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

[BigCat]

I think one of the key factors is looking at some of RFG's other cases, which I did well before the Sandusky case. He tended to prosecute cases that, just looking at if from the outside, were going to be almost impossible to win. In 2010, before the investigators ever heard of Victim 6, I did a blog on this: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/08/27/2397563/the-legacy-of-district-attorney.html The Grove case that was mentioned in was less than 18 months before the 1998 incident.

Looking at other cases, it is the same thing. I found a highly publicized rape case from the early 2000's against a Penn State football player. It got controversial because Paterno let the guy suit up for a bowl game and made some stupid comment about rape. The victim, however, continued seeing the accused after the alleged rape. It was only the victim's word and her actions didn't match what you'd expect from a rape victim. RFG lost the case, but he still fought it out in court. There is a link to it in an earlier Gricar thread.

The question is, if he prosecuted these others, with weaker evidence, why didn't he prosecute Sandusky?

I don't believe a head coach could survive his defensive coordinator of 20 years being charged with a sexual crime against a child. If any coach could have survived, it would have been Paterno; however, his ability to recruit high school athletes would have been severely hampered. A rape conviction against one of his players would not have done the same damage, not even close.

Now, I don't believe RFG was concerned with protecting Paterno and PSU football. But he is a human being and he must have been concerned about the backlash from the community. Not every DA wants to be Atticus Finch. :twocents:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't believe a head coach could survive his defensive coordinator of 20 years being charged with a sexual crime against a child. If any coach could have survived, it would have been Paterno; however, his ability to recruit high school athletes would have been severely hampered. A rape conviction against one of his players would not have done the same damage, not even close.

I think both Paterno and Spanier (sp) would have easily survived. This was the the private life of an employee and it didn't involve football age people as victims. There was no suggestion that either of them knew, before the Victim 6 incident was reported.

Now, I don't believe RFG was concerned with protecting Paterno and PSU football. But he is a human being and he must have been concerned about the backlash from the community. Not every DA wants to be Atticus Finch. :twocents:

There probably would have been a backlash in 1998, with Sandusky seen as heir apparent to Paterno. After he retired, it would have been substantially less.

RFG ran for reelection in 2001, and had a contested primary. He won that by about 55% to 45%, relatively close for a 16 year incumbent in a GOP primary. The municipal election was uncontested. He said, when he announced his retirement (more than a year prior to disappearing), that it had "the plan" for him not to run for another term. He'd been with the county for 25 years, and would have been DA for 20 years. He said that he wasn't planning to run for anything or even practice law.

Any political backlash would have made no difference after he was reelected in 2001; he wasn't going to run for anything. He didn't even have to worry about future law clients in private practice, because he wasn't planning to have a private practice. The statute of limitations, even at the time, had not expired and he could have filed.

One question is, why didn't RFG file in 1998. Political backlash might be the answer. Another question is, why didn't he file after 2001? He was neither running nor planning to go into private practice. Sandusky, while still respected, was not part of Penn State football at that time, so the backlash would be minimized.

RFG wouldn't have to be Atticus Finch; he could have been Bill Clinton, in terms of political expediency, and still prosecuted.

 

[StellarsJay]

Prosecutors respond on perjury counts:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/31/us-pennstate-sandusky-idUSBRE82U03K20120331
Curley and Schultz argued in their February motions to dismiss the perjury charges, saying Paterno was not available to support McQueary's testimony during their criminal trial and there was no one else to back up his claim.

"McQueary's testimony was corroborated by that of his father, John McQueary … (who) testified that he met with Defendant Schultz some time after the incident described by his son," wrote Bruce Beemer, the attorney general's chief of staff.

"At that meeting, Schultz's words and behavior indicated that he understood that Michael … had witnessed sexual contact between Sandusky and the boy. Because Schultz would have learned of such from Michael McQueary, the testimony of Michael McQueary is corroborated," Beemer said.

Yay Beemer!

