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

[LaLaw2000]

BTW, Websleuths Radio show was outstanding last night! You can still listen to it.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I worked for public schools for 31+ years. From the late 60's on, there were very strict rules regarding reporting of child abuse. You had to go directly to the guidance counselor who was the mandated reporter for a specific child. If one were to call the police, they would go directly to the counselor or the principal.

In my last place of employment, this policy was made very clear. Report through channels or you could lose your job.

Let me give you an example. One school I worked in had an aging ventilation system which was never cleaned. Many of us (teachers and students) suffered asthma, chronic bronchitis, etc. The principal was asked to have the air quality checked. He refused. One teacher called the local health department to check the air quality. They went to the principal and the principal refused.

The teacher who called in found his evaluations go from hero to zero. Any slight infraction of the rules was written up and put in his personnel file. Within two years, he was let go.

The same would happen with any tenure teacher suspected of having sexual contact with a student. Non tenure teachers who openly flirted with students were gone overnight. The rub was that they were all let go to teach at other schools.

Mind you, this was all kept secret from everyone. The only way one would know was either by gossip or from friends of the accused... often years later.

Since I didn't engage in gossip, I never knew, I had to put two and two together for myself.

It was and is so wrong. However, in the cases I know of, the perp and the student wouldn't tell. There was no solid proof, with the exception of one teacher who was later sued by the student. He lost his teaching license, but did no jail time.

MM knew there was something that happened, but didn't witness it. JoePa didn't know for sure (though I'm sure he had more than a hint something was off). I will put on MM that he should have confronted JS and learned the identity of the boy. He could then have given a more verifiable report. However, if the boy had denied anything happened, the case would have gone nowhere.

I never had a situation where I could report any sexual abuse, but I did have cases of possible abuse where I saw bruises. In one case I reported to the counselor, I was told that they had looked into the situation and the girl with the bruises refused to testify against her boyfriend, who was beating her.

In two other notable cases, I was able to help. In both cases, there were serious psycholigical issues backed up by the students' own writing. In both cases, the parents were contacted. In one case, the parents acknowledged their son was suicidal and was seeing a counselor. In the other, the parent lived in total denial. It wasn't until the boy refused for 6 months to go to school, saying his only reason for living was to play video games, was he hospitalized for severe depression and other issues.

What pleases me no end is that these victims finally were able to come forward and testify. It took a lot of investigation and careful treatment to get them to that point. That is our problem. Their ability to overcome the shame and mistrust of the system made this case happen. It is, I fervently hope, an opening to the doors that house so many cases of child abuse.

 

[Concerned Papa]

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.

BBM

I very much disagree with what I bolded above.

Joe Paterno was the head, and figurative CEO, of a highly profitable, multi million dollar business called The Penn State Football Program. Forget any moral obligations, forget protecting the children of Happy Valley, Joe Paterno had a fiduciary responsibility to investigate ANY matter that would negatively impact the bottom line for his profit center.

Besides being the head of a football program with vast resources at his disposal, Paterno was a wealthy man of means in his own right. He had every reason, every responsibility, and certainly the ability to spend relative chump change dollars to hire professional investigators to get to the bottom of fact versus fiction in regards to Mr. Sandusky. It doesn't matter if the law or the university required it, they certainly could not have prevented it. It's done every day in corporate America.

It's called protecting the brand.

 

[Bravo]

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???

I had posted way back seeing the video on HLN bag looked light and several items.. When i saw another closer video later on I'm not so sure it wasn't that sleep apnea machine. Dont quote me on that tho. It was a rather large clear plastic bag. I would say 2-3 times the size of a plastic grocery store bag.

 

[Gardenlady]

Why is in-house reporting acceptable still in athletic departments and schools? Have we so soon forgotten the lessons from the Catholic Church's abuse cover-ups?

At the very least, even if something is reported to LE and there is no evidence, and/or a victim won't or can't talk, there will be a record of a report made. A paper trail. There will be something there on the record for the future when a victim might decide to come forward.

And at least the *attempt* is made to protect the child. And there is less chance for an in-house cover up.

It is simply unacceptable that people are okay with themselves and others doing the legal minimum required of them in cases where a child is at risk.

 

[Bravo]

Why is in-house reporting acceptable still in athletic departments and schools? Have we so soon forgotten the lessons from the Catholic Church's abuse cover-ups?

At the very least, even if something is reported to LE and there is no evidence, and/or a victim won't or can't talk, there will be a record of a report made. A paper trail. There will be something there on the record for the future when a victim might decide to come forward.

