Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7

[Steely Dan]

I didn't think this could get worse!

When did the three previous grand juries take place? Did the fourth one "take" because they had McQuerry's testimony? What's wrong with these people?

No wonder Sandusky molested unabated. No one cared!

Before It’s Made Public, Louis Freeh’s Independent Investigation Of Penn State Will Be Reviewed By Penn State (Deadspin)

ITG put it best when they said just when you think it couldn't get worse. I'm guessing that if the SM financial statements from 2001-2002 are ever found there will be a huge bump added to this scandal. JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I didn't think this could get worse!

When did the three previous grand juries take place? Did the fourth one "take" because they had McQuerry's testimony? What's wrong with these people?

No wonder Sandusky molested unabated. No one cared!

It depends what they were investigating. They might have been looking at something else, and stumbled across Sandusky.

 

[Reader]

PSU trustees ousted Paterno over lack of action

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/...-paterno-over.html#wgt=rcntnews#storylink=cpy

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Penn State trustees say they decided to oust Joe Paterno in part because the football coach didn't meet a moral obligation to do more to alert authorities about a child sex abuse allegation against a retired assistant coach.

Trustees interviewed Thursday by The Associated Press also cited statements from Paterno in the days and hours leading to his dismissal Nov. 9 - after nearly a half-century of leading the Nittany Lions - that they felt challenged the Board of Trustees' authority. Board members saw that as inappropriate, particularly at a time of intense scrutiny over the case of former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky.
------

A day after the graduate assistant, Mike McQueary, came to see him, Paterno relayed the accusations to his superiors, one of whom oversaw campus police. Board members didn't think that was enough.

"There's an obligation, a moral responsibility, for all adults to watch out for children, either your own or someone else," trustee Mark Dambly said. "It was in our opinion that Joe Paterno did not meet his moral obligation and for that reason - me, personally for that reason, I felt he could no longer lead the university and it was unanimous."


More at link...

 

[Reader]

It depends what they were investigating. They might have been looking at something else, and stumbled across Sandusky.

It's the same link that you posted above....


PSU trustees: Sandusky investigated by three prior grand juries

UNIVERSITY PARK — Penn State trustees said there were three grand jury investigations into Jerry Sandusky prior to the one that led to the charges being filed.

"We were told in May of 2011, by Cynthia Baldwin, this was the fourth grand jury that was convened. The prior three led to no charges,” trustee Mark Dambly said during a 20-minute interview with the Centre Daily Times at the Nittany Lion Inn.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/19/3058390/psu-trustees-sandusky-investigated.html#storylink=cpy

 

[StellarsJay]

When a Grand Jury does not prosecute does this mean innocence or just that a case isn't strong enough to proceed, and, are all police files destroyed? Is it enough of a real trial to create double jeopardy?

 

[Reader]

When a Grand Jury does not prosecute does this mean innocence or just that a case isn't strong enough to proceed, and, are all police files destroyed? Is it enough of a real trial to create double jeopardy?

I'm not a lawyer but from what I understand, a grand jury is not the same as a trial, no guilt or innocence is determined. The grand jury gets the evidence presented by the prosecutors/DA (which may not be all they have) and determines if there is enough to charge a person with a crime.

As we've seen in this case, then a preliminary hearing is held for a judge to hear the witnesses/evidence and determine if the defendent should go to trial on the charges. JS waived his prelim hearing so it was not held.

Neither the GJ or the prelim hearing are the same as a trial and do not count for double jeopardy. I doubt any of the files are destroyed.

Is that correct?

 

[Reader]

I don't agree that he could have done more than everyone else combined, but he could have, and should have done more.

He could sat down with Schultz and asked him what he did. Paterno, from a prestige or political power standpoint, had the power to do that.



I don't think Paterno needed the boy's name. I think he needed to make sure the University Police had the boy's name. He needed to make sure the police were doing their job.

You know, there IS a world outside of Penn St. that Paterno I'm sure was aware of and had the power to take advantage of it's sources.

