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

[costalpilot]

This writer expresses my views way better than I can:

This is an icon, the most powerful man in his community, failing to follow up on a report of an unspeakable act beyond informing the equally unconcerned people above him on the organizational chart. ...

[snipped for length]

Children may have been molested because of that inaction. Those people -- now young adults -- don't get a do-over because Paterno went out on his lawn and asked everyone to say a prayer for them. They probably appreciate his statement Wednesday: "...

[snipped for length]

With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Guess what they would appreciate more: To have lived lives in which they were never molested.

(We'll pause here with a message for that vocal minority still blindly supporting Paterno while foisting blame for inaction on Curley, Schultz and Spanier. Legally speaking, Paterno did just enough. Morally speaking, he's in the same boat as they are.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...e-joe-paterno-legacy/index.html#ixzz1ykVslpOn


BBM

The writer goes on to say "this major lapse in judgment does not and should not erase all the good Paterno has done in his life."

With which I also agree.

imo paterno was unusual in that he wasn't concerned with money at all, so he funneled most of his wealth back to state college. other than that, his reputation for "morality" and being a different kind of coach that cared more about his players and the college athlete than others was Ball shyte...it was a myth. he was no better than any other D1 coach, and his players were afforded the same latitude to break the law, do drugs, skip class, cheat their way thru school and so on as at every other school.

except for the money, which he didnt care about, he was no different than the rest. but he was an outstanding coach who was as good as it gets in that profession. he just coveted power and control more than cash.

a lazy and incompetent sports writer nation perpetuated the "joepa the moralist" myth, but it was smoke and mirrors from the start, built on his unusual attitude toward money. the man cared more about his reputation than his wealth, which is ironic considering that his love of power and control eventually helped ruin his reputation. everybody in the sports world except, apparently, penn staters know he was a virtual god in happy valley who got what he wanted when he wanted it. in the end that control did him in.

he "wished" he had done more. those who know about his true power base in happy valley have a pretty good idea "why" he didnt do more. and it wasn't because he was old and tired, which is what he wanted everybody to believe. it was because he wanted to kill the truth about the cesspool he had created. in a way, who could blame him. xcept that he then allowed it to go on and on.

why did he let it go on and on? because he never was the high minded moralist he was made out to be. it was a lie.

he cared more about the shine on his plaque than doing the right thing. it cost him the plaque in the end.

vengeful karma.

imo

 

[jabberwocky]

Has anyone seen the mandatory minimum sentences for these crimes posted anywhere? I am looking. Thanks in advance.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...-sandusky-convicted-45-counts-sex-abuse-trial


"Sandusky, a 68-year-old retired defensive coach who was once Paterno's heir apparent, was found guilty of 45 of 48 counts and is almost certain to spend the rest of his life in prison. The charges carry a minimum 60-year sentence and 442 years at maximum."

 

[BrownRice]

I'm curious what his 6 kids must think (well, 5 now since we know what MS thinks!) of their upbringing and JS's parenting skills (even if they think he is innocent of the crimes). How did JS father his adopted kids if he spent so much time with the 2nd Mile children? Were they jealous of the time he spent with the 2nd Mile kids and not them? Or did they not even like him and were pleased he left them alone?

 

[The Shoat]

As far as what he "chose" to do, I simply think that he didn't realize he had to, because he had reported it and was assured it was taken care of.

I disagree, I think the reason JoePa took a weekend before reporting is because he talked to his attorneys to find out what was the minimum he was required to do. And, it worked -- he's not culpable!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Has anyone seen the mandatory minimum sentences for these crimes posted anywhere? I am looking. Thanks in advance.

In theory, as little as ten years, but the judge may even have the ability to lessen that. As previously mention, one of the priest that plead in the Phila church scandal was convicted of the same crime as Sandusky. He got 2.5 to 5 and I'm told can be out in 2.

I wouldn't mind the judge sentencing him to even two felonies consecutively, but I doubt that will happen.

I think he can parole with half his sentence completed: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/understanding_pennsylvania_parole/5356

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I disagree, I think the reason JoePa took a weekend before reporting is because he talked to his attorneys to find out what was the minimum he was required to do. And, it worked -- he's not culpable!

He found out on a Saturday morning and reported it on that Monday, I think.

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

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.

While I wouldn't want to see him harmed in prison, I also don't feel like a man who is convicted of crimes against our children should be given protective custody.

I feel that it might make these monsters think twice if they knew-if they get convicted of harming a child-they would go straight to general population.

And monsters like Jer should never have more rights than the innocent children he raped.

