Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7

[J. J. in Phila]

Waiting 10 years to report the rape of a little boy to police and then only when they approached him and said they knew he had saw something did he come clean about it is pretty much a villain in my book.

He did report it to his supervisor, and then to the effective chief of police.

 

[Tipstaff]

I was referring to this.

By manner of questioning, it could not be more clear that the Grand Jury was protecting Paterno. 7 minutes. Asking for 'no graphic detail'?

http://twitter.com/#!/SPORTSbyBROOKS...47031573712896

I meant Paterno. The grand jury never asked him why he did not call 911 when he heard a boy was molested in the showers. They never asked him if he knew the boys name either.

Paterno was disingenuous in his testimony. The only point he even attempted to make was that Sandusky wasn't a coach, had been a coach briefly and he wasn't associated with Sandusky.

We all know this isn't true. There was a point in time that certain people thought Sandusky was heading toward being the head coach at Penn State.

Joe Paterno has been the "Power" at Penn State and the way he passed this off to his 'boss' is simply his own CYA.

The questioning of Paterno was so poor it could have been completed by a 5th grader.

This grand jury questioning of Paterno shows the reverential treatment he received in and around Penn State.

Paterno looks even worse after reading his testimony - HE WAITED before bringing this to the attention of his boss because it was the weekend. Wonder if JoPA would have waited if this were his kids or grandkids.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

He did report it to his supervisor, and then to the effective chief of police.

I don't think he did report it. I think he just told some people about what he saw and became a willing participant in the coverup of it and knew he would benefit in the long run from it by keeping his mouth shut.

He knew what he saw was a horrible crime and instead of calling his dad he could have called 911 and they would have caught them in the shower.

Mike was 28 years old, and after his meetings with Paterno then Curley and Schultz and none of them asked him to write out a statement to what he saw he knew the coverup was going on and he was fine with it. When he saw there were no secretary's taking notes at any of these meetings, when he saw he was not going through offices where a secretary would note a visit he knew.

He knew a little boy getting raped was a serious criminal charge that warranted more then telling someone not to bring kids into the showers anymore. But he knew he would be paid good for his silence and he was for 8 or 9 years.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't think he did report it. I think he just told some people about what he saw and became a willing participant in the coverup of it and knew he would benefit in the long run from it by keeping his mouth shut.

He reported it to his supervisor, Paterno, which was the legal requirement in 2002. Paterno reported it Curley. Then Curley and Schultz spoke with McQueary. Schultz was head of the police force. All the parties agree that these things happened.

He knew what he saw was a horrible crime and instead of calling his dad he could have called 911 and they would have caught them in the shower.

They had stopped as soon as they saw McQueary. I can easily understand McQueary being stunned.

Now, should Paterno, considering his influence, have done some follow-up. Yes. McQueary was not in the position to really do follow-up in 2002.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

He reported it to his supervisor, Paterno, which was the legal requirement in 2002. Paterno reported it Curley. Then Curley and Schultz spoke with McQueary. Schultz was head of the police force. All the parties agree that these things happened.



They had stopped as soon as they saw McQueary. I can easily understand McQueary being stunned.

Now, should Paterno, considering his influence, have done some follow-up. Yes. McQueary was not in the position to really do follow-up in 2002.

To me the mandatory reporting means nothing in this case. I am not a mandatory reporter and never have been. Most of the people in the US are not. I can watch a rape or murder and never get in any kind of trouble for not calling the cops or telling anyone about it.

I believe McQueary and I would have stood on the same footing seeing the rape of that little boy in the shower. Both of us would know a rape was taking place and it was a felony and 911 should be called. We then diverge when he goes in to his office and calls his dad instead of calling the police.

Really we diverge earlier when Mike seeing the rape does not say a word or goes and pulls Jerry off the little boy, he instead goes in and slams his locker then goes back and looks in the shower and they are apart. At that point in time Jerry does not know if Mike saw anything. As far as he knew for sure Mike did not see anything and the locker shutting was just the reason they stopped before caught.

I don't believe for a minute what the least you had to do when faced with the rape of a child under the mandatory reporting law played into his decision to not call 911. I believe the things that played into his decisions were absolutely self serving. He knew bringing out this great shame of a little boy being raped in a Penn State Locker Room by a famous previous coach of Penn State would destroy his career. The messenger is shot in real life. I also believe it clicked in his mind going along with a coverup would further his career.

