PDA

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


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Tipstaff
02-26-2012, 08:28 AM
The more I read information like the post StellarsJay posted above - the more I question how over the YEARS that people like Curley, Schultz, Paterno and all had NO FOLLOW UP
on what was going on with Sandusky.

No chance they 'forgot' what he did, what he was doing and what they should be doing to keep other kids safe. They remained silent to protect their own interests. MO

pinktoes
02-26-2012, 02:14 PM
Still waiting for Arnold to respond to the latest CDT blog on Sporadic..Gricar. Lol.

In most jurisdictions, in her role as ADA, IF that's the capacity in which she testified at the grand jury, she would be foresworn from speaking publicly about her testimony. However, if she were somehow testifying at Sandusky's grand jury as a private citizen, then she's free to talk now about her testimony.

Doesn't matter. She's made it clear that Amendola--or whoever else wants to know, if only to sell newspapers--is getting nothing till the court determines when/how to release the g.j. testimony. Good for her. I like that sort of spunk in a person. Has fortitude to withstand the public baiting.

It's pretty clear that the locals who've challenged each other, largely in the social media, for literally YEARS now, are earnestly trying to either find out what happened to Gricar. Or defend a horse they have in that race. For us true-crime followers, it's an interesting case. For those who have a stake in the matter, it's much more. Yet we all discuss it in the same venue. A sea-change.

It has occurred to several people I know that the Gricar investigation might have been mishandled/delayed/whatever until some progress was made on the Sandusky and coverup front.

pinktoes
02-26-2012, 04:43 PM
Can anybody point me to info about Christian Amos Goodall's suicide, and what "battling his own troubles" might have referred to?

http://www.centrecountycf.org/who-we-are/our-funds/memorial-fund-honorees.php

I believe he graduated PSU in June, 2010; his maternal grandmother died at a nursing home in Belleville, PA in August, 2010. He committed suicide at his parents' home Nov 2, 2010.

(His dad represented Lara Gricar in having Ray declared dead; Leslie Dutchcot was of counsel in Goodall's firm.)

At the link you can see the memorial funds set up in his memory at CCCF (where his dad is a Director).

J. J. in Phila
02-26-2012, 05:19 PM
In most jurisdictions, in her role as ADA, IF that's the capacity in which she testified at the grand jury, she would be foresworn from speaking publicly about her testimony. However, if she were somehow testifying at Sandusky's grand jury as a private citizen, then she's free to talk now about her testimony.


I don't blame her a bit for not talking, on the record or off. She might have been one of those few people who tried to stop Sandusky. If that turns out to be the case, JKA will get nothing but praise from me.


It's pretty clear that the locals who've challenged each other, largely in the social media, for literally YEARS now, are earnestly trying to either find out what happened to Gricar. Or defend a horse they have in that race. For us true-crime followers, it's an interesting case. For those who have a stake in the matter, it's much more. Yet we all discuss it in the same venue. A sea-change.


I change based on evidence.


It has occurred to several people I know that the Gricar investigation might have been mishandled/delayed/whatever until some progress was made on the Sandusky and coverup front.

There have been suggestions of another grand jury.

StellarsJay
02-26-2012, 10:10 PM
Lovely summation:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/26/bernstein-feds-on-penn-state-case-finally/

ThoughtFox
02-26-2012, 11:38 PM
Lovely summation:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/26/bernstein-feds-on-penn-state-case-finally/

Every line of that article is perfect! It really cuts through the crapola.

The half-hearted effort to bring justice for Sandusky’s victims has gone on long enough. After years of feigned ignorance, deaf ears and outright enabling at every level of a public university, every level of a sinister charity, and every level of local and state law enforcement all the way up to the current governor of Pennsylvania, it is past time that the larger case be advanced.

There will be new questions asked by some very serious people, and new answers provided.

Answers too many have not wanted to get.

J. J. in Phila
02-27-2012, 12:34 AM
Every line of that article is perfect! It really cuts through the crapola.

The half-hearted effort to bring justice for Sandusky’s victims has gone on long enough. After years of feigned ignorance, deaf ears and outright enabling at every level of a public university, every level of a sinister charity, and every level of local and state law enforcement all the way up to the current governor of Pennsylvania, it is past time that the larger case be advanced.

There will be new questions asked by some very serious people, and new answers provided.

Answers too many have not wanted to get.

I'm going to disagree just a bit.

The Two AG's: Corbett and Kelly
The AG initially only had Victim 1, and they had to ferret out the rest of the victims. Victim 2 took some time; they were searching message boards, but we don't know what else they did first. They then had to match up the photos in Touched to find Victims 3-5. Some thing led them to Victim 6 and the report. Then there were Victims 7-8. I can understand some delay. [Corbett was the first Republican candidate since 1990 that I did not contribute to, so there is no love lost there. Kelly is not running for the post this year and will probably be too old in 2020.]

The Two DA's: Salisbury and Madeira
The crime was out of Salisbury's jurisdiction, so he sent it to Madeira. Madeira had a legitimate conflict of interest (which I questioned) and sent it to the AG's Office. [And not only did I contribute to Madeira's opponent, but you should see the negative blogs I wrote about Madeira, including one titled "'Disingenuous'".]

Some of the people in the 1998 investigation
Det. Schreffler obviously did a good job with that 1998 report. There is at least the possibility that Arnold, an ADA, pushed for more to be done; that has not played out yet so I can't say for sure. [And you read he googlepages, you'll see that we do not get along at all.]

I don't really have any reason to complement these people, except that the did a good job. That said, there were a lot of failures by a lot of other people.

ohiogirl
02-27-2012, 02:11 AM
Every line of that article is perfect! It really cuts through the crapola.

The half-hearted effort to bring justice for Sandusky’s victims has gone on long enough. After years of feigned ignorance, deaf ears and outright enabling at every level of a public university, every level of a sinister charity, and every level of local and state law enforcement all the way up to the current governor of Pennsylvania, it is past time that the larger case be advanced.

There will be new questions asked by some very serious people, and new answers provided.

Answers too many have not wanted to get.

Did that article "editorial" really tell you anything new?

pinktoes
02-27-2012, 09:58 AM
This appears to be at least a massive coverup. At least that. What I can't settle in my own mind is whether all these people who might be involved in it would have done so ONLY for money. (In 'money' I include everything related to dollars, ambition, protection of reputation--personal, institutional, community).

Am I so personally out of touch that I just can't imagine that being a sufficient motivation? Only my skepticism allows me to accept money as enough reason to conceal and enable. More deeply, I just can't believe it. Not of so many people.

Which leads me to personal motivations I CAN believe in. Like fear. Fear so enormous that it can only relate to perceived threat of life/health of self--or, more motivating--of loved ones.

Another personal motivation I perceive as sufficient to coverup or enable Sandusky: personal participation in child sex abuse. Sandusky could provide perceived low-risk victims. Society's "throw-away" children. And, money could buy that.

What else? What else? Searching because money might be enough for some, but surely not for all. What made it all go 'round?

Of course, I'm looking for "hush money" payments to victims. And not just Sandusky's own victims.

Which means I'm also looking for payments, via however circuitous a route, to Sandusky/his designated organizations or projects. Payments for personal use of a child.

Which then leads me to look for blackmail (payment same as above, and perhaps prompted by people other than/in addition to Sandusky). That sort of prostitution service has worked in politics before. Provide the service, then blackmail the recipient.

A related though to the hush money thing is: someone, a PSU trustee or other, could have his personal atty arrange to pay for settlement of a civil suit by a victim. Possibly through a designated financial contribution to PSU. If done properly, it would be legally okay. Just helping out the university with their legal costs. All it would raise is eyebrows, assuming no other evidence were found involving that individual. I see a sticky wicket of frustration in the future if this sort of thing is found. (As in, we know who did it, and suspect why, but they got away with it thanks to foresight and good lawyering. Dreading that possibility).

Other than those thoughts, I'm back to money, greed and ambition that exceeds the welfare of a child.

ThoughtFox
02-27-2012, 10:06 AM
Did that article "editorial" really tell you anything new?

No, but as a summary it's rare to see everything mentioned in one article: the University Cover Up, possible pay-offs, possible RICO and CLERY charges, Sandusky's emails, crossing state lines to have sex with a minor, the connection to Second Mile, etc...

Isn't that enough? ;)

J. J. in Phila
02-27-2012, 10:44 AM
No, but as a summary it's rare to see everything mentioned in one article: the University Cover Up, possible pay-offs, possible RICO and CLERY charges, Sandusky's emails, crossing state lines to have sex with a minor, the connection to Second Mile, etc...

Isn't that enough? ;)

The only that I can say is "Oh God, I hope not!"

pinktoes
02-27-2012, 11:53 AM
JJ: clipping from your post, just for reference, "...the possibility that Arnold, an ADA, pushed for more to be done; that has not played out yet so I can't say for sure. [And you read he googlepages, you'll see that we do not get along at all.]"

All I've read is her 2007 tome. What's amazing to me is that in it, she practically accused the poster she called "JJ" and "JJinPhila", a person supposedly unknown to her, of conducting either a disinformation campaign re Gricar's disappearance. Or, something even more nefarious--at least in my interpretation of what she wrote.

Now, that's going pretty far just to conduct a spirited intellectual debate. It sounded to me like she really meant it. And questioned how her "JJ" came to have knowledge of so many of Gricar's old cases and of office events, such as the unpublished info about her location around the time he disappeared. Suggesting her "JJ" had personal knowledge, or info from someone close to that office who had personal knowledge. As well as the similar, vague, "horse-in-the-race" theorizing.

What I'd like to see now is where her "JJ" responded in print to those speculative comments she made. Got a link for me?

It's just an amazing thing to watch this take place in print, as it were. I understand that JKA lost a longtime associate, is upset, and wants answers. You didn't; IIRC, you never met Gricar--or Patty. I just don't get your part in the debate. Not at all. Help??

J. J. in Phila
02-27-2012, 01:51 PM
What I'd like to see now is where her "JJ" responded in print to those speculative comments she made. Got a link for me?


As to the information: http://www.centredaily.com/2009/07/08/2396970/how-i-got-here.html



It's just an amazing thing to watch this take place in print, as it were. I understand that JKA lost a longtime associate, is upset, and wants answers. You didn't; IIRC, you never met Gricar--or Patty. I just don't get your part in the debate. Not at all. Help??

Why I'm doing it is here: http://www.centredaily.com/2009/02/05/2397032/why-i-am-interested-in-the-gricar.html Basically, if it was related to his official conduct, someone with a grudge against an elected official, 15 years before, it could have been me. If you're just looking with someone with a judge against a functionary, I'd only have to go seven years before 2005 to say it could have been me.

About six months out, I became very frustrated that a guy, a sitting district attorney, who had a good record, vanished, might have been murdered, and there was a killer (possibly a very bright one) still walking around.

As for the "good record," I've made so secret that I think the 1998 Sandusky was hideously bad. I've looked, as much as I can, at the rest of his cases, even after that came out, and they were not hideously bad. It is otherwise a fairly good record. That's a bit like asking, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play," at this point. One of the problems that I have with 1998 is that it is a complete anomaly.

If I was sure RFG's departure was voluntary (suicide or walkaway), my interest would end. And the problem is, the odds on foul play have not down, even before Sandusky.

[This is more appropriate for the Gricar thread.]

Reader
02-27-2012, 05:17 PM
As to the information: http://www.centredaily.com/2009/07/08/2396970/how-i-got-here.html



Why I'm doing it is here: http://www.centredaily.com/2009/02/05/2397032/why-i-am-interested-in-the-gricar.html Basically, if it was related to his official conduct, someone with a grudge against an elected official, 15 years before, it could have been me. If you're just looking with someone with a judge against a functionary, I'd only have to go seven years before 2005 to say it could have been me.

About six months out, I became very frustrated that a guy, a sitting district attorney, who had a good record, vanished, might have been murdered, and there was a killer (possibly a very bright one) still walking around.