 

[BigCat]

I think both Paterno and Spanier (sp) would have easily survived. This was the the private life of an employee and it didn't involve football age people as victims. There was no suggestion that either of them knew, before the Victim 6 incident was reported.

Private life of an employee? Victim 6 was molested in the Penn State locker room showers. Victim 5 was molested in the showers between 96-98. Victim 4 was a guest of the Sandusky family at the Alamo Bowl in January of 98. The fact that Paterno may have not known it was going on is hardly an endorsement of his leadership. Do you think an IBM branch manager would survive his second-in-charge sexual assaulting children on company property? The only reason I suggested that Paterno may have survived is due to the bizarro cult of personality that surrounded him at PSU.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Private life of an employee? Victim 6 was molested in the Penn State locker room showers. Victim 5 was molested in the showers between 96-98. Victim 4 was a guest of the Sandusky family at the Alamo Bowl in January of 98. The fact that Paterno may have not known it was going on is hardly an endorsement of his leadership. Do you think an IBM branch manager would survive his second-in-charge sexual assaulting children on company property? The only reason I suggested that Paterno may have survived is due to the bizarro cult of personality that surrounded him at PSU.

Yes, I think that a division head would have survived, unless there was a reasonable likelihood that he would have known. Unless there was a situation where there was a witness and the supervisor knew, it is survivable.

The problem is that, in 1998-99 as taking out the next head coach. That wouldn't have been there after 12/99.

 

[Rlaub44]

Private life of an employee? Victim 6 was molested in the Penn State locker room showers. Victim 5 was molested in the showers between 96-98. Victim 4 was a guest of the Sandusky family at the Alamo Bowl in January of 98. The fact that Paterno may have not known it was going on is hardly an endorsement of his leadership. Do you think an IBM branch manager would survive his second-in-charge sexual assaulting children on company property? The only reason I suggested that Paterno may have survived is due to the bizarro cult of personality that surrounded him at PSU.

I think a good analogy for this might be when a schoolteacher is accused or convicted of abusing students; it is very rare that the principal and superintendent lose their jobs as well. In those cases, they had even better opportunity for awareness, because the abused children are also under their auspices.

In the Sandusky case, he brought his Second Mile kids onto Penn State facilities, and generally when Paterno wasn't even in the same building. Like JJ said, I too think Paterno would have survived if the revelations had occurred at the time; think of the Syracuse basketball scandal with Bernie Fine, and how we aren't hearing the calls for Jim Boeheim's head.

 

[Reader]

Prosecutors respond on perjury counts:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/31/us-pennstate-sandusky-idUSBRE82U03K20120331
Curley and Schultz argued in their February motions to dismiss the perjury charges, saying Paterno was not available to support McQueary's testimony during their criminal trial and there was no one else to back up his claim.

"McQueary's testimony was corroborated by that of his father, John McQueary … (who) testified that he met with Defendant Schultz some time after the incident described by his son," wrote Bruce Beemer, the attorney general's chief of staff.

"At that meeting, Schultz's words and behavior indicated that he understood that Michael … had witnessed sexual contact between Sandusky and the boy. Because Schultz would have learned of such from Michael McQueary, the testimony of Michael McQueary is corroborated," Beemer said.

Yay Beemer!

Woop!!

I remember when 'they', assume JS's lawyer and supporters, were putting out the rumor that his father and some friend were told a different story than MM told Paterno, Schultz and Curley.

Now here it turns out his father not only heard the same story but can testify that Schultz DID hear the same account from MM.

These people have lied so much they forgot who they lied to.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

But he is a human being and he must have been concerned about the backlash from the community. Not every DA wants to be Atticus Finch. :twocents:

I think this might explain the trouble I'm having about RFG's role in this.

About 15 months prior to the 1998 incident, RFG pressed the Grove case.