He had the power to lift his hand and point his index finger at the numbers and dial 911. There is nothing in the rules of Penn St. to prevent him from doing that.

He had the power of his voice to tell the police or CPS outside of Penn St. what he had been told and to give them McQueary's name as his source for an investigation.

He did not do that, he did not raise his voice for that child, or others I am almost positive he knew about since 1998.

He failed those children. There is no way around it.

 

[Concerned Papa]

CDT is reporting that there were other grand juries, according to the board. Three others.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/19/3058390/psu-trustees-sandusky-investigated.html

I wish these trustees would make their mind up as to which story they're gonna run with. First they claim complete ignorance until the grand jury report:

Trustees said they were not aware of the Sandusky matter until that fateful November weekend when grand jury testimony became public.

http://www.philly.com/philly/educat...te_trustees__Paterno_didnt_do_enough.html?c=r

Now they're claiming knowledge 6 months earlier:

"We were told in May of 2011, by Cynthia Baldwin, this was the fourth grand jury that was convened.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/...investigated.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

Keep on talking people. The truth will find a way to get out.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You know, there IS a world outside of Penn St. that Paterno I'm sure was aware of and had the power to take advantage of it's sources.

The world does exist outside Penn State, but Paterno's prestige counts for a lot less beyond the confines of the campus.

He had the power to lift his hand and point his index finger at the numbers and dial 911. There is nothing in the rules of Penn St. to prevent him from doing that.

As say what, that he didn't witness a crime?

He had the power of his voice to tell the police or CPS outside of Penn St. what he had been told and to give them McQueary's name as his source for an investigation.

The actual department that would handle the case is the one Schultz ran.

He did not do that, he did not raise his voice for that child, or others I am almost positive he knew about since 1998.

He failed those children. There is no way around it.

He did raise his voice, but not loudly enough. I'll fault Paterno for not pressing the case with the administration, asking questions like, "Did you contact the child's parents," or even, "Are you sure nothing happened?"

I am not positive he knew about 1998 (though Schultz did). I've yet to hear say that Paterno was told about that incident.

 

[Concerned Papa]

I can't help noticing the only person claiming there were 3 previous grand juries failing to indict, is Penn State's lawyer. The SA didn't seem to know what they were talking about:

Senior Deputy Attorney General Marc Costanzo said he had no information about any prior grand juries

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/...investigated.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

I don't believe for a moment that there were 3 grand juries that read what I've read, or any portion thereof, that couldn't indict this monster.

I believe this is nothing more than a self serving tale meant to dilute the severity of the public's perception of the present charges, thereby lessening the impact of the university's failure to take any action.

 

[ThoughtFox]

When a Grand Jury does not prosecute does this mean innocence or just that a case isn't strong enough to proceed, and, are all police files destroyed? Is it enough of a real trial to create double jeopardy?

No. A Grand Jury doesn't find guilt or innocence, but finds whether there is enough evidence to bring new charges against someone. If the person involved then pleads guilty, there might never be a jury trial, but if they plead not guilty, there could then be a trial. There's no double jeopardy because a GJ is sort of a "pre-trial."

Grand Juries can be held in secret and the public won't even hear about it. But people who have testified can talk about it in most states.

If there were previous Grand Juries, then what they heck were they doing? :furious:

 

[Concerned Papa]

As the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, Sol Wachtler, said in 1985, “A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”

And now, simply because Penn State's lawyer says so, I'm supposed to believe that not one, not two, but THREE three seperate grand jury investigations into Jerry Sandusky came back with no indictment?

Think I'll put this in the same pile as ole Jer's lawyer saying he was really just in the shower teaching good hygene to poor kids.

 

[Steely Dan]

I can't help noticing the only person claiming there were 3 previous grand juries failing to indict, is Penn State's lawyer. The SA didn't seem to know what they were talking about:



I don't believe for a moment that there were 3 grand juries that read what I've read, or any portion thereof, that couldn't indict this monster.

I believe this is nothing more than a self serving tale meant to dilute the severity of the public's perception of the present charges, thereby lessening the impact of the university's failure to take any action.

