Penn State Sandusky Trial #11 (Verdict - GUILTY!)

[azwriter]

If Paterno had gone to the local or state police and reported Sandusky's abuse of children, Paterno would never have been fired. Paterno had a choice to make once he learned what McQ witnessed. He took the path that would most protect PSU.

You're absolutely correct things would have been entirely different if Paterno had gone directly to LE about Jerry. However, I strongly think Jerry's behavior was known by athletic officials at the school long before the shower incident.

Why else was Jerry given a retirement in 1999? Seems to me that was the only way they could get rid of him and ultimately still keep his behavior a secret. Jerry retiring from the University would cause less questions than if he was suddenly fired.

I suspect Jerry was warned years before he took the retirement to knock it off but he continued to abuse young boys. Administration knew, wanted him out...but Jerry never went away did he?

It was much more important, as you pointed out, for the University to protect its reputation than take the correct steps which would have revealed to the world Jerry's sins and put him on the legal path to punishment. I find this approach as bad as Jerry's attacks on these young victims. jmo

 

[katydid23]

I posted several quotes from the book back during the early days following Sandusky's arrest. Based on my reading, I did not get the impression Sandusky was molested by his father. He seemed very worshipful of his father. I recall he took his father's death very hard. As of yet, no abuse allegation pre-date the death of his father, which, I believe, was late 91. Perhaps Sandusky's respect for his father kept his sexual perversions in check. I'm certain Sandusky never wanted to disappoint him.

As for Sandusky's relationship with his mother, the picture is not as clear. He is more muted when discussing her. It may be significant to note that his mother set him up with Dottie. Did he marry his mother? I don't know. I think it's pretty clear he was not sexually attracted to women. He may have even been hostile to them, in partcular, to mothers since they were his rivals for the affections of the boys he desired.

JMO

I don't think he was abused by his father. But I do think that he began 'playing around' with other boys in his father's charity home, probably when he was young himself. JMO

 

[costalpilot]

I do believe the amount of the settlement is not the only thing PSU would like to control in its invitation to the victims. The University would also like this to all be settled outside a court of law.

Enjoy your posts.

jmo

oh most definitely. and who could blame them. i'm not sure if "the file" exists or not, but if it does,........(surely it would have been destroyed by now?!)



thanks for that.

 

[BigCat]

I don't think he was abused by his father. But I do think that he began 'playing around' with other boys in his father's charity home, probably when he was young himself. JMO

You could very well be right. Growing up in the enviroment that he grew up in places a child in a vulnerable position, especially an only child with no older siblings to look after them.

I'm still perlexed by the lack of victims prior to 92, when Sandusky was 58. We assume there more, but, as of yet, none have come forward.

Fixated pedos lack the interpersonal skills of adults and may not be interested in developing such behaviors. They use their honed childlike interpersonal skills to gain control of children/their victims. Think of their childlike behavior as a predatory adaptation.

He has the interpersonal skills of a 12 year old, so who else is he going to have sex with? It's a "what came first? the chicken or the egg?" argument. I don't believe in applying a textbook answer to the question of why an individual behaves in a certain way. We need to learn more about him and his past before we can say anything more definite.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

First, though I never lived there, my parents graduated Charleroi High, though they were about 20 years older than Sandusky. I'm still stunned by the evil in our midst for all those years.

You're absolutely correct things would have been entirely different if Paterno had gone directly to LE about Jerry. However, I strongly think Jerry's behavior was known by athletic officials at the school long before the shower incident.

I would say that it would have been different if Schultz had gone to the police in 2001, after Paterno had reported it, including the department he ran.

Why else was Jerry given a retirement in 1999? Seems to me that was the only way they could get rid of him and ultimately still keep his behavior a secret. Jerry retiring from the University would cause less questions than if he was suddenly fired.

I suspect Jerry was warned years before he took the retirement to knock it off but he continued to abuse young boys. Administration knew, wanted him out...but Jerry never went away did he?

I can come up with some other reasons for Sandusky retiring in 1999. Paterno brought his son in and promoted him by that point. There was a generous retirement window in 1999.

