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

[Reader]

Sandusky scandal costing PSU millions

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/02/15/sandusky-scandal-costing-penn-state-millions?hpt=hp_bn13

Penn State University says it has spent nearly $3.2 million on legal, public relations, and investigative fees because of the Jerry Sandusky scandal. The information was made public by a new university website aimed at informing students, alumni, and faculty about the latest developments of the scandal.

Itemized list included...

 

[pinktoes]

No evidence of that here; further, it is unlikely that Sandusky ever killed anyone.

Ok, I'll go first. YET.

That's the point.

Most of us are reacting the same way Mary Amendola did when she heard Joe on TV answer the reporter's question, indicating Joe would allow his own children to be with Sandusky. Something like this: OMG, did Joe just say that?!"

Then, there's always Soul Murder to consider. Has Sandusky likely done that??

 

[BigCat]

He said that he supervised the police and the police, Harmon agreed with him.

Page 215 of the preliminary hearing transcript is key.

He also supervised the Nittany Lion Inn, but if I wanted to book a room for the weekend, I wouldn't have called Schultz. And if I wanted to report a crime I witness on the Penn State campus, I wouldn't have called him either. Schultz is not a police officer. He's not even an attorney. Harmon testifed that he reported to Schultz on business and financial matters. Schultz never involved himself in law enforcement issues since, once again, he's not a police officer. Also, when Curley was asked if he ever went to the police about the shower incident, he said no. Obviously he did not think of Schultz as the police.

 

[Tipstaff]

Anybody getting the feeling that since Paterno is gone everybody is gonna come out swinging and pointing the finger?

Every man for himself ....now that they aren't protecting Joe.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

He also supervised the Nittany Lion Inn, but if I wanted to book a room for the weekend, I wouldn't have called Schultz.

No, but if I had a problem at the Nittany Lion Inn, where I have stayed, I would expect him to contact the appropriate person.

Also, when Curley was asked if he ever went to the police about the shower incident, he said no. Obviously he did not think of Schultz as the police.

Well, that isn't the person making the charge. What Curley thinks isn't what McQueary thought.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Anybody getting the feeling that since Paterno is gone everybody is gonna come out swinging and pointing the finger?

Every man for himself ....now that they aren't protecting Joe.

Schultz' problem is independent of Paterno. It is based on his testimony in the grand jury.

From the grand jury testimony read into the record at the preliminary hearing (p. 215):

Prosecutor: It's your testimony that you believe the 2002 incident was reported to the same agency, that child protective services agency, for an investigation as the '98 one had been?

Schultz: That's my recollection, yes.

 

[pinktoes]

He also supervised the Nittany Lion Inn, but if I wanted to book a room for the weekend, I wouldn't have called Schultz. And if I wanted to report a crime I witness on the Penn State campus, I wouldn't have called him either. Schultz is not a police officer. He's not even an attorney. Harmon testifed that he reported to Schultz on business and financial matters. Schultz never involved himself in law enforcement issues since, once again, he's not a police officer. Also, when Curley was asked if he ever went to the police about the shower incident, he said no. Obviously he did not think of Schultz as the police.

EXACTLY. When I read applicable PA code on that issue, I realized that only the University Police officers actually have the same legal responsibilities as "regular" police. Schultz is NOT a police officer.

It also became clear to me why Harmon was kept totally out of the loop on--what was it, the 2005 incident?--anyhow, Schultz handled that himself. So that no one with the legal requirements of a police officer would be involved. If we ever see Harmon's testimony on that, it should be quite interesting.

I just don't see how Sandusky can ever go to trial IF he has the goods on some of the local power players, and IF that is allowed to come out in court. We'll see.

 

[Tipstaff]

Schultz' problem is independent of Paterno. It is based on his testimony in the grand jury.

From the grand jury testimony read into the record at the preliminary hearing (p. 215):

Prosecutor: It's your testimony that you believe the 2002 incident was reported to the same agency, that child protective services agency, for an investigation as the '98 one had been?

Schultz: That's my recollection, yes.

Why does the newspaper article saying that Schultz and then Curley want the charges dismissed since Paterno isn't available for questioning as a second collaboration?

 

[pinktoes]

"Pittsburgh attorney Caroline Roberto said in a motion filed in Dauphin County court Monday that Paterno’s statements can’t be used at trial, since she had no chance to cross-examine him when he testified before the secret grand jury, the paper reported."

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...y-to-see-grandkids-receive-visits?pc=25&sp=25

That'a the consensus I've been seeing. We got any PA lawyers on board here?

All along, the other consensus I've been seeing is that Schultz and Curley will likely get off on the perjury charges, but that the failure to report will stick.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Then, there's always Soul Murder to consider. Has Sandusky likely done that??

Soul Murder is not a crime, even if it's me trying to sing James Brown.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

"Pittsburgh attorney Caroline Roberto said in a motion filed in Dauphin County court Monday that Paterno’s statements can’t be used at trial, since she had no chance to cross-examine him when he testified before the secret grand jury, the paper reported."