As for the "good record," I've made so secret that I think the 1998 Sandusky was hideously bad. I've looked, as much as I can, at the rest of his cases, even after that came out, and they were not hideously bad. It is otherwise a fairly good record. That's a bit like asking, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play," at this point. One of the problems that I have with 1998 is that it is a complete anomaly.

If I was sure RFG's departure was voluntary (suicide or walkaway), my interest would end. And the problem is, the odds on foul play have not down, even before Sandusky.

[This is more appropriate for the Gricar thread.]

To continue the OT just a moment, I read the links above and wanted to read more of your blog but some of the posts are not available, such as, "Extensive Disagreements' which is recent and also 'Central Penn. Gothic'. Can you help with that for those interested? TIA

J. J. in Phila
02-27-2012, 05:57 PM
To continue the OT just a moment, I read the links above and wanted to read more of your blog but some of the posts are not available, such as, "Extensive Disagreements' which is recent and also 'Central Penn. Gothic'. Can you help with that for those interested? TIA

There is a problem accessing it with some browsers or you may have to register. There is nothing I can do about it at my end. Sorry.

I don't have a problem with Firefox, if it is a browser problem.

Reader
02-27-2012, 06:52 PM
Sandusky Attorney Seeks Trial Delay

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpps/news/sandusky-attorney-seeks-trial-delay-dpgonc-20120227-bb_18252307

BELLEFONTE, Pa. -- The attorney for accused child molester Jerry Sandusky filed a motion Monday asking to have his client's trial delayed until July.

Joseph Amendola wants the May trial postponed as he works to analyze the "great volume" of material related to the case and attempts to line up his defense witnesses, The Patriot-News reported.


Little more at link...

StellarsJay
02-27-2012, 08:11 PM
OK, question:

Kane, running for DA, is saying that she would have moved on just one victim and not bothered with a grand jury because the process is so slow. I do undestand that more investigators could have been assigned to the case to speed it up, but wouldn't betting the moon on just one victim have been very risky and not looking for the probable other victims also be kind of a coverup? Is the statement below an indication that she is overconfident or foolhardy?

What was gained by using the grand jury- is it customary in major crime cases or just the controversial ones, or what? Would Schultz and Curley be charged without it?


See below.
"Kane says she has tried hundreds of child sex abuse cases and is sharply critical of former Attorney General Tom Corbett’s approach to the Jerry Sandusky case at Penn State, especially Corbett’s use of a grand jury.

[She says] I have never once used a grand jury to investigate a case of child sexual assault for one reason – it takes too long. Your first priority is to get a sexually violent predator off of the streets.”

Kane says had she been attorney general, the case would not have been delayed so long after knowledge of the first victim.

“We would have put as many investigators on as we needed to put on the case. I would not have waited as long as that case was delayed.”

Kane says Corbett was just wrong in his belief that he needed more victims before prosecuting Sandusky.

In her view, one victim of child abuse is one too many and she would have acted a whole lot faster to get Sandusky off the street.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/02/27/ag-candidate-critical-of-corbetts-handling-of-sandusky-case/

J. J. in Phila
02-27-2012, 08:42 PM
OK, question:

Kane, running for DA, is saying that she would have moved on just one victim and not bothered with a grand jury because the process is so slow. I do undestand that more investigators could have been assigned to the case to speed it up, but wouldn't betting the moon on just one victim have been very risky and not looking for the probable other victims also be kind of a coverup? Is the statement below an indication that she is overconfident or foolhardy?


It can be used to investigate a number of aspects of the case. It has the power to subpoena people and lock in their testimony, and to subpoena documents.


What was gained by using the grand jury- is it customary in major crime cases or just the controversial ones, or what?


It is useful with people hiding things.

Would Schultz and Curley be charged without it?

Probably not.

I won't be voting for Kane.

Reader
02-27-2012, 10:54 PM
OK, question:

Kane, running for DA, is saying that she would have moved on just one victim and not bothered with a grand jury because the process is so slow. I do undestand that more investigators could have been assigned to the case to speed it up, but wouldn't betting the moon on just one victim have been very risky and not looking for the probable other victims also be kind of a coverup? Is the statement below an indication that she is overconfident or foolhardy?

What was gained by using the grand jury- is it customary in major crime cases or just the controversial ones, or what? Would Schultz and Curley be charged without it?


See below.
"Kane says she has tried hundreds of child sex abuse cases and is sharply critical of former Attorney General Tom Corbett’s approach to the Jerry Sandusky case at Penn State, especially Corbett’s use of a grand jury.

[She says] I have never once used a grand jury to investigate a case of child sexual assault for one reason – it takes too long. Your first priority is to get a sexually violent predator off of the streets.”

Kane says had she been attorney general, the case would not have been delayed so long after knowledge of the first victim.

“We would have put as many investigators on as we needed to put on the case. I would not have waited as long as that case was delayed.”

Kane says Corbett was just wrong in his belief that he needed more victims before prosecuting Sandusky.

In her view, one victim of child abuse is one too many and she would have acted a whole lot faster to get Sandusky off the street.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/02/27/ag-candidate-critical-of-corbetts-handling-of-sandusky-case/

BBM

But the thing is, what if she lost that one case against Sandusky? Then the other victims would see that he could get away with what he had done and I doubt any of them would have come forward. I'm glad they had the GJ and were able to build a better case with more evidence and victims willing to give evidence. (and we all know these are not all of them) It makes it much more likely for guilty verdicts to me plus more of the ones who have been abused will have a chance at justice.

I have read many comments complaining that Corbett did not get enough investigators to do the job and blaming him for the delay in getting charges, even hinting that he was part of a cover up. Don't know if all that is true or not but it does seem that it all got going when Kelly came in.

I'm glad it's been handled the way it has been so far. As shown by ThoughtFox's post above, there are so many threads to all of this and so many people involved that it took GJ powers to be able to investigate it all...and it's not over yet. Now that the feds are involved it will get even deeper and hopefully we'll find out all the nasty little secrets that allowed this predator (IMO) to continue to operate so openly for so many years right under the noses of his enablers (or accomplices?).

ThoughtFox
02-28-2012, 12:03 AM
BBM

But the thing is, what if she lost that one case against Sandusky? Then the other victims would see that he could get away with what he had done and I doubt any of them would have come forward. I'm glad they had the GJ and were able to build a better case with more evidence and victims willing to give evidence. (and we all know these are not all of them) It makes it much more likely for guilty verdicts to me plus more of the ones who have been abused will have a chance at justice.

I have read many comments complaining that Corbett did not get enough investigators to do the job and blaming him for the delay in getting charges, even hinting that he was part of a cover up. Don't know if all that is true or not but it does seem that it all got going when Kelly came in.

I'm glad it's been handled the way it has been so far. As shown by ThoughtFox's post above, there are so many threads to all of this and so many people involved that it took GJ powers to be able to investigate it all...and it's not over yet. Now that the feds are involved it will get even deeper and hopefully we'll find out all the nasty little secrets that allowed this predator (IMO) to continue to operate so openly for so many years right under the noses of his enablers (or accomplices?).

Yes, I have no doubt that there are many more secrets in this complicated case.

I'm optimistic because I feel with the Feds it won't just be business as usual. Fresh eyes always find new angles. Maybe some people in the legal system there have just been looking at everything one way for too long.

High time things got shaken up! :woohoo:

Pensfan
02-28-2012, 12:25 AM
Sandusky Attorney Seeks Trial Delay

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpps/news/sandusky-attorney-seeks-trial-delay-dpgonc-20120227-bb_18252307

BELLEFONTE, Pa. -- The attorney for accused child molester Jerry Sandusky filed a motion Monday asking to have his client's trial delayed until July.

Joseph Amendola wants the May trial postponed as he works to analyze the "great volume" of material related to the case and attempts to line up his defense witnesses, The Patriot-News reported.


Little more at link...
Line up his defense witnesses?

Let's guess who Jerry's defense witnesses will be besides his wife? Dr Raykovitz, the child psychiatrist and his wife, the child guidance counselor (aka the ones with professional licenses to lose)

Will the feds ever investigate The Second Mile's enablers?

Tipstaff
02-28-2012, 08:16 AM
Yes, I have no doubt that there are many more secrets in this complicated case.

I'm optimistic because I feel with the Feds it won't just be business as usual. Fresh eyes always find new angles. Maybe some people in the legal system there have just been looking at everything one way for too long.

High time things got shaken up! :woohoo:

Believe that one of the biggest stumbling blocks has been removed from this equation-- that being protecting Joe Paterno.

pinktoes
02-28-2012, 12:17 PM
Pensfan, you got me looking at Jack Raykovitz's state licensure, just on the remote chance that he had any complaints filed against him. I found none; license still intact (as Clinical Psychologist, BTW). John Robert Raykovitz.

Interestingly, since he has a colleague at MidStep Centers who specializes in child abuse, that means The Second Mile had a known resource available to make referrals to, or to recommend to the professionals who worked with TSM kids. So, that's nice. She is:

"Dr. [Georgianna] Achilles is experienced in treating behavioral and emotional problems in children and adolescents, and has specialized training in child abuse treatment." [And she takes payment thru several insurers, although MidStep's founder, Dr. Peter Montminy takes no insurance--private pay only.]

http://www.midstep.com/achilles/

I also verified the licenses of Dr. Montminy; and the lack of any state license per PA's records for Katherine Genovese (formerly Bernecker).

Apparently, Raykovitz was allowed to stay with MidStep till Aug, 20ll:

"Raykovitz stepped away from his a part-time child psychology practice at MidStep Centers for Child Development around August, when the grand jury investigation became public, said Dr. Peter Montminy, the office’s founding director."

per: http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/11/15/111511-news-penn-state-1-3

Dr. Montminy has known of the good work of Second Mile a long time. When TSM was looking for money in 1994 he gave them this endorsement:

"Giving children positive reinforcement and increasing self-esteem by accomplishing various activities makes Second Mile a strong program for children with problems, said Peter Montminy, a child psychologist with the University's Psychological Clinic."

from:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1994/04/04-25-94tdc/04-25-94dnews-1.asp

Also at the link immediately above, in 1994, Katherine Genovese (Bernecker), TSM's Program Director, was quoted:

"Sometimes a volunteer will be assigned to help a specific child overcome a problem by talking and spending extra time with him or her, Bernecker said."

Genovese/Bernecker, best I can see, after her education at PSU never worked substantially anywhere other than TSM. Nor would she have the license to do so.

Raykovitz also had another professional practice in town, where Carol L Skinner, also a licensed clin psychologist worked. I've forgotten the name. I could hop on one foot from its location to MidStep's State College office.

Anyone wanting to check on any others Raykovitz may have had an affiliation with can find some of those here:

http://www.cityfos.com/Raykovitz-John-R-PhD-1036988.profile.htm


Just keeping up with the pros.

pinktoes
02-28-2012, 12:38 PM
Here's where you can verify State of PA's licenses:

http://www.licensepa.state.pa.us/

pinktoes
02-28-2012, 12:54 PM
I'm a relative and sporadic poster here, so please forgive if I'm redundant with my posts.

I'm just getting around, myself, to looking at Jack Raykovitz. I rarely saw his name before the recent calamity. Here is one finding, where he was given an honorary membership in 2003, to that august organization Skull & Bones:

Jack Raykovitz (Honorary) - Psychologist
President of The Second Mile
Congratulations to the newest members of Skull and Bones!

"...University
President Graham Spanier (F ‘02H) spoke next,
recalling his experiences with Skull and Bones, and
introduced AIG Board Member and University
Trustee Dave Joyner (Sp ‘71)..."

from:
http://www.skullandbones.org/Members/nwsltrarchives/03-04.pdf

pinktoes
02-28-2012, 01:08 PM
Too bad William Schreyer died last year (Jan?). Although it did spare him seeing this horrible mess come out. He's the one person who had the power to rout anything he wanted to. IMO.