Grove was a local resident who shot a man that had repeatedly broken a trailer he owned; the man's name was Sampson. Sampson and his wife were his friends, but Sampson was accused of assaulting his wife. She was in a woman's shelter and Sampson had broken in to take his wife's possessions, without her permission.

Sampson was black and from Phila, very clearly an outsider; Grove was white and grew up in Centre County. Today the county is 3% black and I'd expect was less black in 1997. Much of the county is rural, and very supportive of gun rights.

The local police thought it was self defense, but Gricar pursued it, filing charges in 1996. He filed first degree murder charges, but the judge tossed that. The final charge was voluntary manslaughter. He lost the case, but he tried his best to win it. It was fairly obvious that no Centre County jury would convict a man of shooting someone who broke in, was a complete outsider, and had a known history of violence.

1997 was an election year. When RFG filed, he had no idea if he'd be facing opposition that year. From a political standpoint, it made no sense to try this case, and I've known DA's that did not try stronger cases. RFG still took it to court.

That is almost classic Atticus Finch territory. However, less than 15 months later, he didn't try Sandusky and for the next seven years, he neither prosecuted or investigated that case. That is the problem I see.

Here a a few articles about the Grove case:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/a...-21_the_daily_collegian/1996-10-21d01-001.htm

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1997/03/03-07-97tdc/03-07-97d01-014.htm

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Woop!!

I remember when 'they', assume JS's lawyer and supporters, were putting out the rumor that his father and some friend were told a different story than MM told Paterno, Schultz and Curley.

Now here it turns out his father not only heard the same story but can testify that Schultz DID hear the same account from MM.

These people have lied so much they forgot who they lied to.

Schultz testified that he reported the 2002 incident to some child protective service. He could remember the person he talked to. He couldn't remember which service. None have a record of investigating it, or of it being reported.

 

[Reader]

Schultz testified that he reported the 2002 incident to some child protective service. He could remember the person he talked to. He couldn't remember which service. None have a record of investigating it, or of it being reported.

Yep, I'm sure that's on the list of the 33 lies he and Curley are gonna face in court. Can't wait....

 

[Reader]

I think this might explain the trouble I'm having about RFG's role in this.

About 15 months prior to the 1998 incident, RFG pressed the Grove case.

Grove was a local resident who shot a man that had repeatedly broken a trailer he owned; the man's name was Sampson. Sampson and his wife were his friends, but Sampson was accused of assaulting his wife. She was in a woman's shelter and Sampson had broken in to take his wife's possessions, without her permission.

Sampson was black and from Phila, very clearly an outsider; Grove was white and grew up in Centre County. Today the county is 3% black and I'd expect was less black in 1997. Much of the county is rural, and very supportive of gun rights.

The local police thought it was self defense, but Gricar pursued it, filing charges in 1996. He filed first degree murder charges, but the judge tossed that. The final charge was voluntary manslaughter. He lost the case, but he tried his best to win it. It was fairly obvious that no Centre County jury would convict a man of shooting someone who broke in, was a complete outsider, and had a known history of violence.

1997 was an election year. When RFG filed, he had no idea if he'd be facing opposition that year. From a political standpoint, it made no sense to try this case, and I've known DA's that did not try stronger cases. RFG still took it to court.

That is almost classic Atticus Finch territory. However, less than 15 months later, he didn't try Sandusky and for the next seven years, he neither prosecuted or investigated that case. That is the problem I see.

Here a a few articles about the Grove case:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/a...-21_the_daily_collegian/1996-10-21d01-001.htm

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1997/03/03-07-97tdc/03-07-97d01-014.htm

It really makes you wonder why he kept the Sandusky case under wraps. Who or what would have enough influence on him to cause him not to even investigate it more (discover more victims just as the GJ did), much less prosecute it. With the information we have now it seems to have been a winnable case that would have brought him a LOT of publicity and accolades for getting this predator stopped.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It really makes you wonder why he kept the Sandusky case under wraps. Who or what would have enough influence on him to cause him not to even investigate it more (discover more victims just as the GJ did), much less prosecute it. With the information we have now it seems to have been a winnable case that would have brought him a LOT of publicity and accolades for getting this predator stopped.