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...y-to-see-grandkids-receive-visits?pc=25&sp=25

That'a the consensus I've been seeing. We got any PA lawyers on board here?

All along, the other consensus I've been seeing is that Schultz and Curley will likely get off on the perjury charges, but that the failure to report will stick.

The might help out Curley, but Schultz, as noted, still has that problem with his GJ testimony.

The argument against failure to report is that the statute of limitation expired. They are trying to argue that, and that is a summary offense, well below a misdemeanor level crime. I think they could be fined, if found guilty.

 

[Belinda]

Penn State is going straight by the Catholic playbook.

 

[Quiche]

Soul Murder is not a crime, even if it's me trying to sing James Brown.

Well, good Lord, maybe it should be. Now, that's some legislation I'd be glad to consider. I'm guessing, however, that the term "soul" would need to be replaced by a cleaner scientific term, but we all know the extent of damage that can be inflicted to the mind and spirit of victims. I think it's a very progressive idea. Perhaps we've stumbled onto a wave of the future...?

moo

 

[pinktoes]

Well, that wasn't meant to be a legal term. I believe some of what will be found to be actual crimes, will be such things as what one victim said Sandusky told him--that he'd harm the child's family if the child told.

Where I'm from, that crime--still unproven in a court of law--is subsumed under the rubric of "battery" usually.

I believe we all know what we're talking about here. These are children being coerced, threatened, confused, and terrified by a big football coach. Who has probably been enabled and protected by a bunch of other adults with money and power. If the law doesn't cover that, we need a new law.

And, JJ, I'm tempted to just post "Black" and wait for you to counter with "White". LOL. No problem for me, but why aren't you a lawyer? One of the most successful trial lawyers I ever knew was referred to by his firm's partners as "our guy quickest to assume an adversarial posture". It's not a criticism, BTW. Just noting it!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, good Lord, maybe it should be.

What "should be" and what is are two different things. The judge deals with what is.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And, JJ, I'm tempted to just post "Black" and wait for you to counter with "White". LOL. No problem for me, but why aren't you a lawyer? One of the most successful trial lawyers I ever knew was referred to by his firm's partners as "our guy quickest to assume an adversarial posture". It's not a criticism, BTW. Just noting it!

Low LSATs.

The thing is that these decisions are not based on "what feels good." They are based on what the law is.

 

[StellarsJay]

Wall Street Journal Law Blog- just after Schultz resigned Nov 7
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/11/07/sandusky-case-did-shultz-and-curley-have-a-duty-to-report/
"Whether or not the “failing to report” charges survive, Curley and Schultz are each charged with count of perjury, which carries up to 7 years in jail. In real terms, they would likely face between one month and 12 months in jail, under the sentencing guidelines.

The “failing to report” charge, a summary offence, carries a maximum of 90 days in jail and a $200 fine. The perjury charges could live on, even without the reporting charges.

Pittsburgh lawyer Thomas J. Farrell, who represents Schultz, has said he will seek to have the reporting charge dismissed, because, to his reading, the mandated reporting rules only apply to people who come into direct contact with children. He also said the statute of limitations for the reporting charge is two years. The alleged abuse occurred in 2002."
So for me to feel justice is done, the perjury charge needs to survive. Or, at least that most business persons see Schultz as a stupid weasel who made Penn State responsible for millions of dollars in losses and expenses, rather than a loyal man who was trying to serve his institution by burying a crime. It would be nice if Schultz was just at the beginning of his career so this could blight the rest of his work years, instead of at the age to move to the Carribean.

I read the transcript- deny, deny, deny- no sense of his regretting having made a mistake.

Looking for a picture of Schultz' wife and found this:
http://live.psu.edu/flickrset/72157627612010861

 

[Dr.Fessel]

No evidence of that here; further, it is unlikely that Sandusky ever killed anyone.

Pedophiles kill children all the time and because McQueary, Paterno, Schultz, Currie and Spanier all failed to identify or attempt to identify the little boy in the shower nobody knows if he is alive or buried in a field somewhere.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Pedophiles kill children all the time and because McQueary, Paterno, Schultz, Currie and Spanier all failed to identify or attempt to identify the little boy in the shower nobody knows if he is alive or buried in a field somewhere.

And thjere is zero evidence Sandusky did.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Wall Street Journal Law Blog- just after Schultz resigned Nov 7
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/11/07/sandusky-case-did-shultz-and-curley-have-a-duty-to-report/

I think the blogger is right.

So for me to feel justice is done, the perjury charge needs to survive. Or, at least that most business persons see Schultz as a stupid weasel who made Penn State responsible for millions of dollars in losses and expenses, rather than a loyal man who was trying to serve his institution by burying a crime. It would be nice if Schultz was just at the beginning of his career so this could blight the rest of his work years, instead of at the age to move to the Carribean.

I read the transcript- deny, deny, deny- no sense of his regretting having made a mistake.

Looking for a picture of Schultz' wife and found this:
http://live.psu.edu/flickrset/72157627612010861

Why do I think he will try the "Sergeant Schultz defense?" "I know nothing. NOTHING!"

A lot more truth in that post than humor.