That said, Schultz testified that he knew about Victim 6. I think that if would be a very reasonable assumption that some people involved in the 1998 incident knew and said, in effect, that they would not pursue this if he got help.

I am very troubled about that meeting on 10/13/98 in the football building with LE and Ganther.

 

[costalpilot]

@Izzy....pretty much everyone bought the "Joepa is a saint" crap. sportswriters are as human as everyone else, and just as lazy. the easiest thing when writing a story is to repeat a widely accepted storyline, like, LeBraun (sp) is talented but short on character, and Michael is talented but doesnt make his teammates better, and, the most widely repeated piece of cr@p ever, Joepa is a saint.

but there was one guy who knew the lie, and he wrote an accurate if unpopular article about Joepa a long time before the fall that approached the truth. it fell short because he incorrectly thought that joepa was pretty much the same as every other D1 coach, more like a used car salesman than a saint.

wish i could find that article today. it would make interesting reading. in its time it was either mocked or ignored.

turns out he was closer to the truth than the others. wonder who he was?

 

[costalpilot]

First, though I never lived there, my parents graduated Charleroi High, though they were about 20 years older than Sandusky. I'm still stunned by the evil in our midst for all those years.



I would say that it would have been different if Schultz had gone to the police in 2001, after Paterno had reported it, including the department he ran.

I can come up with some other reasons for Sandusky retiring in 1999. Paterno brought his son in and promoted him by that point. There was a generous retirement window in 1999.

That said, Schultz testified that he knew about Victim 6. I think that if would be a very reasonable assumption that some people involved in the 1998 incident knew and said, in effect, that they would not pursue this if he got help.

I am very troubled about that meeting on 10/13/98 in the football building with LE and Ganther.

heres the thing and it seems to be the most indigestable thing for staters to keep down: Joepa was in charge, and if ya'll won't face it, your just not gonna be able to get past this. folks aren't going to be misled about that fact. it may not be evident and ya'll might think you can sugarcoat it and save his reputation, but its gone with the wind.

schultz, like everyone else in happy valley who mattered looked to joe, and joe looked the other way.

imo.

 

[Bravo]

I feel pretty certain that Jer will be sleeping sitting up with one eye open.

LOL brings a whole new meaning to CYA. He and others covered it for years. He will still be doing it. Only in a different way :floorlaugh:

 

[Gardenlady]

All of this "report it to the institution head" needs to stop.

That is what allowed the church to cover up crimes. People reporting incidents to the bishop, instead of the police, and thinking they'd done what they were supposed to do. And then, like Pilate, washed their hands of it.

In this case, Paterno reports it within the institution, rather than to LE, and washes his hands of it.

Maybe someone gets a pass for doing this back in the 40s, 50s, when society as a whole dealt with sexual abuse of children by hushing it up (still wrong, but understandable given the norms of the day). But by the 1990s, things had changed to where a reasonable adult SHOULD HAVE KNOWN to go to police, ESPECIALLY if he saw nothing being done about it.

It was only a couple years later, after all, that Cardinal Law's "downfall", such as it was, came, involving situations very similar to this. The outcry from the public over it shows that societal norms regarding the reporting and handling of child sexual abuse had changed significantly from the past (obviously things still are not as they always should be, but I think we arer well beyond the days when the "norm" is to keep it hushed up and unreported).

Paterno deserves no slack whatsoever for the not-even-minimal "action" he took in reporting it within.

 

[Bravo]

Without a doubt Sandusky will be protected in prison, well away from general population... not only for his safety, but for the good of the prison and prison guards. The guards lives are put on the line, everyday, especially when one prisoner and is attacking another. They don't want and don't need the conflict and danger.

So true. As much as we would luv them all to have at er safety is priortity as it puts the workers at risk. It typically doesn't happen but it has happened and a gal can dream right lol

 

[J. J. in Phila]

heres the thing and it seems to be the most indigestable thing for staters to keep down: Joepa was in charge, and if ya'll won't face it, your just not gonna be able to get past this. folks aren't going to be misled about that fact. it may not be evident and ya'll might think you can sugarcoat it and save his reputation, but its gone with the wind.