I don't have any trouble believing that. Football at Penn State and the surrounding area is more important than a lot of things. The people involved in it are idolized. I can definitely see the grand jury stacked with Kool-Aid drinkers. JMO

BTW, I don't want to seem like I'm singling out PS. I think that's true of many, many major college programs. I think if we knew all of the things that are covered up every year by college programs we'd all be horrified beyond comprehension. JMO

 

[Reader]

As the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, Sol Wachtler, said in 1985, “A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”

And now, simply because Penn State's lawyer says so, I'm supposed to believe that not one, not two, but THREE three seperate grand jury investigations into Jerry Sandusky came back with no indictment?

Think I'll put this in the same pile as ole Jer's lawyer saying he was really just in the shower teaching good hygene to poor kids.

Heck! I don't know what to believe anymore but now that you say that it's a little curious that Cynthia Baldwin the Penn St. lawyer is also leaving:

Penn State lead counsel Cynthia Baldwin to step down

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/17/3055186/lead-counsel-to-step-down.html#storylink=cpy

In the news release, Baldwin said the time had come for the transition. She and Damon Sims, vice president for student affairs, are heading a search committee to fill the position.

Penn State spokeswoman Annemarie Mountz said the timing of the transition is unrelated to the fallout from the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal that is embroiling the university.

“When Cynthia Baldwin became the university’s full-time general counsel and chief legal officer in January 2010, she said she would serve in a transitional role as in-house counsel to help establish and organize the office, manage Penn State’s legal function, and pave the way for a permanent general counsel to be hired following a national search,” Mountz said.
-------

Acting as the university’s attorney, Baldwin served as legal counsel for Schultz and Curley when they testified to the grand jury Jan. 12, 2011.


Was that a conflict of interest?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

As the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, Sol Wachtler, said in 1985, “A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”

And now, simply because Penn State's lawyer says so, I'm supposed to believe that not one, not two, but THREE three seperate grand jury investigations into Jerry Sandusky came back with no indictment?

Think I'll put this in the same pile as ole Jer's lawyer saying he was really just in the shower teaching good hygene to poor kids.

It might not have been directly investigating Sandusky. There was a rumor of a GJ in 2006-07. It might not have investigating Sandusky, but found something.

 

[Reader]

The world does exist outside Penn State, but Paterno's prestige counts for a lot less beyond the confines of the campus.



As say what, that he didn't witness a crime?



The actual department that would handle the case is the one Schultz ran.



He did raise his voice, but not loudly enough. I'll fault Paterno for not pressing the case with the administration, asking questions like, "Did you contact the child's parents," or even, "Are you sure nothing happened?"

I am not positive he knew about 1998 (though Schultz did). I've yet to hear say that Paterno was told about that incident.

All this just proves my point about how insulated Penn. State is from the real world and how hard it is to find fault with Paterno, who according to my link above was even characterized by a board member as not doing enough to report the abuse and therefore could no longer RUN THE UNIVERSITY.

Paterno had little prestige outside of the school? Really?? Even in my state, WAY down south LOL, it was continuously in the news how Bobby Bowden at FSU was trying to stay on as head coach to try to beat Paterno's win record, but he was fired anyway. Paterno's record as a coach has been and is recognized nationally, if not worldwide.

He did not have to witness a crime in order to report what he knows about abuse of a child, in fact, as a mandatory reporter (teacher, coach) he by law is supposed to report any child abuse he suspects or is aware of, he does not have to witness it himself. He was told of child abuse by a witness and could have given that information to the REAL police in the outside world and CPS to investigate once he found out nothing was done by the campus police. What is it about that that is so hard to understand? The campus police had worked with the DA and CPS before to investigate JS, why not this time? If Paterno had wanted to push it to them he could have by picking up the phone as a concerned CITIZEN. But no, he was for various reasons satisfied that he had successfully passed it on and could wipe his hands of it (again IMO)....how is that working out for him now?

The administration at Penn. St. (Curley, Schultz) is not the be-all and end-all of the world. See above. There is no law against Paterno, or others, calling in the outside police, CPS, the DA to report what they knew. He had more power to get this done than MM did and could have gotten the ball rolling.