 

[StellarsJay]

The moment that Dr.Fessell is talking about brings together some things for me- being fascinated as a kid by a book on building magician's boxes and once seeing a magician help the pretty girl he had just sliced to bits step out of the box unharmed; as a young woman helping set up one of the first rape crisis centers (win!); as a retiree trying to write a novel on ancient Greece (fail!)
The last is why I think this was intercrural intercourse- no penetration. Probably requires penetration to constitute rape. McQueary lacked vocabulary and to some extent if there are no words for it a thing cannot be.

I've tried to understand McQueary. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

He did go back a third time.

He hasn't said what his intent was in that moment- it seems likely that if Sandusky had still been on the kid, he intended to get him off. Instead, he confronts an apparently unhurt kid and a blank Sandusky. The magician's assistant has been produced from the box, a final disorienting thing.
As a rape counsellor, I would have tried not to further traumatize the kid. A fight might have, a stranger trying to take him away would have. Woulda backed off from a fight since they were separated. As a woman I can't really imagine triggering a fight so can't go there.

Coulda talked- said hello, asked the kid his name, if he was OK. Getting the kids name would have been great protection agains him disappearing. That's the best suggestion.
Coulda waited around. Assertive presence.
Instead headed for a phone. Sandusky would wonder how much was seen, if he might call cops. Wouldn't continue.

Shoulda phoned the cops. Might have intended to? Would they have believed him? If they did, and were next door and took the kid away to a shelter etc- maybe worse trauma?
Phoned his father, who he probably thinks of as a kind of doctor. Former medical corps.
Got talked out of it by Dranov, his dad's boss. (Who later did a CYA by meeting with Schultz.)
Maybe at this point everyone genuinely thought someone else would do something wonderful. Probably only Mike and maybe Joe were naive enough to hope for this.

When it was evident that was all--
Mike shoulda, shoulda, shoulda shoulda called Child Protection, or real cops, or both.
Or sent an anonymous letter or....

The present investigation found McQueary because of a posting on a forum about something once seen at Penn State- and someone else has implied that that poster might have been McQueary.

I expect that Curley and Spanier have hated Paterno for years, watching the tiger's teeth fall out, waiting for him to get out of their way. In 1998 he was 71, still powerful, but not sharp enough to know how much they were hiding from him. In 2002, at 74, they knew he would let it slide.

 

[Tiki]

He reported it to his supervisor, Paterno, which was the legal requirement in 2002. Paterno reported it Curley. Then Curley and Schultz spoke with McQueary. Schultz was head of the police force. All the parties agree that these things happened.



They had stopped as soon as they saw McQueary. I can easily understand McQueary being stunned.

Now, should Paterno, considering his influence, have done some follow-up. Yes. McQueary was not in the position to really do follow-up in 2002.

BBM
They stopped?
I think you mean JS stopped - I doubt the boy was participating.
moo
.

 

[Reader]

All of them knew who that little boy was. There is no way they did not find that out or attempt to. That is such a small community it could have been anyone's son.

What happened to the suggestion from JS's lawyer that JS gave Curley the boy's name and phone#?

I did not find this stated anywhere in reading Curley's testimony...just that JS told him at first that he had not been at the showers that day, and then came back later and said he might have been there that day.

Was this just a lie put out by Amendola to try to make JS look better, that he had cooperated with the so-called inquiry Curley was making, which really didn't exist?

Oh to be a fly on the wall at the JS/Curley meeting! Wonder what kind of deal they made to keep it all quiet?

 

[al66pine]

I don't know how I got to this website w. link below, and except for a clip of Tyler Perry & Oprah, I've never seen a movie or TV show w. him.
But, God bless'im for writing an open letter to the Penn State/Sandusky victims.

http://collegecandy.com/2011/12/03/tyler-perry-writes-letter-to-penn-state-11-year-old/

excerpt:
I was a very poor young black boy in New Orleans, just a face without a name, swimming in a sea of poverty trying to survive. Forget about living, I was just trying to exist. I was enduring a lot of the same things that you’ve come forward and said happened to you, and it was awful. I felt so powerless. I knew what was happening to me, but unlike you, I couldn’t speak about it because no one saw me. I was invisible and my voice was inaudible.