No he wasn't. He could not institute a police investigation any more than Schultz could order plays on the football field.

That is not say that Paterno couldn't have done some follow up, and put pressure on Schultz or Spanier to do more. I wish he was more decisive and had pressured them to investigate.

You want to give Paterno godlike powers, not only over the football program, but the university and Centre County government. A powerful figure, who was powerful because he raised money for the university, yes. In absolute control beyond the football program, no.

 

[borndem]

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sanduskys_attorneys_trie.html

Here we go, friends.

JS' attorneys say they tried to get out of this case because they were so unprepared but Judge kept denying their requests. Ha! Excuses are flying.
==========================================
"Jerry Sandusky's attorney Karl Rominger, on his WHP 580 Saturday radio show, said he and attorney Joe Amendola tried to get out of Sandusky's case the morning of jury selection, not feeling adequately prepared.

Judge John Cleland denied the request, Rominger said.

Cleland had repeatedly denied requests for continuances and the trial approached."

Well, B'Rice, it looks like I'll have to get another BS meter because that article broke mine -- I've been running it throughout this trial and I think it's just worn out....

The DT had months to pore thru all the evidence, and I would think they had other attys or assistants who could have helped. I have seen firms ask for law school students to volunteer to help do whatever just to get some experience....

Sure, there were mounds of evidence and interviews, etc., etc., but this sounds more like incompetent representation than a denial of a continuance, IMHO, as a possible basis for appeal. :waitasec:

 

[Bravo]

There was a bit of discussion regarding ineffective Counsel on HLN. Agreed that would never fly by Defense Attys no less. I wish the Defense would just go away quietly. Like most do. Make a respectful statement after the verdict and leave it be. Amendola looked like a buffoon and i honestly feared for his safety had he kept talking. Appalling to slam a Victim. Sounds like they were a perfect match Defendant and Lawyer.

 

[Madeleine74]

The problem is that sports is more important than academics. More important than individuals. The glorification of a game that makes it like a religion. A winning coach is revered. A long term winning coach is seen like the pope. He can do no wrong.

Joe P. was a human being with flaws. He was not perfect. He had a legacy for winning football games and winning teams. That doesn't make him a saint, though that's the broad brush he was painted with over the years.

 

[Rlaub44]

heres the thing and it seems to be the most indigestable thing for staters to keep down: Joepa was in charge, and if ya'll won't face it, your just not gonna be able to get past this. folks aren't going to be misled about that fact. it may not be evident and ya'll might think you can sugarcoat it and save his reputation, but its gone with the wind.

schultz, like everyone else in happy valley who mattered looked to joe, and joe looked the other way.

imo.

This is the most popular view from the people who are looking at the university from the outside, and from a few disgruntled inside sources.

Some of the rest of us, who followed Joe Paterno's career for our entire lives, want more than the speculation of "he had to know" and "he allowed Sandusky to use the facilities", etc., before we completely undo our image of him.

For me, I can see several alternate scenarios, that just don't sound as appealing for those observers who have anointed Paterno's actions as worse than Sandusky's (and yes, I have seen that statement on WS).

1. Paterno followed protocol by reporting to his supervisors (although I would imagine he didn't even know the protocol, as child abuse requirements wouldn't likely be well-known to a coach who mostly deals with players 18 and over; he may have just wanted to put the matter in the hands of those who would know what to do).

2. The e-mails we have heard about are reported to be between Curley, Spanier and Schultz. Why would they not include Paterno? Well, for one, he seemed to be someone who didn't always toe the party line. He didn't resign quietly when they asked him in 2004, he took his own attorney to the grand jury instead of relying on Baldwin to protect his interests while she was actually representing the university. So I'm not certain the other three trusted him to go along with the "humane" solution they came up with.

