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

[pittsburghgirl]

Why does anyone need "authority" to report a crime? All Paterno needed to do, when McQueary and his father showed up at his house with the story about the rape, was pick up the phone and call the police and ask then to come over to hear the story. Then they police (not Curley and Schultz) investigate Sandusky. Then if MM is lying, he's in trouble. If he's telling the truth, Sandusky is in trouble.

A couple of years ago, I bought something on the internet and the seller used my purchase to claim I authorized a monthly withdrawal from my account. As it was only $20 and I rarely use that account, it took almost a year for checks to start bouncing...(yeah, I should balance it, I know). Once I figured out what happened, I called my local police, who sent TWO officers who took a report. They gave me clear and smart advice and with the help of my bank, I got all the money back. The case was not in their jurisduction and only involved a few hundred dollars, but they sent two officers and explained my options because a crime had been committed. My point is that when a citizen sees a crime or is told of one by someone reliable who saw it, the police will come and take a report.

And why would Paterno need authority to confront Sandusky and demand the kid's name? That's a simple man-to-man interaction. I've had several similar conversations about sexual harassment and they are not fun. But it never occurred to me to just kick the problem upstairs.

I think if Joe Paterno had called Graham Spanier and said, "I don't want this guy in my football facility," it would be quite simple to make that happen. I am not sure what contracts were "made," but no contract between a university and a retired or emeritus employee would hold up if the former employee was using campus facilities (football building, showers, dorms, etc.) to RAPE CHILDREN. And yes, I expect the people on campus with the most power, experience, influence and integrity to call the police. And go to court to get a court order to keep Sandusky out of there, if necessary.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I agree with you and pittsburghgirl and I and others have posted much the same many times...it gets to be like a call and response and nothing changes...the same ol merry-go-round....

Yes. I am not sure why so many people want to both revere Paterno and make excuses for him. Simultaneously. I thought enough of him to hold him to his own standard. And for what it's worth, I think Paterno's inaction is a symptom of a much bigger cesspool of corruption. I can almost understand the 1998 case, which did not involve rape and went through university police, the DA, and Child Welfare, and an attempted sting but still had to be involved, common semse would suggest, in the upsetting conversation between Paterno and Sandusky that ended JS's hopes of ascending to the head coach position. How and why PSU got from that position to ignoring (I would say "covering up") child rape in 2002 is a most interesting question.

 

[Reader]

Yes. I am not sure why so many people want to both revere Paterno and make excuses for him. Simultaneously. I thought enough of him to hold him to his own standard. And for what it's worth, I think Paterno's inaction is a symptom of a much bigger cesspool of corruption. I can almost understand the 1998 case, which did not involve rape and went through university police, the DA, and Child Welfare, and an attempted sting but still had to be involved, common semse would suggest, in the upsetting conversation between Paterno and Sandusky that ended JS's hopes of ascending to the head coach position. How and why PSU got from that position to ignoring (I would say "covering up") child rape in 2002 is a most interesting question.

Agree...here's an example of what I mentioned, very similar to the points you and others have made, but futile:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7530448&postcount=276"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7[/ame]

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Why does anyone need "authority" to report a crime? All Paterno needed to do, when McQueary and his father showed up at his house with the story about the rape, was pick up the phone and call the police and ask then to come over to hear the story. Then they police (not Curley and Schultz) investigate Sandusky. Then if MM is lying, he's in trouble. If he's telling the truth, Sandusky is in trouble.

He needs to know that there was a crime and the police need actual evidence of it to pursue it. He does not even know what action took place, according to McQueary,

At the time, under both law and policy, Paterno was suppose to report it to his superior, which he did, promptly. What did amount to the local police, Schultz, was contacted.

And why would Paterno need authority to confront Sandusky and demand the kid's name? That's a simple man-to-man interaction. I've had several similar conversations about sexual harassment and they are not fun. But it never occurred to me to just kick the problem upstairs.

Because Sandusky can simply say, "I'm not going to give it to you," or even "The was no kid." What's Patterno going to do. He can't arrest Sandusky. He can't fire Sandusky. Contractually, he can't kick Sandusky out of the building.

I think if Joe Paterno had called Graham Spanier and said, "I don't want this guy in my football facility," it would be quite simple to make that happen. I am not sure what contracts were "made," but no contract between a university and a retired or emeritus employee would hold up if the former employee was using campus facilities (football building, showers, dorms, etc.) to RAPE CHILDREN. And yes, I expect the people on campus with the most power, experience, influence and integrity to call the police. And go to court to get a court order to keep Sandusky out of there, if necessary.

And somebody telling Paterno something happened, and frankly not saying what that something was, isn't evidence of "RAPE." You don't have grounds for a court order. It is different once there is some level evidence, but Parterno didn't have it and couldn't get it on his own. That is why he had to rely on the police to do it.