So to think that you, when you were only 11 years old, spoke up—you are my hero! I’m so proud of you. You have nothing to be ashamed of. I want you to know you didn’t do anything wrong. It’s not your fault. Please know that you were chosen by a monster. You didn’t choose him. You didn’t ask for it and, most of all, you didn’t deserve it. What a huge lesson that was for me to learn. Your 11-year-old self was no match for wicked, evil tactics of this kind. You were hunted like prey. A pedophile looks for the young boys he thinks he can manipulate. The ones who have daddy or mommy issues, the ones who are broken, and the ones who are in need. But this wasn’t you.

Thank you, Mr. Perry.

(P.S. Mods-- I do not know how to remove the "inner link" re young black boy in the quote, and do not know why it is there.
If you can remove, pls do)

 

[Reader]

I definitely don't excuse Curley and Schultz. I'm just struggling to better understand what Paterno did or did not do.


When you wrote "him," are you referring to Paterno or McQueary? I'm guessing you mean McQueary since, I don't believe, Paterno ever met with Curley and Schultz.

BBM

Oh no, I didn't mean to imply that you were excusing Curley...I was just saying that even if Paterno didn't tell all he knew from McQueary, Curley still got it directly from MM later, so HE had no excuse for not reporting to the police/CYS since MM flat out told him and Schultz it was a severe sexual assault. And Schultz had no excuse for not referring it to the campus police dept. which he supervised.

WHY these 2 men didn't do what they were required by law to do is the question to me. Why was this considered differently than the 1998 episode which had been investigated? Was it because Sandusky no longer worked for the school and they didn't want it known they were still letting him bring children to the facilities?

How would an investigation have affected Paterno and the football program? He was not a witness of the incident and he reported it to his boss as required, the minimum, but he didn't try to hide it, he just passed it on and stepped aside. JS wasn't even working for Paterno anymore so how would that stop Paterno trying to reach his record of wins?

How would it have negatively affected the school as a whole? It would/could have been seen as a good thing for these men to stop a sexual abuser and protect a child and other children once the rest came out as it has now.

Could it really be because of the deal on building the Village, posted about previously? Was it because of the school's involvement with the Second Mile?

The fact that they did not report this has had the most negative effect of all...costing all of them their jobs, charges against Curley and Schultz, putting the football team in limbo and causing questions about the reputation of the entire school, costing jobs and funding at the Second Mile.

I just don't understand the purpose of the cover up or why they thought this would work? They knew about 1998 and now in 2002, did they really think JS would stop? They admitted they could not force him to stop bringing children to the school. What did they achieve with this stupid decision that has only resulted in a big ol FAIL for everybody, most of all the additional children JS abused?

 

[Reader]

He reported it to his supervisor, Paterno, which was the legal requirement in 2002. Paterno reported it Curley. Then Curley and Schultz spoke with McQueary. Schultz was head of the police force. All the parties agree that these things happened.



They had stopped as soon as they saw McQueary. I can easily understand McQueary being stunned.

Now, should Paterno, considering his influence, have done some follow-up. Yes. McQueary was not in the position to really do follow-up in 2002.

BBM

If McQueary was afraid of following up because of his job, he could do what thousands of abuse reporters do every day: pick up the phone and make an anonymous report to the CYS or police.

I will say that even though MM apparently went along with the program (whatever that was) for a long time, once he was identified as a witness, he did testify (I think) strongly and truthfully about what he saw. He showed no fear of Curley or Schultz in telling the grand jury and testifying in the perjury preliminary hearing. In fact, it was noted that he stared pointedly at Curley when speaking. I'm glad at least that he has come thru in the end and these men have to go to trial for their cover up. I think one reason JS/Amendola were afraid of their preliminary hearing is they didn't want MM to be heard testifying so strongly about what he saw. Some doubts have been professed (not here) about the boys' motives for coming forward and waiting so long to do so, but no one could doubt what MM says he saw.

 

[Tipstaff]

The moment that Dr.Fessell is talking about brings together some things for me- being fascinated as a kid by a book on building magician's boxes and once seeing a magician help the pretty girl he had just sliced to bits step out of the box unharmed; as a young woman helping set up one of the first rape crisis centers (win!); as a retiree trying to write a novel on ancient Greece (fail!)
The last is why I think this was intercrural intercourse- no penetration. Probably requires penetration to constitute rape. McQueary lacked vocabulary and to some extent if there are no words for it a thing cannot be.

I've tried to understand McQueary. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

He did go back a third time.

He hasn't said what his intent was in that moment- it seems likely that if Sandusky had still been on the kid, he intended to get him off. Instead, he confronts an apparently unhurt kid and a blank Sandusky. The magician's assistant has been produced from the box, a final disorienting thing.
As a rape counsellor, I would have tried not to further traumatize the kid. A fight might have, a stranger trying to take him away would have. Woulda backed off from a fight since they were separated. As a woman I can't really imagine triggering a fight so can't go there.