I've read enough now to highly suspect that Paterno and others in the admin at the college knew about 1998. One of his own coaches is investigated and he (who it has been said knew ALL that went on and did not want anybody else disciplining HIS people) knows nothing? Don't believe it. IMO, personally I believe he did know, had to know and that is why he told JS he would never be head coach. He thought he had gotten the stink of JS abusing kids out of his football team and school and this is one reason IMO he was so 'sad' and 'stunned' when MM came to him about what he saw....here it was again on his doorstep and he had to find someway to get rid of it again.....IMO

 

[Concerned Papa]

It might not have been directly investigating Sandusky. There was a rumor of a GJ in 2006-07. It might not have investigating Sandusky, but found something.

IDK, JJ. I'm going by what the first sentence of the article says:

Penn State trustees said there were three grand jury investigations into Jerry Sandusky prior to the one that led to the charges being filed.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/...tml#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

 

[Steely Dan]

All this just proves my point about how insulated Penn. State is from the real world and how hard it is to find fault with Paterno, who according to my link above was even characterized by a board member as not doing enough to report the abuse and therefore could no longer RUN THE UNIVERSITY.

Paterno had little prestige outside of the school? Really?? Even in my state, WAY down south LOL, it was continuously in the news how Bobby Bowden at FSU was trying to stay on as head coach to try to beat Paterno's win record, but he was fired anyway. Paterno's record as a coach has been and is recognized nationally, if not worldwide.

He did not have to witness a crime in order to report what he knows about abuse of a child, in fact, as a mandatory reporter (teacher, coach) he by law is supposed to report any child abuse he suspects or is aware of, he does not have to witness it himself. He was told of child abuse by a witness and could have given that information to the REAL police in the outside world and CPS to investigate once he found out nothing was done by the campus police. What is it about that that is so hard to understand? The campus police had worked with the DA and CPS before to investigate JS, why not this time? If Paterno had wanted to push it to them he could have by picking up the phone as a concerned CITIZEN. But no, he was for various reasons satisfied that he had successfully passed it on and could wipe his hands of it (again IMO)....how is that working out for him now?

The administration at Penn. St. (Curley, Schultz) is not the be-all and end-all of the world. See above. There is no law against Paterno, or others, calling in the outside police, CPS, the DA to report what they knew. He had more power to get this done than MM did and could have gotten the ball rolling.

I've read enough now to highly suspect that Paterno and others in the admin at the college knew about 1998. One of his own coaches is investigated and he (who it has been said knew ALL that went on and did not want anybody else disciplining HIS people) knows nothing? Don't believe it. IMO, personally I believe he did know, had to know and that is why he told JS he would never be head coach. He thought he had gotten the stink of JS abusing kids out of his football team and school and this is one reason IMO he was so 'sad' and 'stunned' when MM came to him about what he saw....here it was again on his doorstep and he had to find someway to get rid of it again.....IMO

:clap: :clap:

 

[Reader]

IDK, JJ. I'm going by what the first sentence of the article says:

One thing that makes me think there might have been prior GJs is something said during the prelim. hearing for Schultz/Curley by the DA agent. He testified that his office was not aware of the 2002 incident until November 2010.

A GJ meets for a session that lasts weeks, sometimes months, depending on the state's laws. I'm wondering if the GJ had some of the cases but did not have an actual witness of sexual abuse by JS, to back up what the boys were saying. Remember the other school witnesses only saw 'wrestling' and 'laying on top' which JS had explained away, along with the showers which were 'just horsing around'.

Having 3 grand juries could be that as more evidence and accusers came in a new GJ meeting was called on the continuing case within the same session, until in 11/2010 they hit the jackpot with hearing about MM and getting him to come in.

I would like to know about the timing of the GJs, hopefully this will come out eventually.

 

[StellarsJay]

Attorney General says there were no previous Grand Juries related to Sandusky.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...state-board-of-trustees-claim-on-sex-scandal/