Penn State Sandusky Trial #11 (Verdict - GUILTY!)

[IzzyBlanche]

It really makes no difference what your opinion of the law is; it is the law.

Remember, Paterno could not know what happened, because he did not see it, and Sandusky no longer was under his supervision.

There should have been more followup, administratively, but calling the police would have taken him straight back to Schultz.

I'm sorry, but once again, baloney.

If that had been JP's son or grandson in the showers, he would have done a whole lot more whether he had seen it or not or whether Sandusky was under his supervision or not.

It's not about what his obligations were under the law. It's about what his obligations were as a human being. Particularly given the moral good-guy image he put so much effort into cultivating.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is a chart of the sentencing guidelines:

http://www.penn-law.com/lawyer-attorney-1831194.html

If I understand correctly, if the judge would follow the guidelines, and sentence Sandusky concurrently to all charges, it would be 10 years +/- 1 year, with being eligible for parole 5 1/2 years, +/- 6 months.

I would suspect that the judge will probably sentence Sandusky to some of the felonies consecutively. My guess looking at that possibility is that it will be ten years on 2-3 of the IDSI counts consecutively, the rest concurrently.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm sorry, but once again, baloney.

If that had been JP's son or grandson in the showers, he would have done a whole lot more whether he had seen it or not or whether Sandusky was under his supervision or not.

And he would have know who the victim was. Right there, you change they scenario.

Suppose that McQuearry was wrong, and Paterno had no way of knowing. He can't investigate the matter; he can't, at that point, even approach Sandusky as a supervisor.

It's not about what his obligations were under the law. It's about what his obligations were as a human being. Particularly given the moral good-guy image he put so much effort into cultivating.

I make it a point not to talk or cite moral duties. As soon as you do that, you move to what you think is right; I'm sure Sandusky did what he thought was right. That is why we have laws.

 

[HMSHood]

You're absolutely correct things would have been entirely different if Paterno had gone directly to LE about Jerry. However, I strongly think Jerry's behavior was known by athletic officials at the school long before the shower incident.

Why else was Jerry given a retirement in 1999? Seems to me that was the only way they could get rid of him and ultimately still keep his behavior a secret. Jerry retiring from the University would cause less questions than if he was suddenly fired.

I suspect Jerry was warned years before he took the retirement to knock it off but he continued to abuse young boys. Administration knew, wanted him out...but Jerry never went away did he?

It was much more important, as you pointed out, for the University to protect its reputation than take the correct steps which would have revealed to the world Jerry's sins and put him on the legal path to punishment. I find this approach as bad as Jerry's attacks on these young victims. jmo

That is what I am thinking too. Also, this applies to The Second Mile and possibly the public school system that Sandusky had access too.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

And he would have know who the victim was. Right there, you change they scenario

I don't want to put words in your mouth.

But the logical inference is, since he didn't know who the victim was, he had less obligation to report it than if he had known who the victim was.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I make it a point not to talk or cite moral duties.

Snipped for focus.

That's fine. However, IIRC JP made his reputation on claiming (and I paraphrase) that he expected, no, not only expected, but demanded, that everyone in his program uphold moral standards, else they'd be out on their ear.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Suppose that McQuearry was wrong, and Paterno had no way of knowing. He can't investigate the matter; he can't, at that point, even approach Sandusky as a supervisor.

JP was a revered, respected icon on campus. All he had to do was demand someone else with proper authority investigate and it would have been done.

My alma mater is a big football school and believe me, I know the power coaches at such schools have.

So the excuse of helplessness on JP's part just makes me laugh.

 

[HMSHood]

Jerry Sandusky has to be the worst sports scandal, professional and college combined. It is worse than SMU Football Scandal, 2003 Baylor Basketball, Pete Rose, and 1919 Chicago Black Sox Scandal.