 

[jabberwocky]

I think the key is that it has to involve the public service. If I provide a false alibi to someone, and get convicted of perjury, I'd still get a pension. If I falsified a client's welfare application, I'd lose my pension.

It's nice to know that I can commit triple homicide, and still get my pension.

Well, I think it's time for PA (amonst many states) to start looking into their Pension Forfeiture Laws! I would be an outraged taxpayer right now if I lived in PA and knew that some of my taxes were being used to pay debts owed by a sex offender,or any other heinous crime.

 

[Rlaub44]

imo paterno was unusual in that he wasn't concerned with money at all, so he funneled most of his wealth back to state college. other than that, his reputation for "morality" and being a different kind of coach that cared more about his players and the college athlete than others was Ball shyte...it was a myth. he was no better than any other D1 coach, and his players were afforded the same latitude to break the law, do drugs, skip class, cheat their way thru school and so on as at every other school.

except for the money, which he didnt care about, he was no different than the rest. but he was an outstanding coach who was as good as it gets in that profession. he just coveted power and control more than cash.

a lazy and incompetent sports writer nation perpetuated the "joepa the moralist" myth, but it was smoke and mirrors from the start, built on his unusual attitude toward money. the man cared more about his reputation than his wealth, which is ironic considering that his love of power and control eventually helped ruin his reputation. everybody in the sports world except, apparently, penn staters know he was a virtual god in happy valley who got what he wanted when he wanted it. in the end that control did him in.

he "wished" he had done more. those who know about his true power base in happy valley have a pretty good idea "why" he didnt do more. and it wasn't because he was old and tired, which is what he wanted everybody to believe. it was because he wanted to kill the truth about the cesspool he had created. in a way, who could blame him. xcept that he then allowed it to go on and on.

why did he let it go on and on? because he never was the high minded moralist he was made out to be. it was a lie.

he cared more about the shine on his plaque than doing the right thing. it cost him the plaque in the end.

vengeful karma.

imo

Costalpilot, I'm curious; did you know much about Paterno or have an opinion of him prior to the Sandusky scandal breaking? It seems as though you have strong negative feelings about his entire tenure at PSU, not just regarding this situation, and your opinion is vastly different than that of the men that played for him and attest to his character lessons and how he, in their view, positively molded them as young men.

Please excuse me if this sounds snarky; I don't intend that at all. I just hoped to better understand where you are coming from. I do appreciate everything you (and others here) bring to this discussion.

 

[Rlaub44]

I disagree, I think the reason JoePa took a weekend before reporting is because he talked to his attorneys to find out what was the minimum he was required to do. And, it worked -- he's not culpable!

He found out on a Saturday morning and reported it on that Monday, I think.

Actually, the reports are in agreement that McQueary called and met with Paterno on Saturday, and Paterno called Tim Curley the very next day, Sunday.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't know that that's true. I think they would have investigated in connection with the university police. And if they felt the university police alone had jurisdiction to investigate, it would have gone to the police department, not just Schultz, who was senior vice president for finance and business — which gave him oversight of university police - not chief of police.

Here is the statute:

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/s3490.13.html



§ 3490.13. Reports by employes who are required reporters.
(a) Required reporters who work in an institution, school, facility or agency shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the person in charge’s designee of suspected abuse. The person in charge, or the designee, shall be responsible and have the obligation to make a report of the suspected child abuse to ChildLine immediately. Nothing in this chapter requires more than one report from any institution, school, facility or agency.

(b) The person in charge or the designee may not make an independent determination of whether to report. The person in charge or the designee shall notify the employe when the report was made to ChildLine.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a), nothing in this chapter prohibits an employe who is a required reporter from making a report directly to ChildLine.

But the most important point is that at least Paterno would have been doing his job , reporting to police. He didn't do that here. And if it would have led to a cover up like in 1998, well, at least he could say he did all he could and reported. Again, he failed to do that here.

He did do his job under statute. You are asking him to do something beyond what he was required to do. Let's be clear on that.

He did report the incident, and that was reported to the person who had oversight of police activities on campus. That much was done.

In PA towns, boroughs, there is an elected mayor. Some have borough managers as well. Under PA law, the mayor has control over the police department, though he may cede this power to the manager, if there is one. Schultz was in the position of the manager.

A lot of times, if you are well connected, you talk directly to the person running the police. That is basically what Curley did, after Paterno talked to him.