Here's lots of photos where PSU's Skull and Bones awarded the Schreyers their SABRE award in 2007. Everybody who's anybody in S&B/PSU is there: Spanier, Curley, the Schreyers and daughter DrueAnn, Dave Joyner(in his capacity as PSU Trustee), and a special invitee Bob Poole.

http://www.skullandbones.org/Members/sabre2007.html

Wm Schreyer was heavily involved in Spanier's recruitment. And, of course, donated $1 million to have the former Schreyer home renovated to meet the needs of the Spaniers before they moved in.

Small town.

pinktoes
02-28-2012, 01:13 PM
Oops! Here's the link on Schreyer's funding of the house. Context of the article is the big fight with the neighborhood, which didn't want the house changed architecturally. They lost:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1995/06/06-16-95tdc/06-16-95dnews-4.asp

J. J. in Phila
02-28-2012, 11:49 PM
Oops! Here's the link on Schreyer's funding of the house. Context of the article is the big fight with the neighborhood, which didn't want the house changed architecturally. They lost:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1995/06/06-16-95tdc/06-16-95dnews-4.asp

According to the article, most people agreed with him.

pinktoes
02-29-2012, 12:57 PM
According to the article, most people agreed with him.

Not my point; I should've said more. Point is, Schreyer and Joan can pretty much do what they want. And local press, esp PSU press would be well advised not to take him/them on. (Not that it matters, but I did read a little in some of that neighborhood's discourse, and the neighbors who dared to go public wanted the house to be placed on the historic register.)

Bigger point: Someone such as Schreyer could have put an end to Sandusky's shenanigans long ago, had he known about Sandusky and chosen to do so. There's where the power is in that town. Gone now, like his friend JoePa. The wives live on, though. And DrueAnn.

They're in the inner circle of people who choose the hired-help at PSU and thereabouts. I'd like to know what's happening now behind the scenes.

pinktoes
02-29-2012, 01:09 PM
Do any of you locals know of any specific benefit Jack Raykovitz would have gained from being tapped into PSU's Skull and Bones? Or that Schreyer would have gained from getting Jack in as a member?

Jack might have scrubbed the internet after things heated up last year. I wonder, because I thought that in his position he would have been very active in civic groups. And I can't find that online. If anyone, esp locals, knows what community organizations Jack was involved in, I'd appreciate your help.

I can see that Sandusky was the front man, but Jack should've been seen around town more I think, and not just as a representative of TSM.

J. J. in Phila
02-29-2012, 01:51 PM
Do any of you locals know of any specific benefit Jack Raykovitz would have gained from being tapped into PSU's Skull and Bones? Or that Schreyer would have gained from getting Jack in as a member?


They are open as full members to undergraduates only: http://www.skullandbones.org/About/faq.html

It is basically an honor society; it looks good on a resume when you graduate, but that's about it.

They are not affiliated with Harvard's Skull and Bones.

I think it's an honorary type thing. We don't give knighthoods in the US. :)

[Note: I'm not a Bonesman.]

StellarsJay
02-29-2012, 09:33 PM
Amendola didn't get his extra time to earn more money:
http://deadspin.com/5889434/jerry-sanduskys-lawyer-wants-more-time-before-trial-to-do-stupid-****-judge-denies-him

Concerned Papa
02-29-2012, 11:05 PM
Amendola didn't get his extra time to earn more money:
http://deadspin.com/5889434/jerry-sanduskys-lawyer-wants-more-time-before-trial-to-do-stupid-****-judge-denies-him

"Lawyerin' Joe"

http://deadspin.com/5889434/jerry-sanduskys-lawyer-wants-more-time-before-trial-to-do-stupid-****-judge-denies-him

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

J. J. in Phila
03-01-2012, 04:09 PM
"Bill of Particulars" filed: http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20Bill%20of%20Particulars.pdf

Reader
03-01-2012, 11:22 PM
"Bill of Particulars" filed: http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20Bill%20of%20Particulars.pdf


For 6 out of the 10 boys listed, it is stated the offenses occurred at the Sandusky residence...

To me, there is just no way Dottie did not know what was happening with these kids...unless she is deaf, blind or criminally stupid....just no way.

J. J. in Phila
03-02-2012, 12:45 AM
For 6 out of the 10 boys listed, it is stated the offenses occurred at the Sandusky residence...

To me, there is just no way Dottie did not know what was happening with these kids...unless she is deaf, blind or criminally stupid....just no way.

Or out or in a distant part of the house where the sound wouldn't travel.

I'm in Devil's Advocate mode.

Reader
03-02-2012, 12:55 AM
Or out or in a distant part of the house where the sound wouldn't travel.

I'm in Devil's Advocate mode.


Me too....

If she made herself that distant when a child was visiting and she knew JS was in the basement with him, that had to be on purpose....

And by her own statement, she claims all the boys that visited were treated as family and did not stay in the basement and ate with the family...

That can not be true and at the same time accept that the boys' statements are true....

J. J. in Phila
03-02-2012, 01:43 AM
Me too....

If she made herself that distant when a child was visiting and she knew JS was in the basement with him, that had to be on purpose....

And by her own statement, she claims all the boys that visited were treated as family and did not stay in the basement and ate with the family...

That can not be true and at the same time accept that the boys' statements are true....

Or, Dottie just didn't "enjoy," I hate using that word in this context, playing with the kids. One question would be was, in non sexual situations, Dottie around the children?

Tipstaff
03-02-2012, 02:26 PM
Are things heating up for Sandusky?

Prosecutors: Sandusky molested 8 boys on Penn State campus


Friday, March 02, 2012
By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Prosecutors claim that eight of the 10 boys former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky is accused of molesting were sexually assaulted on campus.

In a bill of particulars dated Feb. 21 but posted Thursday in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, the Pennsylvania attorney general claims five boys were molested in the Lasch Football Building. Abuse also occurred in the East Area Locker Room, Holuba Hall, the university pool and in the dormitories, according to the filing.

The ages of the 10 boys ranged from 8 to 17, according to the paperwork. In some cases, however, Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach wrote that the exact ages of the children at the time of the alleged conduct were unknown.

In addition, in those cases, she wrote that the exact dates and locations of the assaults were unknown, "because there were numerous offenses over the course of several years. "The victim, a child at the time of the offenses, is unable to provide exact times and dates."

The filing also alleges that six boys were molested at Mr. Sandusky's State College home.

Mr. Sandusky is accused of molesting one boy, identified as Victim No. 4 in the grand jury presentment, between 1996 and 2000 at a number of venues, including the former coach's home, on campus, at Toftrees Golf Resort, as well as on trips to Florida and Texas in late 1998 and early 1999.

Mr. Sandusky's defense attorney, Joseph Amendola, had requested the prosecution file a bill of particulars to provide his with more detailed description of the charges.

Paula Reed Ward: pward@post-gazette.com or 412-263-2620.

Reader
03-02-2012, 09:04 PM
Or, Dottie just didn't "enjoy," I hate using that word in this context, playing with the kids. One question would be was, in non sexual situations, Dottie around the children?

That is one question that I think everyone would really like to have an answer to...how much was Dottie involved with these 2nd Mile children who came to the home? She has denied they ate and slept in the basement and said they were treated like family. One child that we know of stated he knew Dottie was in the home upstairs when he was screaming for help while JS attacked him. So was she also there during other attacks?

I'm wondering if Dottie will testify at the trial? I'm thinking JS will even if against his lawyer's advice. He seems to think he can convince anybody that all these kids are liars. It would be interesting to find out who Amendola has lined up to testify for the defense.

J. J. in Phila
03-02-2012, 11:22 PM
That is one question that I think everyone would really like to have an answer to...how much was Dottie involved with these 2nd Mile children who came to the home? She has denied they ate and slept in the basement and said they were treated like family. One child that we know of stated he knew Dottie was in the home upstairs when he was screaming for help while JS attacked him. So was she also there during other attacks?

Okay, and I'm playing Devil's Advocate, how would the victim "know" Dottie was in the house, unless she walked in on them? Further, kids, when they are playing often scream (well, the do in my neighborhood). She could have heard something and thought it was that.


I'm wondering if Dottie will testify at the trial? I'm thinking JS will even if against his lawyer's advice. He seems to think he can convince anybody that all these kids are liars.


She might, but I'm betting that, after the interview, Sandusky won't.


It would be interesting to find out who Amendola has lined up to testify for the defense.

The 2002 victim, Victim 2, could be called, and Amendola claims he has him. That could refute McQueary.

My guess is that Amendola is basically going try aggressive cross examination. Victims 1 and 6 are the least vulnerable in that regard. In regard to Victim 6, I would hope the prosecution would not focus on the "I was wrong" comment, and focuses on the admission to the action.

Reader
03-03-2012, 12:31 AM
Okay, and I'm playing Devil's Advocate, how would the victim "know" Dottie was in the house, unless she walked in on them? Further, kids, when they are playing often scream (well, the do in my neighborhood). She could have heard something and thought it was that.



She might, but I'm betting that, after the interview, Sandusky won't.



The 2002 victim, Victim 2, could be called, and Amendola claims he has him. That could refute McQueary.

My guess is that Amendola is basically going try aggressive cross examination. Victims 1 and 6 are the least vulnerable in that regard. In regard to Victim 6, I would hope the prosecution would not focus on the "I was wrong" comment, and focuses on the admission to the action.

Following the BBMs:

1/Maybe he met her in the house before they went down to the basement? had dinner all together as she said, or she could have brought them food; she could have called down and said goodnite, I'm going to bed now...and I think you can tell the difference between a 'playing' and a 'hurting/fearful' scream....

2/BTW, whatever happened to their interview with Oprah or whoever Amendola talked about?

3/If victim 2 is known to the defense, won't they have to give this information to the state eventually...IOW, isn't there a defense discovery rule also?

4/Agree...he will try to flay them for sure but hopefully they are being well prepared for that and will be able to withstand it..

J. J. in Phila
03-03-2012, 12:54 AM
Following the BBMs:

1/Maybe he met her in the house before they went down to the basement? had dinner all together as she said, or she could have brought them food; she could have called down and said goodnite, I'm going to bed now...


And she could have been out in the meantime. Unless she walked in on them, no.

and I think you can tell the difference between a 'playing' and a 'hurting/fearful' scream....

Not the children in my neighborhood. I heard some of my neighbors' children/grandchildren screaming bloody murder. I went to the door and saw that they were playing.


2/BTW, whatever happened to their interview with Oprah or whoever Amendola talked about?


I doubt that this will happen; the Costas interview was a disaster.

3/If victim 2 is known to the defense, won't they have to give this information to the state eventually...IOW, isn't there a defense discovery rule also?


I'm not certain. In any event "Victim 2" is sworn, say's "It was me and nothing happened." That's a possibility.

4/Agree...he will try to flay them for sure but hopefully they are being well prepared for that and will be able to withstand it..

The strongest charges are those for Victims 1 and 6, IMO, because there are independent witnesses that could not gain financially from testifying. I want to see Amendola's attempt to convince a jury on those.

Reader
03-03-2012, 05:11 PM
And she could have been out in the meantime. Unless she walked in on them, no.


Not the children in my neighborhood. I heard some of my neighbors' children/grandchildren screaming bloody murder. I went to the door and saw that they were playing.

I doubt that this will happen; the Costas interview was a disaster.



I'm not certain. In any event "Victim 2" is sworn, say's "It was me and nothing happened." That's a possibility.

The strongest charges are those for Victims 1 and 6, IMO, because there are independent witnesses that could not gain financially from testifying. I want to see Amendola's attempt to convince a jury on those.

BBM 1 - we'll just have to agree to disagree...I believe the child that he knew she was upstairs and he screamed for help from her...

BBM 2 - obviously you are not a mother...

BBM 3 - is this information in an article or verified somewhere?

Reader
03-03-2012, 05:18 PM
Sandusky's lawyer seeks more details from Pa. AG

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Jerry Sandusky's lawyer is asking a judge to force state prosecutors to turn over more detailed information about the child sex abuse allegations against the former Penn State defensive coordinator.

