joe called the media to report Jerry and it makes the front page before every being investigated, something surely everyone can agree is the wrong approach, if Jerry is found guilty the impact of Joe's flawed approach is hugely mitigated and maybe he keeps his job and is considered a hero. But that result is pure luck, when Joe makes the report he doesn't know the outcome.
The more important point that you glossed over is that the end doesn't justify the means. When making the report Joe has no idea if Jerry is guilty or not. Therefore the best course of action to protect everyone involved and still ensure an investigation takes place is to follow the prescribed protocols and laws which were put in place by subject matter experts, and done so for a reason. Which is exactly what Joe did.
You are, of course, assuming Joe was even aware of ChildLine. The problem is that a lot of folks judged this case on 2011 experience and not on how things were then.
Yes, I'm absolutely assuming that if Joe made the decision that he was going to report the 2001 incident to an outside authority, that he was intelligent and resourceful enough to find the proper entity that he should bring the report to, or that the incorrect entity that he did file the report with (say, he called the Centre County CYS) would have properly directed him. I don't think that's a terrible assumption.
Since this thread has completely gone off original topic... can anyone confirm that JZ has actually quit? That seems so unlike John to just give up. Is there a link. Nothing on framingpaterno.com at all
From his Twitter just now:
John ZieglerVerified account@Zigmanfreud 10m10 minutes ago
@TBMgolf Nope. No one gives a damn. It turned out too many PSUers were pussy morons. Everyone who deserves the truth already has it #****PSU
Link
1:40 PM - 20 Jul 2016
Fight to the end. The end is victory no matter what the cost
Joe wasn't some technology geek. Doubtful he would even know what a "childline" was let alone use it
And before that reply...
- Ted Maruca @TBMgolf 2h2 hours ago
@Zigmanfreud Has Franco Harris given up the fight for the truth also?
0 retweets0 likes
John Ziegler @Zigmanfreud 1h1 hour ago
@TBMgolf Huh?
0 retweets0 likes
Ted Maruca@TBMgolf@Zigmanfreud You said that u were giving up the PSU fight so I ask if Franco Harris was also since u & he fought together!
1:20 PM - 20 Jul 2016
0 retweets0 likes
John Ziegler @Zigmanfreud 1h1 hour ago
@TBMgolf That's not what I said. I said we lost. Truth is already well known to anyone who cares & has brain. There's not much more I can do
1 retweet0 likes
Just so we're clear. If you know or SUSPECT a child is being abused, please pick up the phone and contact authorities. That can be the police, child protective services, child welfare, childline - you can report anonymously if you so choose.
As far as Pennsylvania law - from a recent article:
1976: On November 26th, the state of Pennsylvania passes a new child abuse law, Act 124, the Child Protective Services Law. It significantly broadened the way child abuse claims, and specifically child sexual abuse claims, were mandated to be reported. It required that people in certain professions report immediately suspected abuse to law enforcement. Two of the professions mentioned in the law are "school teacher" and "school administrator". It also added that these professions that report child abuse claims would have immunity from prosecution.
Read more at http://lehighfootballnation.blogspo...meline-keeps-getting.html#K6Ytoaveb1T3A2kq.99
Funny how this tripe appeared on Penn Live a little while ago. And it was posted by none other than JudasShuttlesworth. I guess we know who our troll is now.
And there are 3 comments on an over year old blog, yet JJ ran over there 2 hours ago and stated how excellent it was.
Judas and JJ at work.
Last edited:
Respectfully, Simons is spreading false information. I am correcting that information. Children are being abused today and may need someone reading this board to step in.
she's right, I am totally pulling information out of my arse.
PA Teacher claims he was fired for reporting suspected child abuse
though I haven't been able to track down the current status of the lawsuit . . .
and I recommend miss know it all "for the kids" read the guidelines put out by Child Welfare, specifically under the section of "institutional Responsibility to Report" on Page 3:
LINK
LINK
here Roxine, here's some hot material for you. Go occupy yourself for a few hours drooling over it.
then remind yourself that Ziegler is a free man DESPITE your efforts to falsely imprison him.
then remind yourself that Ziegler is a free man DESPITE your efforts to falsely imprison him.
Per your request - excerpted from "Institutional Responsibility to Report":
In nine States, the individual reporter must make the report to the appropriate authority first and then notify the institution that a report has been made.13
13 California, Connecticut (the Commissioner of Children and Families makes the notification), Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
oh so now she cares only about kids in 9 states. I thought she cared about all kids, LOL
and when did the law change in PA??
what a friggin fraud. she doesn't even LIVE in PA!
"Roxine" has since shined on PL and "Andrea DiMaggio" cited the nonsense. JudasShuttleswoth outed himself and is now trying to cover his blunder.
I wonder how many of those IP addresses trace back to Clarksburg, MD . . . just sayin . . .