Penn State Scandal: Is SI Right Dubbing Penn State Worst College Sports Scandal?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...bbing-penn-state-worst-college-sports-scandal

The SMU football team may have held the distinction of biggest scandal prior to the Penn State case as players were paid thousands of dollars in the mid-1980s. This led the NCAA to give SMU "the death penalty" as the program was shut down for two years.

Since then there have been tons of other pay-for-play scandals at high-profile schools like Miami, Florida State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, USC and many more. All of them were pretty similar in nature, but none of them are as morally despicable as what Sandusky allegedly did.

In terms of morality, the closest thing to the Sandusky case may have occurred in 1951 with the Army football team. In that instance, 37 Army football players were expelled for cheating on exams, causing the team to essentially crumble.

That scandal reflected poorly on Army as the servicemen were supposed to have been of the highest possible character, but even so, it doesn't hold a candle to Penn State. While the Army scandal may have had a temporary negative effect on the prestige of West Point, the players ultimately hurt themselves and nobody else.

Even those scandals are nothing compared to Penn State. Those scandals involve money or cheating. There is no law against paying players or cheating, but they are against NCAA rules. I wonder what penalty NCAA will impose on Penn State.

 

[Quiche]

I understand how many want Sandusky to get a taste of his own medicine, but I don't want to see him raped or otherwised harmed in prison. We are a civilized society or we are not. Prisoners have rights - rights against cruel and unusual punishment. A prison environment where this can happen is cruel -- we are better than this.

We are better than that, but Jerry Sandusky is not. His prison environment will never be as cruel as a basement bedroom with a waterbed in a home where you don't have a voice, a value, where the innocence of childhood was forever stolen, over and over and over. WE are better, but Jerry isn't! :moo:

I don't think she was allowed to visit with him, but I am wondering what in the world she was allowed to bring into the jail "from the outside" that Sandusky would be allowed to have? The way it works is you get money put into your account so you can buy the things you need from their commissary/ canteen whatever they call it there. ( I was a jail nurse for several years) Even razors, denture cups, etc is all avail for purchase and they give inmates a toothbrush, comb, bar of soap, etc when they first arrive. Nothing is allowed to be brought to the inmate, not even prescriptions. Maybe she brought in some sneakers, that would be allowed.
So now I am curious, what was in that bag???

Is it possible she was taking home the personal effects he had to relinquish and that was what was seen in the plastic bag? His keys, wallet, watch, cell phone...?


Regarding the issue with JoePa-- I think our society needs "doing the right thing" legislated, these days. We have Good Samaritan laws so that people who render life saving assistance to strangers aren't, in turn, sued for their effort. Perhaps this country needs a mandatory reporting law when it comes to children and sex abuse, I see it accomplishing two important things right off the bat:

1. It would remove the "snitch" stigma from informing LE of an act against a child. Everyone would "have" to do it... you wouldn't be alone in your concern, you'd have the backing of the entire community.

2. The perps would know to expect intervention where they used to expect a doubting and wavering suspicion from others who got an inclination about their abuses.

Idk, I'm not usually one to call for more and more legal restrictions, especially in place of common sense, but because we are made of such a diverse moral fabric, where those fail us, I'm not opposed to our central government laying out an expected response from its citizenry.

We have to learn from examples like this, we just have to. mo

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't want to put words in your mouth.

But the logical inference is, since he didn't know who the victim was, he had less obligation to report it than if he had known who the victim was.

No, the logical conclusion was, he would have known how the victim was and he would have had to rely on just McQueary.

 

[LinasK]

We are better than that, but Jerry Sandusky is not. His prison environment will never be as cruel as a basement bedroom with a waterbed in a home where you don't have a voice, a value, where the innocence of childhood was forever stolen, over and over and over. WE are better, but Jerry isn't! :moo:




Is it possible she was taking home the personal effects he had to relinquish and that was what was seen in the plastic bag? His keys, wallet, watch, cell phone...?