Joe Amendola said Friday that he needs more detailed information about times and places where prosecutors say crimes occurred as well as the names of people who were there or nearby.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/02/3111169/sanduskys-lawyer-seeks-more-details.html#storylink=cpy

ThoughtFox
03-03-2012, 08:51 PM
Not the children in my neighborhood. I heard some of my neighbors' children/grandchildren screaming bloody murder. I went to the door and saw that they were playing.


But you went to check, right? Why didn't Dottie?

Also, it is actually natural for children to raise their voices outside while playing with other children. That is the appropriate place for a child to be shouting or hollering. Downstairs in the basement alone with an old man? Not so much. As a mother, if I heard my child screaming in a basement, even if they were with a family member, I would go immediately and check it out.

The only parallel to this I can think of in my own experience was once when we were at my mother's house, and my son was playing alone outside on an old pine stump. We heard him start to scream and ignored it at first because we thought he was "just playing." Turned out there was a yellow jacket's nest in the stump and he was being stung multiple times. In fact, when we realized what was happening to him, we all screamed because he ran into the house with more hornets following him!

After that I was much more tuned in to whatever sound my kids were making, even outside. Children usually scream for a reason, and their sounds are different when they are in distress. As a mother of many children, Dottie had to know that.

What if the Sandusky's dog had bitten the child? What if he had burned himself on the fireplace? How could Dottie justify not checking on a screaming child?

To me it's clear that at some point Dottie knew what was going on. I think she had trained herself to ignore Jerry's activities. The only way to explain her behavior is as that of an enabler to a pedophile. Why would she do that? So she could preserve her standing in the community, house, lifestyle, and money.

We talk about "grooming" in terms of pedophiles. Imagine the grooming of a young bride who was probably naive like other members of her generation, and who was taught not to not ask questions that would upset the apple cart or make Jerry mad. She learned to have tunnel vision and tune out even the cries of children. I pity her and at the same time loathe her. :(

Just another paid-off bystander trained to look the other way. :twocents:

J. J. in Phila
03-04-2012, 12:06 AM
BBM 1 - we'll just have to agree to disagree...I believe the child that he knew she was upstairs and he screamed for help from her...


Disagreeing isn't the important thing; proving it is.


BBM 2 - obviously you are not a mother...


No, but if I small children screaming, I usually check.

BBM 3 - is this information in an article or verified somewhere?

That Amendola said it, yes. We'll see if he delivers.

J. J. in Phila
03-04-2012, 12:30 AM
But you went to check, right? Why didn't Dottie?


She knew that there was adult present.


Also, it is actually natural for children to raise their voices outside while playing with other children. That is the appropriate place for a child to be shouting or hollering. Downstairs in the basement alone with an old man? Not so much. As a mother, if I heard my child screaming in a basement, even if they were with a family member, I would go immediately and check it out.

The only parallel to this I can think of in my own experience was once when we were at my mother's house, and my son was playing alone outside on an old pine stump. We heard him start to scream and ignored it at first because we thought he was "just playing." Turned out there was a yellow jacket's nest in the stump and he was being stung multiple times. In fact, when we realized what was happening to him, we all screamed because he ran into the house with more hornets following him!


These were not her children. She doesn't know their patterns.

I was the caregiver for my father for more than two decades. I could tell how he was feeling based on his breathing, while he was sleeping. I couldn't do that with anyone else.

And, it can't be proven that Dottie was there.

Reader
03-04-2012, 12:35 AM
This is another article about the federal investigation but it had a few points that made it a little clearer to me:

Sandusky federal investigation may have different focus
From Sara Ganim, for CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/justice/pennsylvania-sandusky-investigation/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

"The subpoena appears to be exploring when or whether there was any institutional awareness of Sandusky's alleged conduct at Penn State," said James W. Spertus, a Los Angeles lawyer and former federal prosecutor. "If, for example, there were private efforts by board members to settle claims before the matter became public, or there were reports to the board about the allegations, it could change the nature of the investigation."


Each year, educational institutions such as Penn State receive million of dollars in federal money earmarked for certain areas such as defense or medical research and educational programs.

If that money was used for other purposes, that could be a federal crime, Reinhart said.

"I'm sure they get all sorts of federal funding that flows into large state university's like that," he said. "As part of that sort of grant or funding, you have to certify those funds will only be used for the certain things. That could be why they'd be looking into interactions with Second Mile and Penn State."


Fraud could be a possibility if false statements were made to an agency such as the NCAA, Reinhart said.

Something like, "We don't have any unauthorized persons using the training facilities."

Penn State has said that, as part of his retirement agreement, Sandusky kept an office and a key to the Penn State locker room. Sandusky left his coaching job as Paterno's defensive coordinator after the 1999 season. He was asked, after the 2002 incident, not to bring children with him to the facilities, but university officials testified before a grand jury that the ban was unenforceable.

If Penn State didn't disclose that to an agency who asked for such information, that could constitute fraud.

"The NCAA might say, 'We would never have allowed them to go to a bowl ... or get certain funding,'" Reinhart said.


"If they somehow diverted funds to keep victims, or others in the know quiet," Reinhart said, "they might be trying to figure out if that happened. ... That would explain why they'd ask if trustees have ever made payments on behalf of university."

More at link....

BigCat
03-04-2012, 12:29 PM
I'll say this much in defense of Dottie Sandusky: Jerry Sandusky was probably very skilled in keeping secrets from women. He's been working on the skill since childhood. He was an only child. Although he doesn't come out and directly say it his autobiography, his mother was overbearing. Or perhaps I should say every boy who is an only child believes his mother to be overbearing. In constructing a profile of someone who is likely to be into the occcult, being male and an only child tops the list (for example: Aliester Crowly, Jimmy Page). Occult literally means "hidden from view." So I'm not surprised Sandsusky had a basement in his house, even as an adult, as his special place apart from his wife. Keep in mind, Sandusky's nickname for his wife is "Sarge." He perceives her as an oppressive authority figure. Not suprisingly, viewing women as he does, Sandusky has never been sexually attracted to them.

Part of Sandusky's sick genius was his ability to pick the right victims to groom. Whom did he select? From what we can tell, he selected "at risk" boys. I take that to mean sons of single mothers. Boys starving for male attention and boys, like the young Sandusky, more likely to keep secrets from their mothers. Mothers were Sandusky's rivals. Eventually, it was a mother of one of the victims who took him down (after another mother in 98 tried and failed).

So I can believe Dottie was in the dark about a lot. I'll reserve judgement until more information comes out in the trials. As for Joe Paterno and the Penn State coaching staff, what was wrong with them? Did they not find it bizarre that the team's defensive coordinator was bringing boys to bowl games in 98 and 99? Considering that Sandusky "retired" after the 99 season when Paterno told him he was spending too much time with his charity, I think I can guess the answer to my question.

StellarsJay
03-04-2012, 01:23 PM
Needs a medical on Dottie- perhaps she does booze or pills or disassociation or a dozen other ways to tune life out.

J. J. in Phila
03-04-2012, 07:09 PM
This is another article about the federal investigation but it had a few points that made it a little clearer to me:

Sandusky federal investigation may have different focus
From Sara Ganim, for CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/justice/pennsylvania-sandusky-investigation/index.html?hpt=ju_c2



Thank you. This is scary.

Reader
03-04-2012, 07:42 PM
Thank you. This is scary.


The big guns have arrived for sure...Just for the NCAA stuff, I remember for the last big FSU scandal (test cheating) before Bobby Bowden was pushed out, they took away something like 14 wins, including a bowl win IIRC, couple of people charged, some players disqualified.

pinktoes
03-05-2012, 10:37 AM
Yesterday another college newspaper complimented the PSU Daily Collegian for immediately editorializing (once mainstream media had broken the Sandusky news)about the moral failure of university leaders. However, that paper went on to ponder the failure of college papers generally to conduct investigative journalism. (A failure many of us have noticed in the MSM)

"Nevertheless, a question remains: Where was the Collegian for all those years while Sandusky was committing crimes, and Penn State was covering them up?"

http://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/public-editor-breaking-news


So, I have what seems a very trivial question: what did people around campus make of the "sandusky sundae" served at The Creamery (a concoction appearing to be full-blown male genitalia)?

Did no one notice? Really? What interpretation was made? Did Sandusky ever purchase that sundae for minor children he took to the Creamery? And no staff, surely in on the joke, commented to others around campus or town about that?

Or, was it another case of everyone-suspected, jeez--even the on-campus ice cream shop "knew". Same as the gossip in the barbershop across the street.

No way could I have restrained myself from getting a photo of the new Sandusky sundae in the campus newspaper. And making sure PSU administration saw it. And Sara Ganim. Oh wait, they all "knew" already. They were just waiting for the wheels of justice to catch up??

J. J. in Phila
03-05-2012, 03:21 PM
So, I have what seems a very trivial question: what did people around campus make of the "sandusky sundae" served at The Creamery (a concoction appearing to be full-blown male genitalia)?


I think you are reading way too much into ice cream. This is like saying "Cherry Garcia" means that the Grateful Dead guitarist raped young girls.

I also think that the Sandusky reference was to the flavor of the ice cream.

pinktoes
03-05-2012, 04:27 PM
I think you are reading way too much into ice cream. This is like saying "Cherry Garcia" means that the Grateful Dead guitarist raped young girls.

I also think that the Sandusky reference was to the flavor of the ice cream.

I don't understand what you mean. I know what the flavor of the ice cream was. I didn't read into that what others apparently have: it was banana (some said: a phallic symbol); with chocolate covered nuts (male testicles).

I'm talking about the photo spread around the web of how the Sandusky sundae appeared, when that flavor was served in sundae form. Didn't you see it? Complete male genitalia on a plate. I'm old enough to recognize that allusion when I see it. And so did most everyone else--which was my point. He was a laughing stock, behind covered mouths, for something--and I think we all know what--long before he was charged by the Commonwealth.

Reader
03-05-2012, 04:46 PM
Prosecutors don't want to release all requested Sandusky evidence

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/05/3114336/prosecutors-dont-want-to-release.html

BELLEFONTE — Prosecutors have told a judge they will not release certain evidence to Jerry Sandusky's defense attorney.

In a pre-trial discovery matter filed this morning, prosecutors said grand jury matters, ongoing investigations, irrelevant personal information and psychological evaluations of the accusers are not subject to discovery. The items were among those requested by the defense in a motion to compel filed last month.

As part of the discovery process, prosecutors had turned over police reports and other documents with lines or even full pages blacked out.

But Sandusky's attorney, Joe Amendola, wanted the full versions without the markings. He also sought psychological records on the accusers, photographs taken from The Second Mile, and grand jury subpoenas. He said Monday he's reviewing the prosecution's response.

Among the items the prosecution will turn over are Sandusky's employment records with Penn State, a document that references investigators obtaining 52,220 emails, and a state police report that references "linking alleged behavior."

Prosecutors said the photos can be seen by making arrangements through state police. The defense was also told to make an appointment with state police to review the items taken from Sandusky's house in June.

In addition, prosecutors said they don't have any documents from then-District Attorney Ray Gricar from the 1998 investigation into Sandusky showering with a young boy.


More at link....

Rlaub44
03-05-2012, 08:08 PM
I don't understand what you mean. I know what the flavor of the ice cream was. I didn't read into that what others apparently have: it was banana (some said: a phallic symbol); with chocolate covered nuts (male testicles).

I'm talking about the photo spread around the web of how the Sandusky sundae appeared, when that flavor was served in sundae form. Didn't you see it? Complete male genitalia on a plate. I'm old enough to recognize that allusion when I see it. And so did most everyone else--which was my point. He was a laughing stock, behind covered mouths, for something--and I think we all know what--long before he was charged by the Commonwealth.

Not that any of this matters to the case at hand, but I am not convinced that the photo that made the rounds was an honest depiction of Sandusky Blitz.