I still think it is hilarious how invested she was in putting Ziegler behind bars for 9 years
that has to sting that the bad bad man paid a fine and walked free
Additional Details - emphasis added by me
PENNSYLVANIA
Professionals Required to Report Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311
The following adults are required to report:
• Persons licensed or certified to practice in any health-related field
• Medical examiners, coroners, or funeral directors
• Employees of licensed health-care facilities who are engaged in the admission, examination, care, or treatment of individuals
• School employees
• Employees of a child care service or public library
• A clergyman, priest, rabbi, minister, Christian Science practitioner, religious healer, or spiritual leader of any regularly established church or other religious organization
• Any person, paid or unpaid, who, on the basis of the person’s role in a program, activity, or service, is a person responsible for the child’s welfare or has direct contact with children
• Employees of a social services agency
• A peace officer or law enforcement official
• An emergency medical services provider
• An individual supervised or managed by a person listed above who has direct contact with children
• An independent contractor
• An attorney affiliated with an agency, institution, or other entity, including a school or established religious organization that is responsible for the care, supervision, guidance, or control of children
• A foster parent
• An adult family member who is a person responsible for the child’s welfare and provides services to a child in a family living home, community home for individuals with an intellectual disability, or licensed host home for children
A ‘school employee’ is an individual who is employed by a school or who provides an activity or service sponsored by a school. The term does not apply to administrative personnel unless that person has direct contact with children. A school is a facility providing elementary, secondary, or postsecondary educational services, including public and nonpublic schools, vocational-technical schools, and institutions of higher education.
Reporting by Other Persons Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6312
Any person may make an oral or written report of suspected child abuse, which may be submitted electronically, if that person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse.
Privileged Communications Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311.1
The privileged communications between a mandated reporter and a patient or client of the mandated reporter shall not:
• Apply to a situation involving child abuse
• Relieve the mandated reporter of the duty to make a report of suspected child abuse
The following protections shall apply:
• Confidential communications made to a member of the clergy are protected under title 42, § 5943 (relating to confidential communications to clergymen).
• Confidential communications made to an attorney are protected so long as they are within the scope of title 42, § 5916 (relating to confidential communications to attorney) and § 5928 (relating to confidential communications to attorney), the attorney work product doctrine, or the rules of professional conduct for attorneys.
Inclusion of Reporter’s Name in Report Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6313
A written report of suspected child abuse, which may be submitted electronically, shall include the name, telephone number, and email address of the person making the report.
Disclosure of Reporter Identity Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6340
Upon a written request, a subject of a report may receive a copy of all information, except for the identity of the person who made the report. Except for reports released to law enforcement officials and the district attorney’s office, and in response to a law enforcement official investigating allegations of false reports under title 18, § 4906.1 (relating to false reports of child abuse), the release of data that would identify the person who made a report of suspected child abuse or who cooperated in a subsequent investigation is prohibited. Law enforcement officials shall treat all reporting sources as confidential informants.
Institutional Responsibility to Report Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311
Whenever a person is required to report in the capacity as a member of the staff of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility, or agency, that person shall report immediately in accordance with § 6313 and shall immediately thereafter notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility, or agency, or the designated agent of the person in charge. Upon notification, the person in charge or the designated agent, if any, shall facilitate the cooperation of the institution, school, facility, or agency with the investigation of the report. Any intimidation, retaliation, or obstruction in the investigation of the report is subject to the provisions of title 18, § 4958 (relating to intimidation, retaliation, or obstruction in child abuse cases). This chapter does not require more than one report from any such institution, school, facility, or agency.
Standards for Making a Report Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311
A mandated reporter shall make a report of suspected child abuse if he or she has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse under any of the following circumstances:
• The mandated reporter comes into contact with the child in the course of employment, occupation, and practice of a profession or through a regularly scheduled program, activity, or service.
• The mandated reporter is directly responsible for the care, supervision, guidance, or training of the child, or is affiliated with an agency, institution, organization, school, regularly established church or religious organization, or other entity that is directly responsible for the care, supervision, guidance, or training of the child.
• A person makes a specific disclosure to the mandated reporter that an identifiable child is the victim of child abuse.
• An individual age 14 or older makes a specific disclosure to the mandated reporter that the individual has committed child abuse.
Nothing in this section shall require a child to come before the mandated reporter in order for the mandated reporter to make a report of suspected child abuse. Nothing in this section shall require the mandated reporter to identify the person responsible for the child abuse to make a report of suspected child abuse
Back to the Original Topic -
So when will this Fake Victim, the tapes & the documentation be released? I would suspect the Attorney General's Office, along with the Auditor General, be interested in that.
So when will this Fake Victim, the tapes & the documentation be released? I would suspect the Attorney General's Office, along with the Auditor General, be interested in that.
So you are saying that the public would be okay with JS raping teenage girls?
Victims ages when they met JS
V1. 11 or 12
V3. 7th or 8th grade
V4. 12 or 13
V5. 7 or 8
V6. 7 or 8
V7. 10
BTW, your post is a common pedo argument for it being ok.