3. Why didn't Paterno go to police when he realized nothing was being done? Here is another avenue that confuses me. How could he know nothing was being done? We know that the secret emails (and lawyer's statements recently) indicate that the administration claimed to have researched the matter before choosing not to report. Suppose they told Paterno that the attorneys are looking into it, and we are going to pursue whatever action they tell us is appropriate. Then Paterno doesn't see Sandusky for sometime (assuming Sandusky chose to lay low for a while), and assumes something must have been done. Why would he then go to the police, when he has been led to believe that the matter was addressed? This possibility is also led more credence in light of Paterno checking back in with McQueary, asking if he was satisfied with his meeting with Curley and Schultz.

I don't and can't know that this is absolutely what happened, but neither does anyone else know for certain that Paterno was a knowing party to the coverup. Because I have had numerous reasons to admire Paterno for many years prior to the Sandusky Scandal coming out, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt that he acted in good faith, trusting that the men who were supposed to handle the matter actually had.

Obviously, this is not the popular view on WS or in national media outlets outside of Central PA, and if evidence emerges that demonstrates Paterno's complicity, I will hold him accountable as well. I don't see me ever holding him more accountable than the evil monster that preyed on many children for many years, but I will reconsider when that time comes. It isn't just me who wants more proof than speculation before condemning him; his players, who knew better than any of us what he stood for, have defended his reputation almost to a man.

Many will argue that the evidence won't come out to protect Paterno's legacy, but let's be honest, the BOT, Gov. Corbett, and others have had no problem allowing him to take the fall, and with him no longer being around to defend himself, I guarantee that Curley, Spanier and Schultz have no reason not to use him to deflect the blame, if such evidence exists.

Again, flame away, because I recognize that the court of public opinion has already passed judgment on Paterno's motives, and I apologize for the length of this rant, but I thought it might be interesting to hear the opposing viewpoint from someone who never mistook Joe Paterno for a saint or a god, but rather as a good man who may have made mistakes, but who generally lived his life consistently with the reputation that he had been given.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Could he have a new scandal thread, for Curley, Schultz and maybe others.

 

[elmomom]

I am quoting your entire message below. I just want to make my feelings regarding Paterno clear, and why messages like yours infuriate me.
Whether or not Paterno knew or didn't know that Sandusky continued his crimes, or whether Paterno did or did not know that it had "been taken care of" is truly, truly, besides the point.
The point is, a figurehead, as was Paterno, cannot just trust that things have been taken care of. He can not curry the image of a moral leader by "following protocol" and trusting that "things were taken care of". As a moral leader (and a self proclaimed one at that), he had every responsibility to make certain that things WERE taken care of. But beyond that, where the heck was his moral indignation, the kind of disgust and anger that leads a leader to SPEAK out, to speak out loudly, to LEAD? I am sorry but there is no evidence that he did anything but bury his cowardly oversized head in the sand and hope it would all just go away.

This is the most popular view from the people who are looking at the university from the outside, and from a few disgruntled inside sources.

Some of the rest of us, who followed Joe Paterno's career for our entire lives, want more than the speculation of "he had to know" and "he allowed Sandusky to use the facilities", etc., before we completely undo our image of him.

For me, I can see several alternate scenarios, that just don't sound as appealing for those observers who have anointed Paterno's actions as worse than Sandusky's (and yes, I have seen that statement on WS).

1. Paterno followed protocol by reporting to his supervisors (although I would imagine he didn't even know the protocol, as child abuse requirements wouldn't likely be well-known to a coach who mostly deals with players 18 and over; he may have just wanted to put the matter in the hands of those who would know what to do).

2. The e-mails we have heard about are reported to be between Curley, Spanier and Schultz. Why would they not include Paterno? Well, for one, he seemed to be someone who didn't always toe the party line. He didn't resign quietly when they asked him in 2004, he took his own attorney to the grand jury instead of relying on Baldwin to protect his interests while she was actually representing the university. So I'm not certain the other three trusted him to go along with the "humane" solution they came up with.

3. Why didn't Paterno go to police when he realized nothing was being done? Here is another avenue that confuses me. How could he know nothing was being done? We know that the secret emails (and lawyer's statements recently) indicate that the administration claimed to have researched the matter before choosing not to report. Suppose they told Paterno that the attorneys are looking into it, and we are going to pursue whatever action they tell us is appropriate. Then Paterno doesn't see Sandusky for sometime (assuming Sandusky chose to lay low for a while), and assumes something must have been done. Why would he then go to the police, when he has been led to believe that the matter was addressed? This possibility is also led more credence in light of Paterno checking back in with McQueary, asking if he was satisfied with his meeting with Curley and Schultz.