Regarding the issue with JoePa-- I think our society needs "doing the right thing" legislated, these days. We have Good Samaritan laws so that people who render life saving assistance to strangers aren't, in turn, sued for their effort. Perhaps this country needs a mandatory reporting law when it comes to children and sex abuse, I see it accomplishing two important things right off the bat:

1. It would remove the "snitch" stigma from informing LE of an act against a child. Everyone would "have" to do it... you wouldn't be alone in your concern, you'd have the backing of the entire community.

2. The perps would know to expect intervention where they used to expect a doubting and wavering suspicion from others who got an inclination about their abuses.

Idk, I'm not usually one to call for more and more legal restrictions, especially in place of common sense, but because we are made of such a diverse moral fabric, where those fail us, I'm not opposed to our central government laying out an expected response from its citizenry.

We have to learn from examples like this, we just have to. mo

I thought I read she was allowed to bring the machine for his sleep apnea? Not that he deserves it...

 

[IzzyBlanche]

No, the logical conclusion was, he would have known how the victim was and he would have had to rely on just McQueary.

I don't understand what you are saying. Sorry.

 

[Quiche]

Snipped for focus.

That's fine. However, IIRC JP made his reputation on claiming (and I paraphrase) that he expected, no, not only expected, but demanded, that everyone in his program uphold moral standards, else they'd be out on their ear.

Yes, this is what really rankles me-- that old standard of hypocrisy that's made me sick since the moment I grew to recognize it. :burn:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Regarding the issue with JoePa-- I think our society needs "doing the right thing" legislated, these days. We have Good Samaritan laws so that people who render life saving assistance to strangers aren't, in turn, sued for their effort. Perhaps this country needs a mandatory reporting law when it comes to children and sex abuse, I see it accomplishing two important things right off the bat:

1. It would remove the "snitch" stigma from informing LE of an act against a child. Everyone would "have" to do it... you wouldn't be alone in your concern, you'd have the backing of the entire community.

2. The perps would know to expect intervention where they used to expect a doubting and wavering suspicion from others who got an inclination about their abuses.

If you are talking about this situation, you are talking about the person who actually saw something reporting. That isn't Paterno; that is McQueary. Then it becomes a question of who are they suppose to report it to.

Remember, McQueary did report it under the rules. The problem is, what happened, or didn't happen, once he reported it.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't understand what you are saying. Sorry.

If this was Paterno's grandson, or someone whose identify he knew, he could have checked checked with the parents to make sure the kid was okay and nothing happened.

Paterno can't independently verify what McQueary saw. McQueary isn't even giving him the details, understandably.

Paterno can't say, "This happened." He can only say, "McQueary said this happened." He doesn't have the ability to investigate it himself and to make a judgment.

 

[Pensfan]

I'm sorry, but once again, baloney.

If that had been JP's son or grandson in the showers, he would have done a whole lot more whether he had seen it or not or whether Sandusky was under his supervision or not.

It's not about what his obligations were under the law. It's about what his obligations were as a human being. Particularly given the moral good-guy image he put so much effort into cultivating.

The Penn State campus has its own police department which is not a small police force. The main campus police department has more officers than the city of State College and their boss is Schultz. They do not report to the State College city police department, but to Schultz.
http://www.police.psu.edu/aboutus/


When Paterno heard the report from McQueary, what could have done besides call the State Police/FBI/CIA/Secret Service who would have referred him back to the Penn State PD? The DA in that county had refused to prosecute Sandusky only a couple of years earlier. Sandusky wasn't Paterno's employee in 2001, so Paterno couldn't fire him. Paterno couldn't fire Sandusky from TSM which Sandusky founded. All Paterno could have done was to notify the media WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND ONLY HEARSAY, gathered a posse, marched to Sandusky's home, and castrated or killed him.
http://www.police.psu.edu/aboutus/

After hearing all the testimonies, the jury didn't believe McQueary's statements proved rape or molestation and Paterno may not have believed this shocking allegation either. There is no evidence that Paterno had knowledge of any other allegation against Sandusky. Almost all of the molestation occurred in Sandusky's home where Paterno didn't live.

