Lawyer: Victims could become Penn St. scapegoats

[OhioChick]

Source: AP

Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011 - 10:52 am

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A lawyer who is advising some of the victims at the heart of the Penn State child sex-abuse scandal said he is worried that people angry about Joe Paterno's firing could turn the victims into scapegoats for the football coach's sudden departure.

Harrisburg attorney Ben Andreozzi said Thursday that he believes the university trustees did not consult with the victims before replacing the 84-year-old Paterno late Wednesday, a decision that prompted angry students to gather in downtown State College shouting support for the coach and tipping over a news van.

"These sexual assault victims are now watching people parade and riot around the streets," he said. "Now you have a football institution crumbling, and to think that is not in some way going to impact these victims is naive."

Andreozzi, who specializes in sexual abuse cases, said he has been working to provide therapy to some of the victims, but stopped short of saying he represents them in any potential civil matters.


Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/10/4045187/lawyer-victims-could-become-penn.html

[NashVegas]

1. College Admin Should Go Through News Footage

And boot any student who took part in that.

[kath]

12. agree that any students committing violence should be given the boot.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. That is what was done in past riots at PSU

[Sirveri]

15. I'd say they should lock their kids in a shower room with Sandusky but

I wouldn't wish that pain on anyone.

[alp227]

2. Those dumb fans mirror Paterno's "friends first" mentality

they would stick by their friends even if their friends were accused of a horrific impropriety like this.

[Journeyman]

3. Since they were minors at the time of the offense, won't their identities remain confidential?. . .

Not certain how that works, but even if Sandusky goes to trial wouldn't the identity of his accusers remain a secret since they were minors at the time?

[former9thward]

9. No. They will be identified in court.

If they sue civilly anyone associated with the civil suit will be identified.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. And a bulk of them 'rioting' last night were just drunk and following the crowd

CNN interviewed a bunch of them - they were there for the party.

The lawyer is either seeking publicity, or the media is looking for another sensational angle to keep the story alive (my bet is on the latter) because you are talking less than 1,000 college kids out of 300 million citizens and a story that has gone international.

These rioting kids will think waaaay different about all of this in the next 3, 5, 7 9 years when they settle down and start their families.

Besides, 'consulting with the victims before firing a coach' is just an ignorant remark - unless the whole point was to give credence to the idea that Paterno really is a deity and above the law..

[get the red out]

11. That's what it seemed to me as well

College kids love excitement (and beer).

[monmouth]

5. Sort of like Cain's victims. Now they're the bad gals...n/t

[meow2u3]

6. In other news: water is wet, ice is cold, and a bear craps in the woods

[renate]

7. I think this is also, in a way, true of anybody lower on the totem pole than Sandusky

I am not (NOT) defending McQueary's choice not to intervene when he saw a child being raped, although I posted on another thread how I could understand how, in the split second he had to make that decision, he made the wrong moral choice (basically, he knew perfectly well that Sandusky would be protected by the powers that were, and he himself would have been scapegoated and removed as an inconvenient witness. In a milquetoast-y way, it was somewhat brave of him to report it at all. He would have been as aware as anyone how these things work in college football).

Obviously, the victims of Sandusky's abuse are the physical and emotional victims and their well-being should have been paramount. However, anybody NOT in a position to have Sandusky removed would have ended up a victim, too (and will be, as it turns out), because they would have been fired, their careers ruined, simply because they saw a pervert in a position of power abusing a child, and THEY would have been the ones who paid the career consequences, not the rapist. The way Sandusky has been protected for all these years is proof positive that reporting him would have done no good at all. The subordinates who knew are the ones who would have lost their careers because of the selfishness and perversity of this disgusting man; Sandusky's crime would have been paid for by somebody else whose only wrongdoing would have been to have caught him in the act.

Let me repeat, I'm not defending the decision of a man in his twenties deciding not to prevent a man in his sixties from raping a boy not yet in his teens. He could have physically stopped him. But after that, McQueary would have paid for Sandusky's crime--Sandusky wouldn't have. And at the time, McQueary was basically an innocent bystander. (Over time, he lost his innocence, as he made his way up in the organization and presumably could have done more to prevent Sandusky's access to boys.)

However, those who were higher up are absolutely and utterly culpable, because they actually COULD have done something about this asswipe and made the deliberate decision not to.

[julian09]

8. He is trying to intimidate witnesses from testifying

and others from coming forward.

[former9thward]

10. What? Who is the "He"?

The lawyer in the OP represents some of the victims. He is not trying to stop people from coming forward.

[julian09]

14. Why make a statement like that to intimidate victims from coming forward

and advising victims already identified. Is he really worried about himself? Wants publicity? The more accusers the bigger his cut in civil case.
Criminal case is pretty well done. The victims are no longer underage, or at Penn State, others may be. Strange statement