And at least the *attempt* is made to protect the child. And there is less chance for an in-house cover up.

It is simply unacceptable that people are okay with themselves and others doing the legal minimum required of them in cases where a child is at risk.

Excellent post. It is a sad day when people are good with legally acceptable. Where is their Moral Conscience?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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



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.

And in the 1600's (and before) people thought it was right to burn witches. In the 1800's many people, and a majority in 15 states thought was right to own slaves. In a larger number of states people thought it was right to keep people separated because of skin pigment.

They all thought was right to do these things out of a moral duty. "Witches" were burnt (actually hung or pressed) out of a moral duty to save them from the devil and protect the community, in the eyes of the people doing it.

It was moral duty, in the eyes of some of the people enslaving them, to Christianize, care for them and protect people with lighter pigment in their skin, to the the point that their moral leadership said it was perfectly fine; the Southern Baptist denomination came out, officially, against slavery only in the 1990's. Not segregation, slavery. (The new president of the denomination is black, BTW.)

And in the 1950's-60's many people saw it as their moral duty to keep races separate. Even today, we call Sunday morning the most segregated time in America. People could even cite Bible verses to justify it, morally, just like they could burning witches and holding slaves.

If you want to argue duty, fine. Keep in mind, however, that every example you cited (I'll leave out the Nazis, as that wasn't the US, but it was similar) is one where people followed their "moral duty" as they saw it at the time.

I'm not a big fan of looking at "moral duty" because of that, especially when it does not follow the law.

 

[cityslick]

I agree that JP should have done more. All of them should of done more and that is the tragedy, that this could of been stopped on so many levels and it was not. It was allowed to continue on for years and years.

I disagree with the way JP was fired though (via a phone call). I think he deserved to lose his job but they should of least done it face to face. That man's life was Penn State, his name is on the damn library.

 

[Tiki]

First of all, the supposed problem of JP having to report what MM told him could easily have been resolved by taking MM with him to report the incident - they could have heard it directly from the witness.

I worked in administration at a couple of colleges including a large, highly respected university. In my position, I had professional relationships with employees of other colleges. It was a well-known fact - to administrators, faculty, staff and even students - that colleges do not want any bad publicity. It affects applications, enrollment and endowment. To avoid it, many incidents are "handled" by college administration and never reported to LE. I have seen it happen a number of times. In two cases, employees lost their jobs for involving the authorities - I was one of them. What we reported was not anywhere near what Sandusky did. (We were later reinstated and compensated by order of the court.)

I am confident in saying the case is the same at PSU. JP knew what he relayed to admin would likely not be reported to authorities - and he knew his obligations under the law. He did the very least possible to protect PSU football, the university and himself.

.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Before I get to this, how many people make love to their spouses in public (it's illegal in PA, BTW)? I can understand Sandusky not doing what he did in public, as much as I can understand why he never made love to Dottie on the fifty yard line during half time.

BBM

I very much disagree with what I bolded above.

Joe Paterno was the head, and figurative CEO, of a highly profitable, multi million dollar business called The Penn State Football Program. Forget any moral obligations, forget protecting the children of Happy Valley, Joe Paterno had a fiduciary responsibility to investigate ANY matter that would negatively impact the bottom line for his profit center.

Paterno, if you want to make that corporate analogy, was a department head. He was a very important department head, but he was not the CEO. The department he headed was profitable, but it didn't have the training to investigate.

What would a department head do, if he heard from a junior employee, that something happened involving a former employee. Call the department that investigates it. Not hire private detectives, not attempt to investigate himself, but take it to the department that does investigate these things.

It's called protecting the brand.

That's key (though not the way you made that point). Paterno, as this department head, did have an administrative responsibility to protect the brand. He should have, after that investigation, gone back and said, in effect, is there there anything in that could damage this brand, and have you done enough to protect the brand. That is where I will fault him, and I'm not sure that he would have gotten an honest answer.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I am confident in saying the case is the same at PSU. JP knew what he relayed to admin would likely not be reported to authorities - and he knew his obligations under the law. He did the very least possible to protect PSU football, the university and himself.

.

I don't agree. In 1998, it was properly reported and PSU took steps to make sure that information went out to the DA's Office (and there is no question that it did go there).