You basically want think that Paterno was all powerful. He had a great deal of influence, but he wasn't all powerful.

As I've said, while this incident is not the weakest of the charges, it is not the strongest either. You've had massive coverage of this incident, a though police investigation, and the police still don't have a victim. You don't have the parent coming forward and saying that it was their child. Amendola claims he has Victim 2, and he'll testify that nothing happened.

 

[Concerned Papa]

~Snipped~

Yes, Paterno had accomplishments as a coach, and yes as a fundraiser he was important to the University, but beyond that, his power was as a celebrity.

~Snipped~

You basically want think that Paterno was all powerful. He had a great deal of influence, but he wasn't all powerful.

~Snipped~

I would agree with the characterization "the great and powerful Joe Paterno" if you added within the university. As soon as he left that community, his power dropped.

No matter how many times efforts are made to downplay or minimize the power of Joe Paterno, there is considerable reason to believe that his power and influence extended all the was to the White House.

Under ANY analogy, he was certainly powerful enough to make a phone call or two.

As early as 1988, Joe Paterno’s sphere of influence reached well beyond the Penn State campus all the way to, and including, The President of The United States.

Paterno's relationship with Bush showed his reach beyond the secluded Penn State campus. He was one of several speakers who seconded Bush's nomination for president at the 1988 Republican National Convention.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_777914.html

In 2004, the President of The United States and/or his Vice President came to the district several times to support JoePa’s son in his failed bid for the US House of Representatives.

Tim Holden ran for re-election against Republican lawyer Scott Paterno, son of legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno.[10] Paterno was actively supported by influential Republicans, and President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney came to the district several times to support him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Holden

President George W. Bush visited Penn State's campus in 2005 and noted his respect for Paterno:

"I tell you one thing about Joe Paterno, there's no more decent fellow on the face of the Earth," Bush said. "What a man, who sets high standards, he loves his family, he loves this university, he loves his country, and my mother and dad love him."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/joe-patern...ball-coach-dead/story?id=15377759#.T2XUONXEEc

After he was fired last year, JoePa even hired the same lawyer that his friend, the President, had used!

Paterno has now allegedly sought legal counsel from a prominent Washington DC lawyer who previously defended President George W. Bush

http://open.salon.com/blog/andywolf/2011/11/11/joe_paterno_and_the_cult_of_personality

But perhaps the most telling of all as to the influence and power of Joe Paterno beyond the PSU campus in 2002 are a portion of the words of his personal friend and Ex-President, George H.W. Bush, upon his passing:

"I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Joe Paterno.”

"He was an outstanding American"

“I was proud that he was a friend of mine."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...ction-joe-paterno-death-penn-state/52745786/1

~Snipped~

~Snipped~

Paterno could have picked up the phone and called anyone in Pennsylvania law enforcement, including the State Police, and they would have picked up the phone and given him advice.

He could have called, but said what? "Somebody told me something, but I didn't see it?"

I tend to think that a phone call between Joe Paterno and the head of the Pennsylvania State Police OR The President would have gone more in the order of this:

“How are you, my friend? Tell your Dad I said hello! How are your Mom and Brother doing? Tell them I said hello as well.

Listen, I hate to call you, but I’ve got a problem I’m very concerned with and I need your help in seeing the right thing be done…..”

Does anyone seriously think that the President of The United States would be less likely or less able to “ contact the appropriate person” to help resolve a friend’s problem with children being raped in Happy Valley, than management would be to solve a problem at a hotel?

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.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7606320&postcount=185"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky cover-up: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #8[/ame]

 

[pinktoes]

JJ: you said, "no possibility for ARD because Sandusky was never charged"

You have insider info to that effect? If not, ARD carries with it total expungement of all records of charges. All records wiped out.

So, how do you know Sandusky was never charged?

Also, in my mind there might be others who victimized kids provided thru Sandusky. Those others might have gotten ARDs. I'd like to know about them, but don't know which names to look for in skipping about the internet for random cached info and such.

 

[pinktoes]

JJ: Reading back into the history of the indirect exchange between you and JKA, looks to me like you're the one who started the insinuations about hinky involvement with Gricar's disappearance. By suggesting that IF foul play was involved, "killer" would have to have access to Arnold's records.

But why?

Then you said something about someone fearing for her job and suggested Arnold filled that bill. Together, it looked like an insinuation that JKA was involved in foul play with the "killer" of Gricar.

No wonder she picked up on that and ran with it in her Ladies/Gentlemen tome, essentially defending herself by insinuating you knew far too much about old cases--at a time when public domain didn't exist as we know it. Plus some other pointed insinuations. I can understand that Sloane or someone else had access to a lot of that old info and made it available to people. I--unlike JKA apparently--believe you have a totally non-nefarious reason for writing so much about Gricar.