I can only recall one instance in four decades where Paterno touted anything similar to "I'm a virtuous/moral guy". Please provide your sources as some of us would like to read them. If you are referring to the fact that Paterno gave millions to his church on the Penn State campus, realize that he humbly gave donations (like the other sinners who fill the church in the attempt to learn to sin less frequently and to ask forgiveness for their sins). If you are referring to the millions he gave to build the new hospital in State College, please cite a source showing that this was done without humility. Please apply the same statement to the million he donated to the library on the main campus.

 

[gitana1]

It really makes no difference what your opinion of the law is; it is the law.

Remember, Paterno could not know what happened, because he did not see it, and Sandusky no longer was under his supervision.

There should have been more followup, administratively, but calling the police would have taken him straight back to Schultz.

I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about what's right.

If we hear a child being abused next door, it is not illegal for most of us to shut the window and ignore it. If we see someone being attacked on the street, it is not illegal to walk on by. So?

My grandparents risked their lives and risked leaving their children orphans during WWII as members of the Dutch Underground in Holland. My grandfather on the other side risked his life by speaking out against the Franco dictatorship in Spain. His father was pulled out of his house and shot in front of his wife and five kids for doing the same. You're talking to the wrong person if you're saying that the law is a barometer for what's right or what we should do. Oh, and I'm a lawyer.

As far as whether or not a call to police would have led back to Schultz or not, so what? Also, you already mentioned that and I responded. You are repeating yourself.

And he would have know who the victim was. Right there, you change they scenario.

Suppose that McQuearry was wrong, and Paterno had no way of knowing. He can't investigate the matter; he can't, at that point, even approach Sandusky as a supervisor.


I make it a point not to talk or cite moral duties. As soon as you do that, you move to what you think is right; I'm sure Sandusky did what he thought was right. That is why we have laws.

BBM.
Nonsense. Laws in the 1600's allowed the burning of "witches." In the 1800's the law kept humans in the chains of slavery. During the 1930's and 40's, certain laws led 6 million people to their deaths due solely to their religion. In the 1950's, the law mandated the segregation of certain races. The law does not always determine what's right.

Remember David Cash, Jr.?

Sandusky sure as heck knew that what he was doing wasn't right. That's why he tried to hide it.

Paterno was protecting college ball. As was Curley, etc. Again, IMO, they did not do their jobs. Sometimes one's job calls for more than what's on paper.

Someone reports to you that a child has been abused, you call the police. Period. I don't think there's much else I can say about that.

 

[Rlaub44]

I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about what's right.

If we hear a child being abused next door, it is not illegal for most of us to shut the window and ignore it. If we see someone being attacked on the street, it is not illegal to walk on by. So?

My grandparents risked their lives and risked leaving their children orphans during WWII as members of the Dutch Underground in Holland. My grandfather on the other side risked his life by speaking out against the Franco dictatorship in Spain. His father was pulled out of his house and shot in front of his wife and five kids for doing the same. You're talking to the wrong person if you're saying that the law is a barometer for what's right or what we should do. Oh, and I'm a lawyer.

As far as whether or not a call to police would have led back to Schultz or not, so what? Also, you already mentioned that and I responded. You are repeating yourself.



BBM.
Nonsense. Laws in the 1600's allowed the burning of "witches." In the 1800's the law kept humans in the chains of slavery. During the 1930's and 40's, certain laws led 6 million people to their deaths due solely to their religion. In the 1950's, the law mandated the segregation of certain races. The law does not always determine what's right.

Remember David Cash, Jr.?

Sandusky sure as heck knew that what he was doing wasn't right. That's why he tried to hide it.

Paterno was protecting college ball. As was Curley, etc. Again, IMO, they did not do their jobs. Sometimes one's job calls for more than what's on paper.

Someone reports to you that a child has been abused, you call the police. Period. I don't think there's much else I can say about that.

Re: the two sections I bolded.