Coulda talked- said hello, asked the kid his name, if he was OK. Getting the kids name would have been great protection agains him disappearing. That's the best suggestion.
Coulda waited around. Assertive presence.
Instead headed for a phone. Sandusky would wonder how much was seen, if he might call cops. Wouldn't continue.

Shoulda phoned the cops. Might have intended to? Would they have believed him? If they did, and were next door and took the kid away to a shelter etc- maybe worse trauma?
Phoned his father, who he probably thinks of as a kind of doctor. Former medical corps.
Got talked out of it by Dranov, his dad's boss. (Who later did a CYA by meeting with Schultz.)
Maybe at this point everyone genuinely thought someone else would do something wonderful. Probably only Mike and maybe Joe were naive enough to hope for this.

When it was evident that was all--
Mike shoulda, shoulda, shoulda shoulda called Child Protection, or real cops, or both.
Or sent an anonymous letter or....

The present investigation found McQueary because of a posting on a forum about something once seen at Penn State- and someone else has implied that that poster might have been McQueary.

I expect that Curley and Spanier have hated Paterno for years, watching the tiger's teeth fall out, waiting for him to get out of their way. In 1998 he was 71, still powerful, but not sharp enough to know how much they were hiding from him. In 2002, at 74, they knew he would let it slide.

Excellent post. Thank you. The dynamics you present here, at least to me, reveal the turmoil that went on in this situation.

Way more thoughts, way more discussion, way more ways to manage the Sandusky problem went on in Penn State than has been presented to date in this case.


I hope it all comes out at trial but I don't believe it will get that far. I believe Sandusky will get many visits from the powers that be to take a plea and SAVE Penn State.

Again, terrific post.

 

[Rlaub44]

All of them knew who that little boy was. There is no way they did not find that out or attempt to. That is such a small community it could have been anyone's son.

I'm not so sure that would have been so simple a task. The Second Mile served kids from several counties in Central PA, and from everything I've read, the Penn State staff apparently just looked at those children as "Jerry's Kids". The boy would not have been readily known to Paterno, Curley or Schultz.

Should they have attempted to determine his identity? Absolutely, but I doubt anyone ever did.

 

[BigCat]

I'm not so sure that would have been so simple a task. The Second Mile served kids from several counties in Central PA, and from everything I've read, the Penn State staff apparently just looked at those children as "Jerry's Kids". The boy would not have been readily known to Paterno, Curley or Schultz.

Should they have attempted to determine his identity? Absolutely, but I doubt anyone ever did.

We know for a fact that Schultz and Curley never attempted to find out the boy's identity. They were specifically, and repeatedly, asked that question in their grand jury testimony.

 

[Rlaub44]

We know for a fact that Schultz and Curley never attempted to find out the boy's identity. They were specifically, and repeatedly, asked that question in their grand jury testimony.

Exactly. The post I was replying to suggested that all of them knew who the boy was, but IMO nobody cared to try to find out. McQueary and Paterno didn't seem to feel it was their place to, and Curley and Schultz didn't care to.

 

[al66pine]

Perjury prelim hearing transcript has excerpts from Jan.2011 Gr.Jury transcript, in which both Curley and Schultz introduce Cynthia Baldwin, accompanying them as "counsel" to each of them.

She is Vice President and General Counsel for Penn State University and a former Justice of the Penn Supreme Court.

The perjury transcript shows, at Dec. 2011 prelim hearing, Curley was rep'ed by his own counsel, Ms Roberto, and
Schultz is rep'ed by Mr Farrell.

No more U. counsel for them.

I wonder who is paying their tabs now.

 

[azwriter]

Paterno was disingenuous in his testimony. The only point he even attempted to make was that Sandusky wasn't a coach, had been a coach briefly and he wasn't associated with Sandusky.

We all know this isn't true. There was a point in time that certain people thought Sandusky was heading toward being the head coach at Penn State. Joe Paterno has been the "Power" at Penn State and the way he passed this off to his 'boss' is simply his own CYA.

The questioning of Paterno was so poor it could have been completed by a 5th grader.

This grand jury questioning of Paterno shows the reverential treatment he received in and around Penn State.

Paterno looks even worse after reading his testimony - HE WAITED before bringing this to the attention of his boss because it was the weekend. Wonder if JoPA would have waited if this were his kids or grandkids.