The picture, as can be seen here http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/11/05/penn-state-makes-a-banana-flavored-jerry-sandusky-ice-cream/
was shown by Rush Limbaugh and was suggested to be the actual presentation of the ice cream named for Sandusky, but a few things don't match.

The picture shows two scoops that are obviously different flavors of ice cream, but Sandusky Blitz wasn't a sundae, it was a banana-flavored ice cream with chocolate covered peanuts and a caramel swirl, so even if there was any variation in the color, it wouldn't appear as two completely different scoops.

Also, the picture shows a blue ceramic bowl, but all of the pictures I can find of authentic Berkey Creamery ice cream shows it served in either styrofoam dishes or disposable white plastic bowls.

Like I said, it has nothing to do with the case against this POS, but this photo is being offered in the web as more "proof" of how the entire Penn State community knowingly looked the other way, and I would just recommend some caution in buying into this picture's authenticity.

pinktoes
03-06-2012, 10:07 AM
So, Limbaugh allows things to be misrepresented on his show? Who'd a thunk it!

It has also occurred to me that maybe ALL the sundaes are in that style of presentation. IDK.

But I know that one defining feature of humans is their use of symbolism. Give us a blank slate, and we assign meaning to it. Whether it's a flag, a team mascot, an avatar--or an ice cream.

And I still say there was some symbolizing going on at that Creamery when they chose that ice cream and/or its presentation as a sundae.

Maybe the person charged with that responsibility thought Sandusky was a bit nutso. So, he used common symbols to represent that: "bananas" and "nuts".

More importantly to me, I've now heard enough from the local community, whether it be about ice cream; about the gossip at the hair salon across the street; or about "knowledge" about Sandusky within coaching staff or players at other schools--enough, in toto, to suggest strongly to me that there are a lot of people within the broader community who were not surprised at his legal troubles.

I know some janitorial staff discussed it. And probably quietly discussed it with family/friends. Knowing how well secrets are kept by confidantes, well--"knowledge" was spread.

Sandusky groomed a community the way he groomed his victims. But the big news didn't catch everyone by complete surprise. Let's not act like only witnesses, administrators informed by witnesses, and LE or prosecutors had any clue.

BTW, if anyone finds out how Ronald Heichel is related to Lisa Madeira, I'd love to know. I'm trying to figure out why Mike Madeira claimed the possibility of a perceived conflict of interest that led him to refer the Sandusky matter elsewhere (based on the fact that Matt Heichel Sandusky is Lisa's brother). And yet did not think there might be a similar conflict when he was prosecuting Ronald Heichel in the Samuel Boob murder.

I'm thinking, so was Ronald maybe "merely" a half-brother, or even a step-brother to Lisa Madeira??)

pinktoes
03-06-2012, 10:14 AM
I think I posted this same link upstream here, but repeating to show that Madeira did start the Heichel/Boob prosecution:

Murder charges
Mirinda Boob, Ronald Heichel headed to court in man’s death
September 17, 2009
By SCOTT JOHNSON - sjohnson@lockhaven.com

"Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira is representing the Commonwealth. Miranda Boob, 27, is being represented by private attorney Edward Blanarik.

Public Defender Casey McClain is representing Heichel, 29, of Bellefonte."

from:
http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/512981.html

J. J. in Phila
03-06-2012, 10:33 AM
I think I posted this same link upstream here, but repeating to show that Madeira did start the Heichel/Boob prosecution:

Murder charges
Mirinda Boob, Ronald Heichel headed to court in man’s death
September 17, 2009
By SCOTT JOHNSON - sjohnson@lockhaven.com

"Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira is representing the Commonwealth. Miranda Boob, 27, is being represented by private attorney Edward Blanarik.

Public Defender Casey McClain is representing Heichel, 29, of Bellefonte."

from:
http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/512981.html

Starting it, and prosecuting it, are two different things. The case wouldn't be tried until after January 2010. By the time it would have gone to trial, Madeira (had he been reelected) might have handed off to the AG's Office. There is also the question of what, if any, contact, his wife had with this relative.

There is also the jurisdictional issue; the case was reported in another county.

I am very critical of MTM's conduct in office, overall, but this is one decision I'll praise him for.

Pensfan
03-06-2012, 09:49 PM
I don't understand what you mean. I know what the flavor of the ice cream was. I didn't read into that what others apparently have: it was banana (some said: a phallic symbol); with chocolate covered nuts (male testicles).

I'm talking about the photo spread around the web of how the Sandusky sundae appeared, when that flavor was served in sundae form. Didn't you see it? Complete male genitalia on a plate. I'm old enough to recognize that allusion when I see it. And so did most everyone else--which was my point. He was a laughing stock, behind covered mouths, for something--and I think we all know what--long before he was charged by the Commonwealth.
(politely stated) There was never a Sandusky phallic symbol ice cream sundae at Penn State's Creamery.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155320&page=24

Pensfan
03-06-2012, 10:10 PM
Or out or in a distant part of the house where the sound wouldn't travel.

I'm in Devil's Advocate mode.
We will, sadly, learn this info. when all the hideous details are finally revealed. I speculate that she knew. We will have indirect proof if/when? we learn that she personally bought some of the "grooming gifts" that Jerry gave to the boys who were taking her place in the basement "bedroom".

J. J. in Phila
03-06-2012, 11:31 PM
We will, sadly, learn this info. when all the hideous details are finally revealed. I speculate that she knew. We will have indirect proof if/when? we learn that she personally bought some of the "grooming gifts" that Jerry gave to the boys who were taking her place in the basement "bedroom".

She may not have realized they were "grooming gifts." JS might have waited until she was out of the house.

Reader
03-07-2012, 12:23 AM
Judge schedules a pre-trial Sandusky hearing for Monday

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/06/3115494/judge-schedules-a-pre-trial-sandusky.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

A judge has scheduled a hearing for Monday to address Jerry Sandusky’s request for specific details about the charges of child abuse against him.

The hearing will be at 11 a.m. in the Centre County Courthouse Annex at the corner of High and Allegheny streets. The scheduling was ordered this morning by Senior Judge John Cleland........

Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, is asking for the exact time, date and location of each of the 52 allegations as well as how old the accusers were at the time. His request is for a "bill of particulars.

More at link...

Pensfan
03-07-2012, 12:47 AM
She may not have realized they were "grooming gifts." JS might have waited until she was out of the house.
If she purchased expensive, numerous, and/or inappropriate gifts for these indigent/needy preteen boys, we will have a strong clue if she knew the gift's real purpose. Some of these boys might have actually needed winter gloves and warm winter coats, but that is probably not what they were given.

It will also be interesting to see if she had knowledge of the savings accounts Jerry established for one or more (?) of the boys frequenting her basement and traveling with Jerry.

Reader
03-07-2012, 12:48 AM
She may not have realized they were "grooming gifts." JS might have waited until she was out of the house.


I will say one thing...I can't wait for this trial so we can find out what the boys/men testify about concerning Dottie...whether she was present, did not know, must have known or did know what was going on, how she treated and interacted with them, their opinions of her, if any of that is allowed.

And think of the numbers of abused and the length of time...15 YEARS that we know of and all this happening right in her own home, over and over.

If she didn't know, she has to be one of the most naive, most well groomed, most stupid, most blind-sided people I've ever heard of....

Pensfan
03-07-2012, 01:03 AM
Judge schedules a pre-trial Sandusky hearing for Monday

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/06/3115494/judge-schedules-a-pre-trial-sandusky.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

A judge has scheduled a hearing for Monday to address Jerry Sandusky’s request for specific details about the charges of child abuse against him.

The hearing will be at 11 a.m. in the Centre County Courthouse Annex at the corner of High and Allegheny streets. The scheduling was ordered this morning by Senior Judge John Cleland........

Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, is asking for the exact time, date and location of each of the 52 allegations as well as how old the accusers were at the time. His request is for a "bill of particulars.

More at link...
What crap! Many of these boys experienced ongoing sexual abuse by Jerry. Children cannot be expected to provide all the exact dates/times of ongoing sexual abuse. Jerry was giving alcohol to one or more of these boys which clearly could have impaired their memories of precise dates/times. Most of the boys likely tried to block such horrific memories which also would have impaired their recall of precise dates/times.

J. J. in Phila
03-07-2012, 01:25 AM
If she purchased expensive, numerous, and/or inappropriate gifts for these indigent/needy preteen boys, we will have a strong clue if she knew the gift's real purpose. Some of these boys might have actually needed winter gloves and warm winter coats, but that is probably not what they were given.


I certainly would not consider sports gear to be inappropriate.


It will also be interesting to see if she had knowledge of the savings accounts Jerry established for one or more (?) of the boys frequenting her basement and traveling with Jerry.

Likewise, establishing an account for a child, as family friends did for me after I was just born, would be inappropriate.

J. J. in Phila
03-07-2012, 01:28 AM
I will say one thing...I can't wait for this trial so we can find out what the boys/men testify about concerning Dottie...whether she was present, did not know, must have known or did know what was going on, how she treated and interacted with them, their opinions of her, if any of that is allowed.

And think of the numbers of abused and the length of time...15 YEARS that we know of and all this happening right in her own home, over and over.

If she didn't know, she has to be one of the most naive, most well groomed, most stupid, most blind-sided people I've ever heard of....

I could say that about any woman whose husband cheated on her.

Sandusky was a master of hiding the truth as are numerous child molesters.

Reader
03-07-2012, 02:33 AM
I could say that about any woman whose husband cheated on her.

Sandusky was a master of hiding the truth as are numerous child molesters.

A lot of the women being cheated on also know what is going on but don't want to acknowledge it or get a divorce for various reasons...children, status, money, etc.

Let's say JS was able to hide his activities with boys for some time....we know that at least since 1998 the police, CPS, a DA's office, certain people at Penn St., a school's administrator and a certain mother and child knew about him. Since 2002 more people at Penn St. and 2nd Mile knew. Since the 2009 school knowledge of his visits to boys there, more knew or were suspicious. People talk...if Dottie/Sarge/the boss of the house didn't know what was going on in her own house, it's because she didn't want to know. She's has a LOT to lose in this situation...just like the cheater's wife...IMO

And JS a master? Master of delusion is more like it...a delusion that he is just a 'boy' playing with other boys and thinking he could get by with it forever, because so many people enabled him and protected him for their own reasons. IMO

If he was hiding it so well, why are the feds investigating the school's trustees about payoffs to 'those in the know'? Why are they investigating 'insitutional knowledge' of his activities and cover-ups? Why is the Educational Dept. investigating violations of crimes on campus not being reported? Why is NCAA investigating violations of their rules in the athletic dept.? Why are the feds investigating payoffs to the 2nd Mile?

There would be nothing to investigate if people had not known about it and done all they could to keep it covered up.

Concerned Papa
03-07-2012, 05:59 AM
I will say one thing...I can't wait for this trial so we can find out what the boys/men testify about concerning Dottie...whether she was present, did not know, must have known or did know what was going on, how she treated and interacted with them, their opinions of her, if any of that is allowed.

And think of the numbers of abused and the length of time...15 YEARS that we know of and all this happening right in her own home, over and over.

If she didn't know, she has to be one of the most naive, most well groomed, most stupid, most blind-sided people I've ever heard of....

I could say that about any woman whose husband cheated on her.

Sandusky was a master of hiding the truth as are numerous child molesters.



IMO, the truth was hidden, ONLY, by others with motives of their own and a callous disregard of the crimes against these children. Parading his victims to team functions and out of town sporting events while raping these children in the shower of his workplace and basement of his home are not the acts of a "master" of deception.

Pensfan
03-07-2012, 08:52 AM
I certainly would not consider sports gear to be inappropriate.




Likewise, establishing an account for a child, as family friends did for me after I was just born, would be inappropriate.
It has never been stated that Jerry was close friends with any of the abused boys' parents. It is very UNlikely that he was close friends with any of the boys' parents.