This is the problem that I keep coming back to with most of the arguments about Paterno's involvement. He didn't ignore it, whether or not you think his legal obligation was sufficient morally. He reported it, and had no reason to think it would be swept under the rug from there.

To ignore it or to attempt to protect his football program (which again is ludicrous to me, as Sandusky was not a coach at the time, so his involvement had little or no bearing on the football program), all Paterno had to do was to tell McQueary that he would handle it, and then forget the conversation ever happened.

Or he could have persuaded McQueary, a State College native and one of his former players, how bad he somehow thought this would be for the team, and to not say anything to anyone else. He did neither.

He reported the next day the allegations that were given to him, and he followed up with McQueary later to see if he felt comfortable with his meeting. Those are not the actions of a man beginning a cover-up.

Again, if his superiors had done their jobs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, as we would have no reason to question Paterno's reporting according to the PA law and the policies of his University. It is only because those men failed their legal obligation, probably without Paterno's knowledge, that we can discuss Paterno failing in his moral obligation.

 

[BrownRice]

And he would have know who the victim was. Right there, you change they scenario.

Suppose that McQuearry was wrong, and Paterno had no way of knowing. He can't investigate the matter; he can't, at that point, even approach Sandusky as a supervisor.

I make it a point not to talk or cite moral duties. As soon as you do that, you move to what you think is right; I'm sure Sandusky did what he thought was right. That is why we have laws.

JJ, you have me riled up this morning.

You cannot possibly believe JS thought his actions were right. If he thought they were right, he wouldn't do them late at night in the shower when nobody else was present. He wouldn't stash the boys down in the basement. He would just tell Dottie, Hey I'm going downstairs to lay with Johnny and **** (add whatever comments here). Of course he knew it wasn't right.

And JP didn't need to know the identity of the shower victim to keep him from further action. But let's say he did need to.....He calls JS in and says, Hey I heard you were in the shower last night. Who was the kid? Simple enough.

And I'm on the boat with many others who feel the legal obligation of these creatures wasn't enough. A child's well-being and welfare trumps legal obligations. The little boy in the shower whom MM saw was victimized again when MM left him alone with that monster. I cannot even imagine being in his shoes. It is so horrendously sad to think that a grown man saw this and walked out. But he slammed the locker door - that was his justification! Needed to make sure we all knew that. Great job.

I'm not a lawyer. Just a law abiding citizen and parent. And to be told they were within the parameters of the law so it's ok, makes me want to vomit.

 

[LaLaw2000]

BBM

Socks and underwear, maybe?

Like other inmates there, he was allowed to bring a small number of items in with him. The options include six pairs of white underwear, white socks and white undershirts, prescription glasses or contact lenses, a wedding band, religious prayer book, no more than 10 personal photographs and 10 letters and no more than 4 inches of legal documents or materials.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nation...de_watch_wRXtswr5npm5AtuBdBOrjM#ixzz1ylwLAo2D

If Dottie Sandusky was allowed to actually bring JS anything at all from home, then that would be the first jail I have ever known of to allow it. I am someone who has worked in the system.

Even if she went to Walmart and bought new socks, underwear, and so forth, it would not be allowed, IMO. These items would have to be bought from the jail commissary, or ordered from the manufacturer to come straight from the manufacturer/store. I cannot see any jail/correctional center treating JS any differently than the other arrestees and now convicted felon.

Until sentencing, JS will remain in the local facility and not transported to the actual prison until sentencing. He is going to have a much better time of it where he is now, and actual prison is going to scare the pants off him.

Ms. Dottie may think she can visit any time she pleases or bring JS anything she wants to, but I'd bet you anything she left there with the same bag she brought. She cannot even bring his own personal bible to him. He will be given one if he asks, but it will not be one from home. She cannot bring him a C-Pap machine. If warranted, the jail doctor will see that he gets it. I have seen inmates with them as was ordered by the jail doctor.

Ms. Dottie and JS are going to have to learn a new ballgame here whether they like it or not.

MOO's