Can I pick out one sentence (BBM) in your post and add this: Jerry's entire hometown and former high school classmates expected he was to take over for Joe as head coach. There was a great disappointment and rumors that mean old Joe took back his promise when we all learned Jerry had retired because he found out he wasn't going to be head coach at PSU. That's the story we all heard.

So, it was more than certain people, it was a hell of a lot of people in Washington, PA who were counting on Jerry to be next in line. I know, I was a classmate of his. And Jerry's retirement was a shock and Joe was labled a louse. But, now, sadly we have a better idea of what really happened. just my O.

 

[Reader]

One section of the perjury preliminary hearing transcript was very interesting to me...the testimony of Agent Sassano of the AG's office.

For one thing, he stated they didn't learn about the 2002 incident until Nov. 2010. It seems as the AG's office began their investigation they learned of one child from another child, except for this case which has been indicated came from an anonymous source.

Another statement he made was about how the CYS and police department worked together, as I had thought and as has been my personal experience. He stated:

A. Well, CYS, as you know, cannot file charges. They do an investigation. They cannot actually file charges, so they work in conjunction with the police department.

Q. So, by what you just said, you don't know if there was any sort of investigation by CYS independent of a police department?

A. Independent of a police department, no. They do them with the police department. It's a joint venture....It's one and the same essentially.

I will add that not all CYS cases are worked with the police dept. Most of the time, it's a situation that can be handled by CYS, such as working with the family with the children in the home, placing the child in a relative's home with the agreement of the parent, removing the child to emergency shelter and filing for state custody with the juvenile court. However, if CYS feels a crime such as sexual abuse has been committed, they refer to either the police department (or in my state the State's Attorney); at times the police dept. has the case first and calls CYS in to handle the children and their placement. But information is shared in order to have the best placement and to prepare for court. Very seldom does the CYS worker have to actually testify (altho I've testified before a GJ) but the police dept./SA's office gathers their evidence from actual witnesses of the abuse, parents, doctors, hospital records, and the child/children.

 

[Reader]

Second Mile’s Insurance Company Wants Nothing To Do With Jerry Sandusky

http://deadspin.com/jerry-sandusky/

You know you are having a bad year when even an insurance company looks at you with that "yeeesh" look. Well, that is essentially what attorneys for Federal Insurance—the company that insures Second Mile—did in their recently filed lawsuit in federal court in Williamsport. The complaint argues that Federal Insurance should not have to pay legal expenses or fees for Sandusky because it "would be wrong...because he is accused of conduct that did not involve his position as an executive or employee of The Second Mile, a charity for at-risk youth he founded in 1977."

Perhaps Federal Insurance has not read the grand jury presentment in its entirety—one could argue that coach Sandusky is accused of conduct that is at the very heart, and possibly the sole purpose, of the "charity for at-risk youth he founded in 1977."


Amendola has his usual face-palm inducing response....geesh!


More at link...

 

[Tipstaff]

Second Mile’s Insurance Company Wants Nothing To Do With Jerry Sandusky

http://deadspin.com/jerry-sandusky/

You know you are having a bad year when even an insurance company looks at you with that "yeeesh" look. Well, that is essentially what attorneys for Federal Insurance—the company that insures Second Mile—did in their recently filed lawsuit in federal court in Williamsport. The complaint argues that Federal Insurance should not have to pay legal expenses or fees for Sandusky because it "would be wrong...because he is accused of conduct that did not involve his position as an executive or employee of The Second Mile, a charity for at-risk youth he founded in 1977."

Perhaps Federal Insurance has not read the grand jury presentment in its entirety—one could argue that coach Sandusky is accused of conduct that is at the very heart, and possibly the sole purpose, of the "charity for at-risk youth he founded in 1977."


Amendola has his usual face-palm inducing response....geesh!


More at link...

Well Jerry is 'repugnant'.

More likely the insurance company is seeing the writing on the wall - so many children 'allegedly' abused by Sandusky and so many charges he needs to be defended from. If Sandusky is found guilty or takes a plea just imagine the money.

Looks like a preemptive strike by the insurance company.

Who is paying Amendola at this point Sandysky or this Insurance Company? And further if it is the insurance company does prevail does Amendola quit if Sandusky can't pay?

This begs the question does the State of Pennsylvania have to give Sandusky a Public Defender? IIRC isn't the house up as part of Sandusky's bond?