I don't and can't know that this is absolutely what happened, but neither does anyone else know for certain that Paterno was a knowing party to the coverup. Because I have had numerous reasons to admire Paterno for many years prior to the Sandusky Scandal coming out, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt that he acted in good faith, trusting that the men who were supposed to handle the matter actually had.

Obviously, this is not the popular view on WS or in national media outlets outside of Central PA, and if evidence emerges that demonstrates Paterno's complicity, I will hold him accountable as well. I don't see me ever holding him more accountable than the evil monster that preyed on many children for many years, but I will reconsider when that time comes. It isn't just me who wants more proof than speculation before condemning him; his players, who knew better than any of us what he stood for, have defended his reputation almost to a man.

Many will argue that the evidence won't come out to protect Paterno's legacy, but let's be honest, the BOT, Gov. Corbett, and others have had no problem allowing him to take the fall, and with him no longer being around to defend himself, I guarantee that Curley, Spanier and Schultz have no reason not to use him to deflect the blame, if such evidence exists.

Again, flame away, because I recognize that the court of public opinion has already passed judgment on Paterno's motives, and I apologize for the length of this rant, but I thought it might be interesting to hear the opposing viewpoint from someone who never mistook Joe Paterno for a saint or a god, but rather as a good man who may have made mistakes, but who generally lived his life consistently with the reputation that he had been given.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Many will argue that the evidence won't come out to protect Paterno's legacy, but let's be honest, the BOT, Gov. Corbett, and others have had no problem allowing him to take the fall, and with him no longer being around to defend himself, I guarantee that Curley, Spanier and Schultz have no reason not to use him to deflect the blame, if such evidence exists.

I agree with post, except for this detail. In 2001, Corbett was neither Attorney General (AG) nor was he on the Board of Trustees.

Corbett was appointed AG in 1995, replacing Preate, who resigned after conviction. Corbett left office in January of 1997. He had no role in prosecuting cases after that and did, in fact, serve a defense attorney in private practice. He was appointed head of the "Commission of Crime and Delinquency," which awards federal funds to the criminal justice programs, including public defenders. I think they have two meetings per year and it is uncompensated.

He was elected in 2004, to his first term and sworn in January of 2005. He was reelected in 2008.

In 2010, he ran for Governor and was elected. He resigned as AG (as required by the PA constitution) in January 2011 and was sworn in as governor. As governor, he became a member ex officio ("by virtue of the [other] office held") of the Board of Trustees of Penn State.

Corbett was not the AG in 1998, nor in 2001, nor was he on the Board of Trustees prior to 1/2011.

The case was referred to the AG's Office in February of 2009.

Most of that is here: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Corbett"]Tom Corbett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Bravo]

Thanks so much for all the thought provoking posts today. Very informative and a learning curve. Much detail i didn't know.

 

[Rlaub44]

I am quoting your entire message below. I just want to make my feelings regarding Paterno clear, and why messages like yours infuriate me.
Whether or not Paterno knew or didn't know that Sandusky continued his crimes, or whether Paterno did or did not know that it had "been taken care of" is truly, truly, besides the point.
The point is, a figurehead, as was Paterno, cannot just trust that things have been taken care of. He can not curry the image of a moral leader by "following protocol" and trusting that "things were taken care of". As a moral leader (and a self proclaimed one at that), he had every responsibility to make certain that things WERE taken care of. But beyond that, where the heck was his moral indignation, the kind of disgust and anger that leads a leader to SPEAK out, to speak out loudly, to LEAD? I am sorry but there is no evidence that he did anything but bury his cowardly oversized head in the sand and hope it would all just go away.

I appreciate the use of your term "figurehead" as I think it is an apt description of the true state of Paterno's actual power, versus the perceived power that has been attributed to him.