Establishing a savings account for kids is a great idea IF the parent(s) are told of the account and the parents' names are on the account with the child. Does anyone know if Jerry was the only adult on these accounts for little boys? If he was the only adult on the boys' accounts that he created, his supposed charitable intentions are very suspicious. Jerry could have arranged for the parents' names to have been on those savings accounts if he was so worried about the boys learning to save money.

StellarsJay
03-07-2012, 11:54 AM
Unless Dorothy was an heiress, she probably had very little free money and I would guess that she ran the household finances tightly.

What Sandusky had as income is interesting from two points: how believable is the claim that he "retired" when he did to claim a pension privilege that was only available that year, and so how significant was the bonus? (Since it was a State pension, this story seems doubtful and probably public record if it was a general change.)
and, what were/are his resources to spend on seducing boys and having access to them?
[It seems that when he lost access to Penn State facilities he used his home more.]

It looks as though he is getting a very bad pension compared with others, which could imply that there was little financial incentive to take it, although the $148K cash payout might have been urgently needed if Jerry had been running up bills. I haven't found a story on what his salary was in 1999. The pension was $59000/yr. Probably there was an inflation in pay in the 2000s that he missed out on. About the time he quit, he began to receive about 57000/yr from Second Mile. [Don't remember exactly how much.] This might have brought his income up to pre-retirement salary level.
So, who, exactly, paid for his Second Mile "consulting fees"? This is where I would look for a payoff by Penn State or its trustees doing damage control- donations to Second Mile which then were used to make Sandusky go away. Not his victims, him.

Quotes from news stories follow:

When he retired, Sandusky opted to take a lump-sum pension payment of $148,271 from the State Employees’ Retirement System. The rest of his pension is being paid out monthly and is $58,898 annually. [Sandusky worked for Penn 1969-99 30 years.]

Schultz could be far more richly paid. He elected to receive a $421,847 lump-sum payment at the time of his retirement in 2009, after nearly 39 years of service.
[Schultz was paid $320,966 in 2009, so his lump sum was more than his annual income.]

He also receives a monthly pension payment of $27,558 — nearly the cost of tuition for two in-state freshmen at State College. That comes to nearly $331,000 a year.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/jerry_sandusky_continues_to_re.html#incart_mce

Paterno's pension records obtained Tuesday from the State Employees' Retirement System show his average pay over the past three years was $554,000. He's been in the system long enough to qualify for 100% of that — or 110% thanks to a longevity supplement for older people who remain at work.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-11-15/joe-paterno-pension/51223854/1

Curley and Spanier did not participate in the state pension plan so their amounts are not public.
What Paterno made
http://deadspin.com/5857629/joe-paternos-annual-compensation-is-200000-higher-than-the-psu-presidents-and-other-grotesqueries

Paterno's pension records obtained Tuesday from the State Employees' Retirement System show his average pay over the past three years was $554,000. He's been in the system long enough to qualify for 100% of that — or 110% thanks to a longevity supplement for older people who remain at work.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-11-15/joe-paterno-pension/51223854/1
Latest available compensation figures (2010?)
Base compensation Total compensation
Spanier 620004 813855
Erickson 420012 454753
Schultz 296068 320966
Paterno 554136 1022784
http://deadspin.com/5857629/joe-paternos-annual-compensation-is-200000-higher-than-the-psu-presidents-and-other-grotesqueries

J. J. in Phila
03-07-2012, 12:40 PM
A lot of the women being cheated on also know what is going on but don't want to acknowledge it or get a divorce for various reasons...children, status, money, etc.


Of course, but they sometimes don't know as well. It comes as a shock. A friend of mine didn't know until she discovered a (minor) STD.


Let's say JS was able to hide his activities with boys for some time....we know that at least since 1998 the police, CPS, a DA's office, certain people at Penn St., a school's administrator and a certain mother and child knew about him. Since 2002 more people at Penn St. and 2nd Mile knew. Since the 2009 school knowledge of his visits to boys there, more knew or were suspicious. People talk...if Dottie/Sarge/the boss of the house didn't know what was going on in her own house, it's because she didn't want to know. She's has a LOT to lose in this situation...just like the cheater's wife...IMO


I doubt that any of them are going to say, "Let's call Dottie."

And JS a master? Master of delusion is more like it...a delusion that he is just a 'boy' playing with other boys and thinking he could get by with it forever, because so many people enabled him and protected him for their own reasons. IMO


If the charges are true, yes, he is a master of deception. He projected an image and created the image of a charitable leader who cared about kids, a great humanitarian.


If he was hiding it so well, why are the feds investigating the school's trustees about payoffs to 'those in the know'? Why are they investigating 'insitutional knowledge' of his activities and cover-ups? Why is the Educational Dept. investigating violations of crimes on campus not being reported? Why is NCAA investigating violations of their rules in the athletic dept.? Why are the feds investigating payoffs to the 2nd Mile?


When there is evidence, I'll agree. Looking and finding are two different things.

Reader
03-07-2012, 05:55 PM
Of course, but they sometimes don't know as well. It comes as a shock. A friend of mine didn't know until she discovered a (minor) STD.



I doubt that any of them are going to say, "Let's call Dottie."



If the charges are true, yes, he is a master of deception. He projected an image and created the image of a charitable leader who cared about kids, a great humanitarian.



When there is evidence, I'll agree. Looking and finding are two different things.


Yes, it's somewhat easier for a cheater to hide what he/she is doing since their activities take place outside the home but their behavior usually eventually tips off the wife somehow. It's unfortunate your friend had to find out that way but that IS one of the signs.

JS brought his little boys right into his own home and it's very hard for me to believe, as controlling as it's been indicated Dottie is/was, that she couldn't figure out after a while (with all the presents, trips and attention) that something in his relationships with the boys was just not right. I think she figured it out, that is IMO, and just decided to live with it for her own reasons as suggested above.

I don't think anyone called her...but I think people that had knowledge certainly talked among themselves and possibly to others, and even Paterno acknowledged that he may have heard rumors. These people would have been warning their relatives and friends to keep their children away from JS.

Right, JS did have the good reputation for a long time and had people fooled, but what I'm saying is this started falling apart after the 1998 allegations and certainly after 2002, then 2009. And he got the message...as far as we know now there have been no further claims by boys/charges that apply after that date. He also knew he was under investigation.

On the evidence, I agree but I'm just saying there has to be an indication of some reliable information before Freeh made the referral to the FBI for further investigation. You don't make these kinds of referrals lightly or without some evidence to give cause for the referral. Of course, we'll wait to see what comes from it but such a wide ranging and in depth investigation I'm thinking has a few people shaking in their boots right now.

I'll refer back to Dr. Fessel's post about it also:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky cover-up: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #8

Reader
03-07-2012, 06:21 PM
Sandusky to get grand jury records prior to trial

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Jerry Sandusky will get about 581 pages of secret grand jury testimony before the start of his pending trial on child sexual abuse charges, but not as soon as he had requested, under a judge's order made public on Wednesday.
------

Feudale said the disclosure will occur 10 days before the first witness is sworn in, not the first day of jury selection. State criminal court rules say grand jury transcripts are available only after a witness makes his or her "direct" testimony, right before the start of cross-examination.

Feudale rejected Sandusky's request to get the transcripts by Feb. 28, or to get them 30 days before the start of trial. He also turned down the prosecution's request to keep them secret until a week or less before the trial starts...........Judge John Cleland, who is presiding over the case, has scheduled a Monday hearing regarding the disclosure of other material to the defense.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/07/3117244/sandusky-to-get-grand-jury-records.html#storylink=cpy

The order:
http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20ORDER%20FOR%20EARLY%20RELEASE%20OF%20GR AND%20JURY%20TESTIMONY%20FROM%20JUDGE%20FEUDALE.pd f

seattlechiquita
03-07-2012, 06:23 PM
Thx for the updates :wave:

Pensfan
03-08-2012, 01:17 PM
Yes, it's somewhat easier for a cheater to hide what he/she is doing since their activities take place outside the home but their behavior usually eventually tips off the wife somehow. It's unfortunate your friend had to find out that way but that IS one of the signs.

JS brought his little boys right into his own home and it's very hard for me to believe, as controlling as it's been indicated Dottie is/was, that she couldn't figure out after a while (with all the presents, trips and attention) that something in his relationships with the boys was just not right. I think she figured it out, that is IMO, and just decided to live with it for her own reasons as suggested above.

I don't think anyone called her...but I think people that had knowledge certainly talked among themselves and possibly to others, and even Paterno acknowledged that he may have heard rumors. These people would have been warning their relatives and friends to keep their children away from JS.

Right, JS did have the good reputation for a long time and had people fooled, but what I'm saying is this started falling apart after the 1998 allegations and certainly after 2002, then 2009. And he got the message...as far as we know now there have been no further claims by boys/charges that apply after that date. He also knew he was under investigation.

On the evidence, I agree but I'm just saying there has to be an indication of some reliable information before Freeh made the referral to the FBI for further investigation. You don't make these kinds of referrals lightly or without some evidence to give cause for the referral. Of course, we'll wait to see what comes from it but such a wide ranging and in depth investigation I'm thinking has a few people shaking in their boots right now.

I'll refer back to Dr. Fessel's post about it also:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky cover-up: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #8 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7634705&postcount=238)
BBM
It is extremely disturbing that it appears that the child psychologist who ran TSM and his wife, a school counselor, do not need to shake in their boots. Everything I am reading suggests that this giant investigation is focused everywhere at State College except at them. They HAD the college degrees/knowledge to know or to seriously suspect what crimes were occurring with Sandusky through his contacts at TSM and they were raking in big bucks at TSM.:banghead:

One of these two individuals was likely signing off/approving all of Sandusky's expenses which included meals, entertainment, hotel stays, and "God only knows what else" with young boys. They can't convincingly state that they didn't know he was spending money and too much time alone with young boys.

Reader
03-08-2012, 01:24 PM
Unless Dorothy was an heiress, she probably had very little free money and I would guess that she ran the household finances tightly.

What Sandusky had as income is interesting from two points: how believable is the claim that he "retired" when he did to claim a pension privilege that was only available that year, and so how significant was the bonus? (Since it was a State pension, this story seems doubtful and probably public record if it was a general change.)
and, what were/are his resources to spend on seducing boys and having access to them?
[It seems that when he lost access to Penn State facilities he used his home more.]

It looks as though he is getting a very bad pension compared with others, which could imply that there was little financial incentive to take it, although the $148K cash payout might have been urgently needed if Jerry had been running up bills. I haven't found a story on what his salary was in 1999. The pension was $59000/yr. Probably there was an inflation in pay in the 2000s that he missed out on. About the time he quit, he began to receive about 57000/yr from Second Mile. [Don't remember exactly how much.] This might have brought his income up to pre-retirement salary level.
So, who, exactly, paid for his Second Mile "consulting fees"? This is where I would look for a payoff by Penn State or its trustees doing damage control- donations to Second Mile which then were used to make Sandusky go away. Not his victims, him.

Quotes from news stories follow:

When he retired, Sandusky opted to take a lump-sum pension payment of $148,271 from the State Employees’ Retirement System. The rest of his pension is being paid out monthly and is $58,898 annually. [Sandusky worked for Penn 1969-99 30 years.]

Schultz could be far more richly paid. He elected to receive a $421,847 lump-sum payment at the time of his retirement in 2009, after nearly 39 years of service.
[Schultz was paid $320,966 in 2009, so his lump sum was more than his annual income.]