But what I just don't get is why you went after JKA in print. That just ain't done where I'm from.

 

[pinktoes]

Maybe it's naive to believe that all one has to do around that locale is report something to the police and it will be followed up on. Even IF you are Joe Paterno.

If we're to believe Bill Keisling (and let's skip the ad hominem arguments for now), he and a colleague gave to the PA State Police an FBI investigator's notes incriminating a powerful politician in some illegal activities. State Police asked them to please take the evidence BACK. I.e., we don't want to know about that.

If we're to believe Sneddon's under-oath testimony in the York prostitution ring (and other evidence), State Police officers received sexual services from that ring and therefore covered it up. So, let's assume that could happen, too.

Then, too, Paterno had his own relationships with powerful local citizens and powerful politicians that he might not have wanted to jeopardize by contacting the police. Personally, I don't believe Paterno was the most powerful person in State College--or elsewhere.

If you combine Paterno's own conflicted interests; the possibility that local and/or state police (or others who might have received a report of criminal acts) would not have/did not follow thru--and possibly obstructed; and whatever other forces were at work--well, I can see how it wouldn't have mattered if Paterno "called the police".

BUT, what I think would have worked, at least in the short term till it could all be buried (including the dead bodies) was if Paterno called a freakin press conference to make the announcement about Jer. Which, of course, personal legal liability would have dictated against his doing.

He was morally wrong, to me. I still don't know if it would've made a difference. And I don't think he could've overcome his personal conflicts of interest to follow thru anyhow. None of this cast of characters apparently had a sufficiently pure motivation.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ: you said, "no possibility for ARD because Sandusky was never charged"

You have insider info to that effect? If not, ARD carries with it total expungement of all records of charges. All records wiped out.

So, how do you know Sandusky was never charged?

Also, in my mind there might be others who victimized kids provided thru Sandusky. Those others might have gotten ARDs. I'd like to know about them, but don't know which names to look for in skipping about the internet for random cached info and such.

Arrests are not secret in the US. There would be a record of arrests, though he would not have a criminal record.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ: Reading back into the history of the indirect exchange between you and JKA, looks to me like you're the one who started the insinuations about hinky involvement with Gricar's disappearance. By suggesting that IF foul play was involved, "killer" would have to have access to Arnold's records.

I think the only context relating to "Arnold's records" related to the possibility that Gricar (RFG) had personnel records on the laptop and that might have been the reason he wanted to destroy them. There were privacy issues, but that would apply to everyone on staff, not just JKA.

Then you said something about someone fearing for her job and suggested Arnold filled that bill. Together, it looked like an insinuation that JKA was involved in foul play with the "killer" of Gricar.

No, and I've actually said that I'd doubt anyone on staff could have killed RFG. i can pretty much guarantee that no one from the office lured RFG to Lewisburg for a clandestine meeting.

If you want to discuss this aspect, please do so on the Gricar thread. [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7584042#post7584042"]PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #9 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

But what I just don't get is why you went after JKA in print. That just ain't done where I'm from.

I'm not sure how this constitutes "going after" JKA, but here is what I've said:

Mr. Schreffler is clearly one of the people who did all he could to stop an alleged child molester in 1998. He deserves praise for trying and ultimately succeeding. It is too early to say it for sure, but another that tried might be Ms. Arnold. If it turns out that she did, I will be one of the first to praise her for it. In 1998, no matter what, she did not have the power to prosecute Mr. Sandusky.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/23/3101230/extensive-disagreements.html#storylink=cpy

JKA, perfectly understandably, is not talking. I don't blame her at all.

 

[StellarsJay]

One of Paterno's few comments about 2002 was that he didn't follow up because he didn't want to influence whatever was happening. In other words, he thought he had too much influence. He chose not to use it to help a child.

 

[Rlaub44]

Sara Ganim's latest article about the status of Louis Freeh's investigation:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in..._fbi_director_focuses_pe/3032/comments-2.html

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I think the only context relating to "Arnold's records" related to the possibility that Gricar (RFG) had personnel records on the laptop and that might have been the reason he wanted to destroy them. There were privacy issues, but that would apply to everyone on staff, not just JKA.



No, and I've actually said that I'd doubt anyone on staff could have killed RFG. i can pretty much guarantee that no one from the office lured RFG to Lewisburg for a clandestine meeting.

If you want to discuss this aspect, please do so on the Gricar thread. PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #9 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community



I'm not sure how this constitutes "going after" JKA, but here is what I've said:

Mr. Schreffler is clearly one of the people who did all he could to stop an alleged child molester in 1998. He deserves praise for trying and ultimately succeeding. It is too early to say it for sure, but another that tried might be Ms. Arnold. If it turns out that she did, I will be one of the first to praise her for it. In 1998, no matter what, she did not have the power to prosecute Mr. Sandusky.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/23/3101230/extensive-disagreements.html#storylink=cpy

JKA, perfectly understandably, is not talking. I don't blame her at all.