Now, administratively, should Paterno have talked to Schultz and asked, "Did you investigate that report? Is the kid okay?" I use the word "administratively," because, if you are Paterno, you don't an incident like that to interfere with the football program; you are looking at your own turf.

 

[AbbieNormal]

I find it really interesting that dotti was allowed to visit him the next morning after he was jailed.. I know someone in calif who son was arrested and we couldnt visit at all at county jail.. and didnt get to see him till he was processed and put in the actual state prison.. it was actually inhuman for the parents..... in a way.. even to try to figure out where he was and what was going on...

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???

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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???

People have posted the list, I think. Underwear and things like that.

 

[elepher50]

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???

Dunno ... maybe divorce papers? Can't think of a thing he would need other than what you described as being provided or being able to be bought in the canteen. Probably papers of some sort or possibly medications?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

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???

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

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Random thought: every time I see that booking photo, it makes me happy.

That dung-eating grin has been wiped off his face forever.

 

[LEFT-COASTER]

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

I just found that list online too... wow.. never heard of anywhere that let prisoners bring that stuff from out side... in calif.. they have to buy it.. from prison store..

 

[gitana1]

I'm curious what his 6 kids must think (well, 5 now since we know what MS thinks!) of their upbringing and JS's parenting skills (even if they think he is innocent of the crimes). How did JS father his adopted kids if he spent so much time with the 2nd Mile children? Were they jealous of the time he spent with the 2nd Mile kids and not them? Or did they not even like him and were pleased he left them alone?

Excellent question. I would love to know that too!

Here is the statute:

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/s3490.13.html



§ 3490.13. Reports by employes who are required reporters.
(a) Required reporters who work in an institution, school, facility or agency shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the person in charge’s designee of suspected abuse. The person in charge, or the designee, shall be responsible and have the obligation to make a report of the suspected child abuse to ChildLine immediately. Nothing in this chapter requires more than one report from any institution, school, facility or agency.

(b) The person in charge or the designee may not make an independent determination of whether to report. The person in charge or the designee shall notify the employe when the report was made to ChildLine.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a), nothing in this chapter prohibits an employe who is a required reporter from making a report directly to ChildLine.



He did do his job under statute. You are asking him to do something beyond what he was required to do. Let's be clear on that.

He did report the incident, and that was reported to the person who had oversight of police activities on campus. That much was done.

In PA towns, boroughs, there is an elected mayor. Some have borough managers as well. Under PA law, the mayor has control over the police department, though he may cede this power to the manager, if there is one. Schultz was in the position of the manager.

A lot of times, if you are well connected, you talk directly to the person running the police. That is basically what Curley did, after Paterno talked to him.

Now, administratively, should Paterno have talked to Schultz and asked, "Did you investigate that report? Is the kid okay?" I use the word "administratively," because, if you are Paterno, you don't an incident like that to interfere with the football program; you are looking at your own turf.

Respectfully, I don't give a damn what the statute says. I am aware of why he was not prosecuted. But, he was the head coach of a major, state university football team, hearing, yet again, another allegation of some sort of sex abuse occurring in the showers on the part of his main assistant, a man he knew was always trailed by one little boy or another. The "alleged" abuse occurred on his campus, in his locker rooms, with one of his coaches and a little boy. As a result, in my opinion, his job was to contact the police. Period.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully, I don't give a damn what the statute says. I am aware of why he was not prosecuted. But, he was the head coach of a major, state university football team, hearing, yet again, another allegation of some sort of sex abuse occurring in the showers on the part of his main assistant, a man he knew was always trailed by one little boy or another. The "alleged" abuse occurred on his campus, in his locker rooms, with one of his coaches and a little boy. As a result, in my opinion, his job was to contact the police. Period.

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.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Respectfully, I don't give a damn what the statute says. I am aware of why he was not prosecuted. But, he was the head coach of a major, state university football team, hearing, yet again, another allegation of some sort of sex abuse occurring in the showers on the part of his main assistant, a man he knew was always trailed by one little boy or another. The "alleged" abuse occurred on his campus, in his locker rooms, with one of his coaches and a little boy. As a result, in my opinion, his job was to contact the police. Period.

ITA. As I posted earlier from a writer more articulate than I (BBM):

(We'll pause here with a message for that vocal minority still blindly supporting Paterno while foisting blame for inaction on Curley, Schultz and Spanier. Legally speaking, Paterno did just enough. Morally speaking, he's in the same boat as they are. So think very hard about what you're actually supporting when you pledge your undying allegiance to Paterno.)

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...e-joe-paterno-legacy/index.html#ixzz1ym3D6vGk