I agree with those who say there would be a backlash in 1998, but after Sandusky retired, it would be about where it is today.

There is another factor. DA's can petition to form grand juries to investigate. As far as we know, he didn't do that.

 

[Tipstaff]

Hey, Pensfan...just because we're retired doesn't mean we're all 'mental' or THAT elderly, LOL!

What about the unemployed in Pa.? There are probably a lot of those that would not mind serving and even being out of the house for a while.

Since it's summer a lot of teachers and adult students might be available also.

This didn't work out so well in the Casey Anthony trial....they wanted to get to their vacations, baseball games and long summer weekends.

 

[Rlaub44]

The Patriot-News' Sara Ganim wins another major journalism award for her work on the Sandusky investigation.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/04/patriot-news_reporter_sara_gan_3.html

 

[StellarsJay]

There is stonewalling (Schultz) and there is caterwauling (Curley) and here are the particulars in a document cited by State College news:
http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...court-not-to-dismiss-perjury-charges-1038980/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/87830653/Commonwealth-s-Response-to-Bill-of-Particulars

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The case against Schultz is the stronger of the two. I'm wondering if either Curley or Schultz might flip? I have the feeling that they might shed more light on a number of things.

 

[StellarsJay]

In the prosecutors' Grand Jury quotes, I looked for this question, and they asked it, but they seem to have let Schultz skate on his answer:

Q. How is it that this agency, whis whatever it was, would even know who to talk to, to talk to McQueary or talk to you or talk to whoever? Who was supposed to relay this information?
A. I’m telling you , to the best of my recollection, I believe that the agency was asked to follow up on the information.
and he says:

As far as I know, the university asked the other agency to follow up on it as they did in 1998.

When Schultz says "we" and "the University" he must mean his own office or Spanier's. What other department could be involved? What did Spanier tell the Grand Jury that he knew and did? I hope this is what the new subpoenas are about.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87830653/Commonwealth-s-Response-to-Bill-of-Particulars

 

[Reader]

This didn't work out so well in the Casey Anthony trial....they wanted to get to their vacations, baseball games and long summer weekends.

No no no no no, LOL

Not gonna accept that comparison...different state, crimes, suspect, prosecutors, victims, jurors....

I'm in Fl. and abhor what happened with that case but even with the publicity this one has had, there is no comparison to the craziness that went on with the Caylee case.

I'm going into this one with faith in the state's case and hopefully justice for the victims...may be illusions but let me keep them for now...

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In the prosecutors' Grand Jury quotes, I looked for this question, and they asked it, but they seem to have let Schultz skate on his answer:

Q. How is it that this agency, whis whatever it was, would even know who to talk to, to talk to McQueary or talk to you or talk to whoever? Who was supposed to relay this information?
A. I’m telling you , to the best of my recollection, I believe that the agency was asked to follow up on the information.
and he says:

As far as I know, the university asked the other agency to follow up on it as they did in 1998.

When Schultz says "we" and "the University" he must mean his own office or Spanier's. What other department could be involved? What did Spanier tell the Grand Jury that he knew and did? I hope this is what the new subpoenas are about.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87830653/Commonwealth-s-Response-to-Bill-of-Particulars

I think Spanier was called after Schultz. Schultz's office supervised the University Police, the ones that still had the file from 1998. He implied that someone under his control reported it to this child service agency, yet he never told anyone else about it.

County CYS and DPW have no record of it; no police department has a report of it.

Hint: That's why the perjury case is stronger against Schultz.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Amendola may have a point about the conversation between Lauro, Schreffler, and Sandusky being inadmissible, unless Sandusky was given his Miranda warning.

Sandusky's now infamous admission to Victim 6's mother, with the two police listening in should be admissible, however.

They should be arguing these points tomorrow.