He also receives a monthly pension payment of $27,558 — nearly the cost of tuition for two in-state freshmen at State College. That comes to nearly $331,000 a year.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/jerry_sandusky_continues_to_re.html#incart_mce

Paterno's pension records obtained Tuesday from the State Employees' Retirement System show his average pay over the past three years was $554,000. He's been in the system long enough to qualify for 100% of that — or 110% thanks to a longevity supplement for older people who remain at work.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-11-15/joe-paterno-pension/51223854/1

Curley and Spanier did not participate in the state pension plan so their amounts are not public.
What Paterno made
http://deadspin.com/5857629/joe-paternos-annual-compensation-is-200000-higher-than-the-psu-presidents-and-other-grotesqueries

Paterno's pension records obtained Tuesday from the State Employees' Retirement System show his average pay over the past three years was $554,000. He's been in the system long enough to qualify for 100% of that — or 110% thanks to a longevity supplement for older people who remain at work.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-11-15/joe-paterno-pension/51223854/1
Latest available compensation figures (2010?)
Base compensation Total compensation
Spanier 620004 813855
Erickson 420012 454753
Schultz 296068 320966
Paterno 554136 1022784
http://deadspin.com/5857629/joe-paternos-annual-compensation-is-200000-higher-than-the-psu-presidents-and-other-grotesqueries

Thanks, StellarsJay, for all the great information on the income of the defendents...you put a lot of work into this...appreciate it.

Reader
03-08-2012, 01:39 PM
BBM
It is extremely disturbing that it appears that the child psychologist who ran TSM and his wife, a school counselor, do not need to shake in their boots. Everything I am reading suggests that this giant investigation is focused everywhere at State College except at them. They HAD the college degrees/knowledge to know or to seriously suspect what crimes were occurring with Sandusky through his contacts at TSM and they were raking in big bucks at TSM.:banghead:

One of these two individuals was likely signing off/approving all of Sandusky's expenses which included meals, entertainment, hotel stays, and "God only knows what else" with young boys. They can't convincingly state that they didn't know he was spending money and too much time alone with young boys.[/QUOTE]

I think those payments to JS may be part of the FBI investigation. In post #299 it says this:

[QUOTE]If that money was used for other purposes, that could be a federal crime, Reinhart said.

"I'm sure they get all sorts of federal funding that flows into large state university's like that," he said. "As part of that sort of grant or funding, you have to certify those funds will only be used for the certain things. That could be why they'd be looking into interactions with Second Mile and Penn State."

The TSM CEO and his wife were in charge when those alleged payments would have been made to JS, so they might be included..IMO.

StellarsJay
03-09-2012, 02:03 PM
Followup from previous post: Did Penn State pay Second Mile to assume the Sandusky problem?
Was money funnelled to Sandusky’s benefit, not to victims? The dates make it possible this was the deal.

Selectively quoted from a Center Daily News story, slightly re-ordered:
Second Mile, PSU had land deal in 2002
By Ed Mahon Posted: 12:01am on Nov 16, 2011; Modified: 9:11am on Dec 21, 2011

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/16/2988115/charity-psu-had-land-deal-in-2002.html#storylink=cpy
STATE COLLEGE — Penn State sold about 40.7 acres of undeveloped land to The Second Mile for $168,500 in April 2002.
The price is what Penn State says it paid for the land in August 1999 — and about $151,500 less than what a Pittsburgh man paid for it in 1990.
Penn State originally purchased the 40.7 acres of land as part of a much larger purchase
Assistant football coach Mike McQueary told the grand jury that on March 1, 2002, he saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy in the showers of the Lasch Football Building.
About a week-and-a-half later, McQueary met with Tim Curley, Penn State athletic director, and Gary Schultz, the retired senior vice president for finance and business.
The land sale was finalized on April 23, 2002.
[Note- the final Center for Excellence project had 60 acres, 20 more came from somewhere.]

The story of how The Second Mile obtained that 40.7 acres of Patton Township land dates back to October 1990, when the Winston Corp. sold the land to Mark Bookman, of Pittsburgh, for $320,000.
In August 1999, Bookman and his wife, Marsha, transferred the land to Penn State in two separate agreements.
In the first deed, the Bookmans and the Richard King Mellon Foundation are listed as the grantors of the lease. The price tag was $1, and the deed said they were selling a 50 percent undivided interest in the land.
In the second deed, the Bookmans are listed as the grantors, along with a real estate agent. In that agreement, the Bookmans also transferred a 50 percent undivided interest. The university paid the Bookmans $183,970, according to the deed.
The Bookmans could not be reached for comment Tuesday. The Richard King Mellon Foundation, which has reported having more than $1.7 billion in assets, provides grants and funding for conservation, regional economic development and education programs.
When reached by the Centre Daily Times on Tuesday afternoon, officials from the Mellon Foundation said they would need more time to research the agreement before they could comment.
That purchase was part of a larger one.
The Centre Daily Times reported in October 1999 that Penn State purchased 1,100 acres in State College and Patton, Ferguson, College and Potter townships for $3.8 million. The Richard King Mellon Foundation and Mellon Family Trust offered the properties to Penn State in a gift arrangement for half the selling price.
In September 2001, the university announced that the Penn State board of trustees had approved the sale of 40.7 acres of land to The Second Mile.
“The university will sell 40.7 acres in Patton Township to the Second Mile, former Penn State football defensive coach Jerry Sandusky’s nonprofit group for prevention, early intervention and community-based programs for Pennsylvania youth,” the university said in a statement in September 2001.
[How does this date fit?]
"The Second Mile offered to purchase the property, which has no strategic value to the university and adjoins a parcel already owned by the organization, for the same amount as its earlier cost.”
The news release said the purchase price for The Second Mile was $168,500. Siemenski said Tuesday that he believes that price, not the $183,970 noted on the deed, was Penn State’s cost for the property.

Assistant football coach Mike McQueary told the grand jury that on March 1, 2002, he saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy in the showers of the Lasch Football Building.
About a week-and-a-half later, McQueary met with Tim Curley, Penn State athletic director, and Gary Schultz, the retired senior vice president for finance and business.
The land sale was finalized on April 23, 2002.
The Second Mile has been planning to build a $9 million learning center on the 41 acres. But the future of that project is now uncertain.
Sieminski, who signed the April 2002 deed on behalf of Penn State, said in an email Tuesday that the transaction was similar to others involving the Centre Region Council of Governments, State College Borough Water Authority, and Centre Hall Borough, Potter and Gregg Townships “where properties acquired from Mellon were sold by the university to be used by the parties for specific purposes. Also, another parcel acquired from Mellon was recently sold to the Church of Latter-day Saints on Whitehall Road.”

Could be coincidence, but I hope the Feds are looking at it. Very good reporting by CDN.

Quiche
03-09-2012, 04:20 PM
Here's a little blurb that's enough to turn your stomach...

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/penn-st-tv-sanduskys-touching-tribute-to-kids-29981

waltzingmatilda
03-12-2012, 11:05 AM
http://www.wwaytv3.com/2012/03/12/psu-paternos-firing-over-failure-of-leadership

Is this new news and why is the BOT addressing this publically now?

wm

Tipstaff
03-12-2012, 12:23 PM
PSU: Paterno dismissed for not doing more after Sandusky sex abuse claim in 2002

Penn State's trustees said late coach Joe Paterno's failure to follow up on a sexual abuse allegation against former assistant Jerry Sandusky "constituted a failure of leadership" that ultimately led to his firing in November.

Read more...WPXI.com (local Pittsburgh Television Station)

J. J. in Phila
03-12-2012, 01:20 PM
The removal of Graham Spanier as Penn State president and Joe Paterno as football coach


The Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees has been asked by members of the Penn State community, including students, faculty, staff and alumni, to state clearly its reasons for the difficult decisions that were made unanimously on the evening of Nov. 9, 2011 -- to remove Graham Spanier as president of the University and Joe Paterno as head football coach for the remaining three games of the 2011 season. Our decisions were guided by our obligation as Trustees, always, to put the interests of the University first.

Partial text on the firing:

President Graham Spanier

We determined on Nov. 9 that Dr. Spanier should be removed because he failed to meet his leadership responsibilities to the Board and took insufficient action after learning of a 2002 incident involving former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky and a young boy in a Penn State facility. This failure of leadership included insufficiently informing the Board about his knowledge of the 2002 incident. He also made or was involved in press announcements between Nov. 5-9 that were without authorization of the Board or contrary to its instructions.

On Nov. 9, Dr. Spanier asked the Board for a vote of confidence. Since for the reasons cited above we were unable to provide it, we voted that evening unanimously to remove him as president and informed him of that decision. Dr. Spanier remains a tenured professor at Penn State.

Coach Joe Paterno

Also on Nov. 9, the Board unanimously made the decision to remove Coach Paterno for the last three games of the season. He had announced earlier that day that he would be retiring at the end of the season.

Our most important reason – by far – for this difficult decision flowed from what we learned on Nov. 5, for the first time, from a “presentment” (report) by a Pennsylvania Grand Jury about Coach Paterno’s early 2011 sworn testimony.

The report stated that a Penn State graduate assistant had gone to Coach Paterno’s home on Saturday morning, March 2, 2002. The report quoted Coach Paterno as testifying to the Grand Jury that the graduate assistant told him that he had seen Jerry Sandusky, the coach's former assistant coach up to 1999, "in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

While Coach Paterno did his legal duty by reporting that information the next day, Sunday, March 3, to his immediate superior, the then Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the Board reasonably inferred that he did not call police. We determined that his decision to do his minimum legal duty and not to do more to follow up constituted a failure of leadership by Coach Paterno.

The Board spent hours on conference calls between Saturday, Nov. 5, and Tuesday, Nov. 8, discussing appropriate action and our fiduciary responsibility as the Trustees. On Wednesday evening, Nov. 9, we met in person in State College. At about 9 pm, we unanimously made the difficult decision that Coach Paterno’s failure of leadership required his removal as football coach.

We are sorry for the unfortunate way we had to deliver the news on the telephone about an hour later to Coach Paterno. However, we saw no better alternative. Because Coach Paterno’s home was surrounded by media representatives, photographers and others, we did not believe there was a dignified, private and secure way to send Board representatives to meet with him there. Nor did we believe it would be wise to wait until the next morning, since we believed it was probable that Coach Paterno would hear the news beforehand from other sources, which would be inappropriate.

Thus, we sent a representative of the Athletic Department to ask Coach Paterno to call us. When the coach called, the Board member who received the call planned to tell him that (1) the Board had decided unanimously to remove him as coach; (2) the Board regretted having to deliver the message over the telephone; and (3) his employment contract would continue, including all financial benefits and his continued status as a tenured faculty member. However, after this Board member communicated the first message, Coach Paterno ended the call, so the second and third messages could not be delivered.

Many alumni, faculty, staff and students are inquiring about how we plan to honor Coach Paterno’s many contributions to the University. It has always been the Board’s intention to fulfill his employment contract and to name him head coach emeritus. Other options also are under consideration, but the Board feels it would be premature to make any final decision at least until the final report of the independent counsel Judge Louis Freeh is publicly issued in conjunction with the Special Investigations Task Force.



http://live.psu.edu/story/58341

waltzingmatilda
03-12-2012, 04:19 PM
Thanks J. J.

wm

Reader
03-12-2012, 05:48 PM
Judge hears arguments on Sandusky pretrial info

http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9TF21CG0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011

BELLEFONTE, Pa. (AP) — A judge has heard arguments but opted not to rule immediately on how much information former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky should get in advance of his trial on child sex abuse charges.

Judge John Cleland gave no indication when he'd rule on Monday's arguments concerning the "bill of particulars" about the 10 purported victims that the attorney general's office provided Sandusky's attorney two weeks ago.
------

The attorney general's office says Amendola is overstating the lack of specificity in the materials already provided to him.

The 68-year-old Sandusky did not attend the hearing.


More at link....

Reader
03-12-2012, 05:53 PM
Jerry Sandusky attorney says former Penn State coach anxiously awaiting trial

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

BELLEFONTE -- The attorney for Jerry Sandusky said his client has been taking advantage of the visitation rights he was granted at a previous court hearing and has had visits from friends and some of his grandchildren.

-----

He says Sandusky is anxiously awaiting his May trial on 52 criminal counts. He maintains his innocence. Sandusky remains on home confinement and did not attend the hearing.


Little more at link....

