[DuncanWaring]

From the last paragraph of Page 79

"...Curley agreed that there was no 'practical way to enforce [Sandusky] not bringing children onto the campus after he was warned not to do so. There is no indication that Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, or Curley had discussions about any other enforceable actions that could have been taken to safeguard children. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that he did not do anything to prohibit Sandusky from using Penn State facilities, nor did he instruct anyone else to do so".

Basically, the whole crew said "Naughty, naughty, Jerry. Mustn't do that again", but did nothing to enforce it.

[Uncle Chip]

But as you can see in those 13 pages there was a scurry of activity to deal with the situation, under the direction of the university's legal counsel, that went beyond Sandusky to include notification of his charity and the Department of Public Welfare.

After the 2001 incident, there was no more showering there with his 2nd mile kids -- atleast that the prosecution have been made aware of. One way or the other Sandusky got that message loud and clear and must have abided by it.

The real question is why they didn't follow through with their agreed upon plan and notify the DPW. They did notify his charity TSM. Incidentally, according to PA law, once TSM was notified of the shower incident, the child psychologist CEO Dr Jack Raykovitz was obligated to notify DPW himself but didn't. That is what is forgotten in all of this.

[Uncle Chip]

Incidentally on page 51 of the report is a footnote from a Paterno handwritten note on Sandusky's 1998 retirement proposal regarding "Access to training and workout facilities". It reads: "Is this for personal use or 2nd Mile Kids. No to 2nd Mile. Liability Problems".[Exhibit 2G]

Paterno didn't want Sandusky bringing those kids there to the football facilities in the first place for liability reasons. But he was overruled by the administration until the 2001 incident.