What would have stopped Mr. Schreffler from standing at the entrance to the building with the showers and asking everyone that went in there did they ever see Jerry Sandusky in there with a little boy?

 

[pinktoes]

Dr F: "What would have stopped Mr. Schreffler from standing at the entrance to the building with the showers and asking everyone that went in there did they ever see Jerry Sandusky in there with a little boy?"

I'm guessing fear for his job or other retaliation. Same thing that stopped most everyone in this whole sordid web.

 

[pinktoes]

JJ: JKA believes you said more. And I believe I read it independently of her tome as well. Anyhow, this is what I'm referencing (and is my belief this is why she retaliated. And this is what I mean by you "going after her")

" Reading through several subsequent JJ addenda to his "Murder" thread, I found two such references. The first, posted October 11, 2006, notes that K (killer) would 'need access to Arnold's records'. The second, posted October 12, 2006, states as follows: "K [killer] says at this point 'I'm worried about my job'. Was it Arnold that was fired at the change of administrations at the DA's office?""

from:
http://sites.google.com/site/gricardisappearance/partiii:onlinediscussion

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What would have stopped Mr. Schreffler from standing at the entrance to the building with the showers and asking everyone that went in there did they ever see Jerry Sandusky in there with a little boy?

Sanity.

Seriously, he really didn't need to. You had the victim, Victim 6, and Sandusky admitted being in the shower and hugging the victim in earshot of three witnesses. There was also another victim, B.K. that was out of the county, in the armed forces, and couldn't testify for the GJ. He was there in 1998 (because they were not letting 10 year old children enlist in 1998).

The questions are:

1. Are these witnesses credible? Two them were LE.

2. Was the act criminal? I would say so, under both the felony and the numerous misdemeanor statutes.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ: JKA believes you said more. And I believe I read it independently of her tome as well. Anyhow, this is what I'm referencing (and is my belief this is why she retaliated. And this is what I mean by you "going after her")

" Reading through several subsequent JJ addenda to his "Murder" thread, I found two such references. The first, posted October 11, 2006, notes that K (killer) would 'need access to Arnold's records'. The second, posted October 12, 2006, states as follows: "K [killer] says at this point 'I'm worried about my job'. Was it Arnold that was fired at the change of administrations at the DA's office?""

from:
http://sites.google.com/site/gricardisappearance/partiii:onlinediscussion

Since this has nothing to do with Sandusky, please take it to the Gricar thread.

 

[pinktoes]

Since this has nothing to do with Sandusky, please take it to the Gricar thread.

Sorry. Will do. (I'm not yet convinced Gricar's disappearance, and all chatter around it is totally unrelated to Sandusky and/or other Sandusky-related criminals.)

 

[Reader]

Sara Ganim's latest article about the status of Louis Freeh's investigation:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in..._fbi_director_focuses_pe/3032/comments-2.html

Thanks...since that link goes to the comments, here is the link to the article:

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

Some quotes:

It was about 9 on the night after Penn State officials confirmed the university had been subpoenaed for dozens of documents by federal investigators. A reply-all email was sent out from the man the university had hired to safeguard its image in the wake of scandal.

“This leaves out Joe Paterno. Wasn’t he named in subpoena?” wrote Lanny Davis.......

The Feb. 2 subpoena to Penn State — which asked for finance records, payments made by trustees to third parties, computer hard drives, complaints about Jerry Sandusky, and years of correspondence — never mentioned Paterno.

Instead, his family has said they are cooperating with the U.S. attorney’s office and are voluntarily handing over any requested information.

How conveeeenient....

Sandusky, Curley and Schultz have all vowed to fight the charges, and have denied there was any sort of cover-up at Penn State.

However, state and federal investigations seem to be taking on that question.

Former federal prosecutors, who reviewed the subpoena at the request of The Patriot-News, said it’s likely the feds want to know if there were possible bribes, fraud or misuse of federal money.

In the federal investigation, there are no other known subpoenas.

The Second Mile, the charity where a state grand jury says Sandusky found his alleged victims, got an informal request from federal prosecutors. The relationship between the charity and Penn State appears to be a focus of the federal investigation.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Sanity.

Seriously, he really didn't need to. You had the victim, Victim 6, and Sandusky admitted being in the shower and hugging the victim in earshot of three witnesses. There was also another victim, B.K. that was out of the county, in the armed forces, and couldn't testify for the GJ. He was there in 1998 (because they were not letting 10 year old children enlist in 1998).

The questions are:

1. Are these witnesses credible? Two them were LE.

2. Was the act criminal? I would say so, under both the felony and the numerous misdemeanor statutes.

If he really wanted to stop a predator from taking little boys into the shower he would have done it but he was happy to just drop it. Let it go.