Penn State Sandusky cover-up: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #8

[Reader]

Did some civil suits start plopping down on some people's desks?

 

[Tipstaff]

Jerry Sandusky attorney says former Penn State coach anxiously awaiting trial

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/jerry_sandusky_attorney_says_f.html

BELLEFONTE -- The attorney for Jerry Sandusky said his client has been taking advantage of the visitation rights he was granted at a previous court hearing and has had visits from friends and some of his grandchildren.

-----

He says Sandusky is anxiously awaiting his May trial on 52 criminal counts. He maintains his innocence. Sandusky remains on home confinement and did not attend the hearing.


Little more at link....[/QUOTE

What wasn't it two weeks ago they tried to have the trial delayed until July. PR Spin - my client can't wait to have his day in court and show the world he is innocent. Yes and I have some swamp land in Florida - any takers?

 

[ThoughtFox]

Edited for space by me:

Coach Joe Paterno

Also on Nov. 9, the Board unanimously made the decision to remove Coach Paterno for the last three games of the season. He had announced earlier that day that he would be retiring at the end of the season.

Our most important reason – by far – for this difficult decision flowed from what we learned on Nov. 5, for the first time, from a “presentment” (report) by a Pennsylvania Grand Jury about Coach Paterno’s early 2011 sworn testimony.

The report stated that a Penn State graduate assistant had gone to Coach Paterno’s home on Saturday morning, March 2, 2002. The report quoted Coach Paterno as testifying to the Grand Jury that the graduate assistant told him that he had seen Jerry Sandusky, the coach's former assistant coach up to 1999, "in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

While Coach Paterno did his legal duty by reporting that information the next day, Sunday, March 3, to his immediate superior, the then Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the Board reasonably inferred that he did not call police. We determined that his decision to do his minimum legal duty and not to do more to follow up constituted a failure of leadership by Coach Paterno.

The Board spent hours on conference calls between Saturday, Nov. 5, and Tuesday, Nov. 8, discussing appropriate action and our fiduciary responsibility as the Trustees. On Wednesday evening, Nov. 9, we met in person in State College. At about 9 pm, we unanimously made the difficult decision that Coach Paterno’s failure of leadership required his removal as football coach.[/i]

http://live.psu.edu/story/58341

The underlined part is what I've been saying for months now. It just doesn't really matter whether he followed the "letter of the law" in telling his superiors and no one else. That decision led to his firing and ultimate downfall with the public because it was a lack of leadership.

It was also cowardly, in my opinion, especially when he surely knew that Sandusky was still around campus with boys for years after that! :twocents:

What's important, though, is that Paterno was responsible for his own fall from grace. All he had to do that day was pick up the phone and call the police. Simple.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Edited for space by me:



The underlined part is what I've been saying for months now. It just doesn't really matter whether he followed the "letter of the law" in telling his superiors and no one else. That decision led to his firing and ultimate downfall with the public because it was a lack of leadership.

I agree in part and disagree in part. I can image what Paterno would have said to the police. It would have been, "Somebody said Jerry Sandusky did something wrong with a child, but I didn't see it and I don't know what that was."

That said, even from an administrative standpoint, Paterno should have done some follow up with Schultz and Curley. He might not have been told the truth, but he should have tried.

I do feel that someone from the board should have gone to Paterno in person. Maybe he would have refused to let them in, but they should have tried.

 

[Reader]

I agree in part and disagree in part. I can image what Paterno would have said to the police. It would have been, "Somebody said Jerry Sandusky did something wrong with a child, but I didn't see it and I don't know what that was."
That said, even from an administrative standpoint, Paterno should have done some follow up with Schultz and Curley. He might not have been told the truth, but he should have tried.

I do feel that someone from the board should have gone to Paterno in person. Maybe he would have refused to let them in, but they should have tried.

BBM....then he could have given them MM's name, address and phone# as the person with the information on the abuse.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

BBM....then he could have given them MM's name, address and phone# as the person with the information on the abuse.

I'm not sure if he could. That might constitute a violation of the whistle blower law. Further, I'm not sure, but I think he was the one that relayed it to Schultz.

As soon as Schultz gets in the mix, it is reported.

 

[azwriter]

Jerry Sandusky attorney says former Penn State coach anxiously awaiting trial

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/jerry_sandusky_attorney_says_f.html

BELLEFONTE -- The attorney for Jerry Sandusky said his client has been taking advantage of the visitation rights he was granted at a previous court hearing and has had visits from friends and some of his grandchildren.

-----

He says Sandusky is anxiously awaiting his May trial on 52 criminal counts. He maintains his innocence. Sandusky remains on home confinement and did not attend the hearing.


Little more at link....[/QUOTE

What wasn't it two weeks ago they tried to have the trial delayed until July. PR Spin - my client can't wait to have his day in court and show the world he is innocent. Yes and I have some swamp land in Florida - any takers?