 

[Concerned Papa]

Joe Paterno was a Department head? Kinda like in charge of the shoes at WalMart? LOL LOL

Joe Paterno WAS Penn State football.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I worked for public schools for 31+ years. From the late 60's on, there were very strict rules regarding reporting of child abuse. You had to go directly to the guidance counselor who was the mandated reporter for a specific child. If one were to call the police, they would go directly to the counselor or the principal.

respectfully snipped for space

I understand what you are saying, but we are not talking a run-of-the-mill teacher here. We are talking JOSEPH VINCENT PATERNO, the most powerful man on the Penn State campus.

There's no way anyone will be able to convince me that he couldn't have done more. Heck, even he said he wished he'd done more. Given that fact, I'm astounded that people are still claiming he did all he could.

 

[LRinCA]

I haven't posted or kept current on this topic for several months but I remain curious about the principal at victim #1's high school. Back in November she seemed (almost) immune to news coverage/scrutiny.

I'm also curious about how things will turn out for Graham Spanier. He apparently remains a tenured, paid professor at Penn State, taking a yearlong sabbatical to work on National Security. He's currently suing Penn State for copies of emails uncovered by Louis Freeh . . . something about "the humane thing to do" (a possible reference to Jerry Sandusky).

Then there's Tim Curley - still on administrative PAID leave?

Gary Schultz - back into retirement and receiving $28,000 a month in pension (roughly $331,000 a year).

I assume Jerry Sandusky will continue to receive his $58,000 a year pension.

 

[LRinCA]

This might answer a few of those questions - in case anyone else is interested (it's probably been posted here back in March):


Former Penn State official Schultz could lose pension if convicted of perjury

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...if-convicted-of-perjury-324755/#ixzz1yocrTaJu

From the article:

Violent crimes, such as the child sexual assaults with which Mr. Sandusky is charged, don't trigger pension forfeitures.

 

[LEFT-COASTER]

on In Session the defense co council just stated they are going for ineffective council because of the main defense lawyers comments to the press.... no the die of heart attack one.. per say but the comment he made as to why JS went on bob costas show..
smh

 

[LRinCA]

Re: the principal - I did a search within the past year sorted by date and found an NPR article I had never read (or heard).

I guess this (air quotes on) clears (air quotes off) her.

GOLDMAN: Eventually there was a dramatic meeting at the school. It included the boy, his mother, school principal Karen Probst. The boy said he'd been abused by Sandusky. The mother said, let's go to the police; Probst said, think about it. Reporting Jerry Sandusky might be difficult for everyone involved. Still, Probst told the mother if she didn't report it, Probst would. State law requires that.

The mother was angry - she and some child welfare officials interpreted Probst's caution as taking Sandusky's side. No one from the school is speaking publicly, but a welfare official says the district historically has given the benefit of the doubt to children and family members who come forward with concerns.

(SOUNDBITE OF TELEPHONE RINGING)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You have reached the Clinton County Children and Youth Services...

GOLDMAN: Probst phoned youth services at 12:35 in the afternoon on November 20th, 2008, the day after the meeting and the same day the mother reported the suspected abuse. The timeline was acceptable within the law.​

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/12/143562992/sandusky-scandal-casts-pale-on-central-pa-high-school​

 

[Bravo]

on In Session the defense co council just stated they are going for ineffective council because of the main defense lawyers comments to the press.... no the die of heart attack one.. per say but the comment he made as to why JS went on bob costas show..
smh

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: The need to just accept their Client was found guilty.

 

[LRinCA]

I found these Amendola's comments to be mighty odd the other night (Friday). I suppose they make more sense when you consider the appeal angle they are hoping to pursue.

Joe Amendola: What this proves to me is, I believe the jury acted genuinely, I believe the jury acted in good faith, I believe the jury acted on the evidence that was presented to it, and I don't dispute or have any problem with the jury's verdict. We had a good jury. (live video)​

Source: http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ah...a-what-this-proves-to-me-is-i-believe-the-jur

 

[HMSHood]

I haven't posted or kept current on this topic for several months but I remain curious about the principal at victim #1's high school. Back in November she seemed (almost) immune to news coverage/scrutiny.

I'm also curious about how things will turn out for Graham Spanier. He apparently remains a tenured, paid professor at Penn State, taking a yearlong sabbatical to work on National Security. He's currently suing Penn State for copies of emails uncovered by Louis Freeh . . . something about "the humane thing to do" (a possible reference to Jerry Sandusky).

Then there's Tim Curley - still on administrative PAID leave?

Gary Schultz - back into retirement and receiving $28,000 a month in pension (roughly $331,000 a year).

I assume Jerry Sandusky will continue to receive his $58,000 a year pension.

I have wondered if the victim's school administrators could be charged as well.