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. That's an old Chestnut claim by many a defendant: they are just itching to get into court to put these charges behind them.To finally have the opportunity to prove themself not guilty. Sure they are.
And how many of them who claim urgency to start their trial, step up and take a plea before one witness every takes the stand?

I doubt Sandusky will plea, as if the prosecution wants one. Let him sit in court day after day and face those who will once again have to live through the awful details of their association with Coach Sandusky.

I pray for strength for these victims every day.
jmo

 

[ThoughtFox]

I agree in part and disagree in part. I can image what Paterno would have said to the police. It would have been, "Somebody said Jerry Sandusky did something wrong with a child, but I didn't see it and I don't know what that was."

That said, even from an administrative standpoint, Paterno should have done some follow up with Schultz and Curley. He might not have been told the truth, but he should have tried.

I do feel that someone from the board should have gone to Paterno in person. Maybe he would have refused to let them in, but they should have tried.

I admit I don't live in Pennsylvania, but after reading the testimonials about how much people love(d) Paterno there over the years, I bet the police would have taken any allegation from the Coach very, very seriously.

Bottom line for me - he reacted with indifference to a child who was being abused. If he had called, at least he could say that he cared and he tried to do something. At least the parents could have been warned, and cops could have had a talk with Jerry and told him to leave the kid alone.

My gosh - there are infinite good things that could have come out of that one missed phone call that Paterno never made.

Not trying because he didn't know what the outcome would be is a lame excuse. JMOO

 

[azwriter]

I agree in part and disagree in part. I can image what Paterno would have said to the police. It would have been, "Somebody said Jerry Sandusky did something wrong with a child, but I didn't see it and I don't know what that was."

That said, even from an administrative standpoint, Paterno should have done some follow up with Schultz and Curley. He might not have been told the truth, but he should have tried.

I do feel that someone from the board should have gone to Paterno in person. Maybe he would have refused to let them in, but they should have tried.

I agree J.J. the Coach should have been approached in person with the news about his firing. And the idea he was surrounded by the media at his home is just a lousy excuse for Board officials to not show character and authority and face Joe. To me, it's a clear and immediate attempt by the University suits to get as far away from the principals of this scandal as soon as possible. Damage control was in full force IMO.

 

[azwriter]

I admit I don't live in Pennsylvania, but after reading the testimonials about how much people love(d) Paterno there over the years, I bet the police would have taken any allegation from the Coach very, very seriously.

Bottom line for me - he reacted with indifference to a child who was being abused. If he had called, at least he could say that he cared and he tried to do something. At least the parents could have been warned, and cops could have had a talk with Jerry and told him to leave the kid alone.

My gosh - there are infinite good things that could have come out of that one missed phone call that Paterno never made.

Not trying because he didn't know what the outcome would be is a lame excuse. JMOO

I hear ya ThoughtFox and like you said something good could have come out of Paterno contacting law enforcement.

But then again, perhaps Coach didn't contact LE, because he knew it would fall on deaf ears. Seems to me, someone, anyone or maybe a whole panel of people were closing their eyes and ears to the presence of Jerry Sandusky during his retirement years with full access to University facilities.

I do hope Sandusky's day in court will be the first step to uncover IF an attempt was on going all those years to not rid themselves of JS. I for one believe there is a deep reason JS could get away with his behavior for all that time. Whom was protecting him and most of all Why?

 

[Reader]

I'm not sure if he could. That might constitute a violation of the whistle blower law. Further, I'm not sure, but I think he was the one that relayed it to Schultz.

As soon as Schultz gets in the mix, it is reported.

When you are getting information in order to start a CPS abuse investigation you need names/info on all witnesses known. There is no whistle blower law involved.

If telling Schultz, which Paterno had already done, is considered reporting to the police, then why are the governor, the trustees, the state police and the Penn St. police saying it was not reported to the police, and now saying publicly and in writing that is what Paterno should have done?

 

[Tipstaff]

Edited for space by me:



The underlined part is what I've been saying for months now. It just doesn't really matter whether he followed the "letter of the law" in telling his superiors and no one else. That decision led to his firing and ultimate downfall with the public because it was a lack of leadership.

It was also cowardly, in my opinion, especially when he surely knew that Sandusky was still around campus with boys for years after that! :twocents:

What's important, though, is that Paterno was responsible for his own fall from grace. All he had to do that day was pick up the phone and call the police. Simple.

Agree - but would they have gone this route if Paterno were still alive. I believe they would NOT and would have continued to protect Paterno.

Paterno's death gives those involved a way out - blame the dead guy - and believe we will see a lot more of this in the future because if so much blame falls on Paterno then they other guys Curry and Schultz may skate. Their legal teams have already teed this up.

IMO Paterno failed miserably but it is incredible to watch this play out.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I admit I don't live in Pennsylvania, but after reading the testimonials about how much people love(d) Paterno there over the years, I bet the police would have taken any allegation from the Coach very, very seriously.

I think if Paterno was had been the witness, had first person knowledge of it, they would have. He didn't, so his comments regarding Sandusky are hearsay.

Bottom line for me - he reacted with indifference to a child who was being abused. If he had called, at least he could say that he cared and he tried to do something. At least the parents could have been warned, and cops could have had a talk with Jerry and told him to leave the kid alone.

He did know who the parent was; the police still don't.

He did the right thing by calling Curley and Schultz. Where there was a failure was not going back to Curley in 3-4 weeks and saying, "What did you do regarding the Sandusky situation."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

When you are getting information in order to start a CPS abuse investigation you need names/info on all witnesses known. There is no whistle blower law involved.

If telling Schultz, which Paterno had already done, is considered reporting to the police, then why are the governor, the trustees, the state police and the Penn St. police saying it was not reported to the police, and now saying publicly and in writing that is what Paterno should have done?

Well, because Schultz and Curley had the obligation to bring in the police. The didn't and they are charged with not doing so (which is a summary offense and for which the statute of limitations might have expired.)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Amendola's request for more information is denied:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/13/3124246/judege-dismisses-the-defenses.html

Here is the actual order: http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/up...ION FOR MORE SPECIFIC BILL OF PARTICULARS.pdf

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I'm not sure if he could. That might constitute a violation of the whistle blower law. Further, I'm not sure, but I think he was the one that relayed it to Schultz.

As soon as Schultz gets in the mix, it is reported.

I can't understand any possible whistle blower conflict but it would not be surprising to me someone filled in Paterno on all the laws involved while he was waiting the 24 hours to do his "legal reporting". Funny how he got that reporting in just under the time limit.

 

[Reader]

I can't understand any possible whistle blower conflict but it would not be surprising to me someone filled in Paterno on all the laws involved while he was waiting the 24 hours to do his "legal reporting". Funny how he got that reporting in just under the time limit.

Good point!

Also funny how he never followed up with Curley and Schultz about reporting the abuse to the police as required and made no move to do so himself, or to tell MM he should do this. Funny how nobody thought about calling CPS to investigate the abuse incident with an actual witness when they obviously knew no police investigation was being done.

If the police or CPS had been notified in a timely manner, an investigation could have been started and Sandusky questioned about the incident and the identify of the child. Funny how the ONE abuse incident with a witness was covered up. But, of course, it was probably ONLY a SM child, so no one was really concerned. JS would make sure this child kept quiet. Didn't I read way back somewhere that JS gave Curley the child's name and phone number? Wonder what happened to that little slip of paper? Funny how it disappeared.

Funny how no follow up whatsoever insured there would be no sexual abuse scandal at the time, when Paterno was still working on marking up his wins for a football record and his group of backers were trying to get loans to complete The Village.

Funny how those things, money and wins, seem to have been more important to a man who had a reputation of 'integrity' and 'doing the right thing'. Funny how he, Curley, Schultz, Spanier and MM just 'forgot' about the incident and child until it blew up in their faces, but very conveniently too long in the past to identify the child so he could testify before the grand jury.

All IMO....

 

[Reader]

Amendola's request for more information is denied:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/13/3124246/judege-dismisses-the-defenses.html

Here is the actual order: http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/up...ION FOR MORE SPECIFIC BILL OF PARTICULARS.pdf

From your link:

In his four-page ruling, Cleland there are plenty of cases involving assaults against children in which prosecutors didn’t have to provide specific times or dates.

“However, the commonwealth stated at argument that it cannot provide further details beyond what it has already supplied in its bill of particulars,” Cleland wrote. “Therefore, any order directing the commonwealth to supply details would be a futile act since the commonwealth has explained it cannot supply the details requested,” he wrote in his four-page ruling.

Because of the decision, Amendola said Tuesday he will ask the judge to drop the case.

So, Amendola thinks that 8, 9, 10 year old children should have kept diaries to record the dates and places when JS abused them?

I can assure you that if the great state of Penn. does not have laws that allow their testimony about their sexual abuse to be given without the exact date and time, the federal government does.

Dream on, Amendola....

 

[Reader]

I think if Paterno was had been the witness, had first person knowledge of it, they would have. He didn't, so his comments regarding Sandusky are hearsay.



He did know who the parent was; the police still don't.

He did the right thing by calling Curley and Schultz. Where there was a failure was not going back to Curley in 3-4 weeks and saying, "What did you do regarding the Sandusky situation."

BBM - He did???? Then why didn't he tell anybody?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

BBM - He did???? Then why didn't he tell anybody?

Sorry, that should be that Paterno did not know who the parents were, or the name of the victim. McQueary didn't, and doesn't know, either. Neither do the police.