Reader
03-12-2012, 06:01 PM
Joe Paterno's family blames Penn State board for sex-abuse crisis

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/paterno_family_releases_statem.html#incart_mce

Family's statement:

"The Paterno family is surprised and saddened that the Board of Trustees believes it is necessary and appropriate to explain -- for the fourth or fifth time -- why they fired Joe Paterno so suddenly and unjustifiably on Nov 9, 2011.

"The latest statement is yet another attempt by the board to deflect criticism of their leadership by trying to focus the blame on Joe Paterno. This is not fair to Joe's legacy; it is not consistent with the facts; and it does not serve the best interests of the university. The board's latest statement reaffirms that they did not conduct a thorough investigation of their own and engaged in a rush to judgment.

"At various times, university officials have said that they fired Joe Paterno. At other times they have said they didn't fire him. They have simultaneously accused him of moral and leadership failures, and praised him for the high standards he set for the university.

"The tough questions that have yet to be addressed relate not to Joe Paterno, but to the board. Two months ago, as Joe Paterno was dying, the board conducted a series of media interviews condemning him for 'moral' failures. Now they are trying a different tack and accusing him of 'leadership' failures.


"The question we would ask is simply this, when will the board step up and acknowledge that the ultimate responsibility for this crisis is theirs? Everyone who cares about Penn State is longing for strong, courageous, honest leadership. Today's statement is anything but that."

Reader
03-12-2012, 06:02 PM
Did some civil suits start plopping down on some people's desks?

Tipstaff
03-12-2012, 09:22 PM
[QUOTE=Reader;7681560]Jerry Sandusky attorney says former Penn State coach anxiously awaiting trial

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

BELLEFONTE -- The attorney for Jerry Sandusky said his client has been taking advantage of the visitation rights he was granted at a previous court hearing and has had visits from friends and some of his grandchildren.

-----

He says Sandusky is anxiously awaiting his May trial on 52 criminal counts. He maintains his innocence. Sandusky remains on home confinement and did not attend the hearing.


Little more at link....[/QUOTE

What wasn't it two weeks ago they tried to have the trial delayed until July. PR Spin - my client can't wait to have his day in court and show the world he is innocent. Yes and I have some swamp land in Florida - any takers?

ThoughtFox
03-12-2012, 11:02 PM
Edited for space by me:


Coach Joe Paterno

Also on Nov. 9, the Board unanimously made the decision to remove Coach Paterno for the last three games of the season. He had announced earlier that day that he would be retiring at the end of the season.

Our most important reason – by far – for this difficult decision flowed from what we learned on Nov. 5, for the first time, from a “presentment” (report) by a Pennsylvania Grand Jury about Coach Paterno’s early 2011 sworn testimony.

The report stated that a Penn State graduate assistant had gone to Coach Paterno’s home on Saturday morning, March 2, 2002. The report quoted Coach Paterno as testifying to the Grand Jury that the graduate assistant told him that he had seen Jerry Sandusky, the coach's former assistant coach up to 1999, "in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

While Coach Paterno did his legal duty by reporting that information the next day, Sunday, March 3, to his immediate superior, the then Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the Board reasonably inferred that he did not call police. We determined that his decision to do his minimum legal duty and not to do more to follow up constituted a failure of leadership by Coach Paterno.

The Board spent hours on conference calls between Saturday, Nov. 5, and Tuesday, Nov. 8, discussing appropriate action and our fiduciary responsibility as the Trustees. On Wednesday evening, Nov. 9, we met in person in State College. At about 9 pm, we unanimously made the difficult decision that Coach Paterno’s failure of leadership required his removal as football coach.[/i]

http://live.psu.edu/story/58341

The underlined part is what I've been saying for months now. It just doesn't really matter whether he followed the "letter of the law" in telling his superiors and no one else. That decision led to his firing and ultimate downfall with the public because it was a lack of leadership.

It was also cowardly, in my opinion, especially when he surely knew that Sandusky was still around campus with boys for years after that! :twocents:

What's important, though, is that Paterno was responsible for his own fall from grace. All he had to do that day was pick up the phone and call the police. Simple.

J. J. in Phila
03-12-2012, 11:28 PM
Edited for space by me:



The underlined part is what I've been saying for months now. It just doesn't really matter whether he followed the "letter of the law" in telling his superiors and no one else. That decision led to his firing and ultimate downfall with the public because it was a lack of leadership.


I agree in part and disagree in part. I can image what Paterno would have said to the police. It would have been, "Somebody said Jerry Sandusky did something wrong with a child, but I didn't see it and I don't know what that was."

That said, even from an administrative standpoint, Paterno should have done some follow up with Schultz and Curley. He might not have been told the truth, but he should have tried.

I do feel that someone from the board should have gone to Paterno in person. Maybe he would have refused to let them in, but they should have tried.

Reader
03-12-2012, 11:47 PM
I agree in part and disagree in part. I can image what Paterno would have said to the police. It would have been, "Somebody said Jerry Sandusky did something wrong with a child, but I didn't see it and I don't know what that was."
That said, even from an administrative standpoint, Paterno should have done some follow up with Schultz and Curley. He might not have been told the truth, but he should have tried.

I do feel that someone from the board should have gone to Paterno in person. Maybe he would have refused to let them in, but they should have tried.


BBM....then he could have given them MM's name, address and phone# as the person with the information on the abuse.

J. J. in Phila
03-13-2012, 01:53 AM
BBM....then he could have given them MM's name, address and phone# as the person with the information on the abuse.

I'm not sure if he could. That might constitute a violation of the whistle blower law. Further, I'm not sure, but I think he was the one that relayed it to Schultz.

As soon as Schultz gets in the mix, it is reported.

azwriter
03-13-2012, 02:43 AM
[QUOTE=Reader;7681560]Jerry Sandusky attorney says former Penn State coach anxiously awaiting trial

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

BELLEFONTE -- The attorney for Jerry Sandusky said his client has been taking advantage of the visitation rights he was granted at a previous court hearing and has had visits from friends and some of his grandchildren.

-----

He says Sandusky is anxiously awaiting his May trial on 52 criminal counts. He maintains his innocence. Sandusky remains on home confinement and did not attend the hearing.


Little more at link....[/QUOTE

What wasn't it two weeks ago they tried to have the trial delayed until July. PR Spin - my client can't wait to have his day in court and show the world he is innocent. Yes and I have some swamp land in Florida - any takers?

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. That's an old Chestnut claim by many a defendant: they are just itching to get into court to put these charges behind them.To finally have the opportunity to prove themself not guilty. Sure they are.
And how many of them who claim urgency to start their trial, step up and take a plea before one witness every takes the stand?

I doubt Sandusky will plea, as if the prosecution wants one. Let him sit in court day after day and face those who will once again have to live through the awful details of their association with Coach Sandusky.

I pray for strength for these victims every day.
jmo

ThoughtFox
03-13-2012, 02:52 AM
I agree in part and disagree in part. I can image what Paterno would have said to the police. It would have been, "Somebody said Jerry Sandusky did something wrong with a child, but I didn't see it and I don't know what that was."

That said, even from an administrative standpoint, Paterno should have done some follow up with Schultz and Curley. He might not have been told the truth, but he should have tried.

I do feel that someone from the board should have gone to Paterno in person. Maybe he would have refused to let them in, but they should have tried.

I admit I don't live in Pennsylvania, but after reading the testimonials about how much people love(d) Paterno there over the years, I bet the police would have taken any allegation from the Coach very, very seriously.

Bottom line for me - he reacted with indifference to a child who was being abused. If he had called, at least he could say that he cared and he tried to do something. At least the parents could have been warned, and cops could have had a talk with Jerry and told him to leave the kid alone.

My gosh - there are infinite good things that could have come out of that one missed phone call that Paterno never made.

Not trying because he didn't know what the outcome would be is a lame excuse. JMOO

azwriter
03-13-2012, 02:56 AM
I agree in part and disagree in part. I can image what Paterno would have said to the police. It would have been, "Somebody said Jerry Sandusky did something wrong with a child, but I didn't see it and I don't know what that was."

That said, even from an administrative standpoint, Paterno should have done some follow up with Schultz and Curley. He might not have been told the truth, but he should have tried.

I do feel that someone from the board should have gone to Paterno in person. Maybe he would have refused to let them in, but they should have tried.

I agree J.J. the Coach should have been approached in person with the news about his firing. And the idea he was surrounded by the media at his home is just a lousy excuse for Board officials to not show character and authority and face Joe. To me, it's a clear and immediate attempt by the University suits to get as far away from the principals of this scandal as soon as possible. Damage control was in full force IMO.

azwriter
03-13-2012, 03:08 AM
I admit I don't live in Pennsylvania, but after reading the testimonials about how much people love(d) Paterno there over the years, I bet the police would have taken any allegation from the Coach very, very seriously.

Bottom line for me - he reacted with indifference to a child who was being abused. If he had called, at least he could say that he cared and he tried to do something. At least the parents could have been warned, and cops could have had a talk with Jerry and told him to leave the kid alone.

My gosh - there are infinite good things that could have come out of that one missed phone call that Paterno never made.

Not trying because he didn't know what the outcome would be is a lame excuse. JMOO

I hear ya ThoughtFox and like you said something good could have come out of Paterno contacting law enforcement.

But then again, perhaps Coach didn't contact LE, because he knew it would fall on deaf ears. Seems to me, someone, anyone or maybe a whole panel of people were closing their eyes and ears to the presence of Jerry Sandusky during his retirement years with full access to University facilities.

I do hope Sandusky's day in court will be the first step to uncover IF an attempt was on going all those years to not rid themselves of JS. I for one believe there is a deep reason JS could get away with his behavior for all that time. Whom was protecting him and most of all Why?

Reader
03-13-2012, 03:16 AM
I'm not sure if he could. That might constitute a violation of the whistle blower law. Further, I'm not sure, but I think he was the one that relayed it to Schultz.

As soon as Schultz gets in the mix, it is reported.


When you are getting information in order to start a CPS abuse investigation you need names/info on all witnesses known. There is no whistle blower law involved.

If telling Schultz, which Paterno had already done, is considered reporting to the police, then why are the governor, the trustees, the state police and the Penn St. police saying it was not reported to the police, and now saying publicly and in writing that is what Paterno should have done?

Tipstaff
03-13-2012, 07:40 AM
Edited for space by me:



The underlined part is what I've been saying for months now. It just doesn't really matter whether he followed the "letter of the law" in telling his superiors and no one else. That decision led to his firing and ultimate downfall with the public because it was a lack of leadership.

It was also cowardly, in my opinion, especially when he surely knew that Sandusky was still around campus with boys for years after that! :twocents:

What's important, though, is that Paterno was responsible for his own fall from grace. All he had to do that day was pick up the phone and call the police. Simple.

Agree - but would they have gone this route if Paterno were still alive. I believe they would NOT and would have continued to protect Paterno.

Paterno's death gives those involved a way out - blame the dead guy - and believe we will see a lot more of this in the future because if so much blame falls on Paterno then they other guys Curry and Schultz may skate. Their legal teams have already teed this up.

IMO Paterno failed miserably but it is incredible to watch this play out.

J. J. in Phila
03-13-2012, 10:02 AM
I admit I don't live in Pennsylvania, but after reading the testimonials about how much people love(d) Paterno there over the years, I bet the police would have taken any allegation from the Coach very, very seriously.


I think if Paterno was had been the witness, had first person knowledge of it, they would have. He didn't, so his comments regarding Sandusky are hearsay.


Bottom line for me - he reacted with indifference to a child who was being abused. If he had called, at least he could say that he cared and he tried to do something. At least the parents could have been warned, and cops could have had a talk with Jerry and told him to leave the kid alone.


He did know who the parent was; the police still don't.

He did the right thing by calling Curley and Schultz. Where there was a failure was not going back to Curley in 3-4 weeks and saying, "What did you do regarding the Sandusky situation."

J. J. in Phila
03-13-2012, 10:05 AM
When you are getting information in order to start a CPS abuse investigation you need names/info on all witnesses known. There is no whistle blower law involved.

If telling Schultz, which Paterno had already done, is considered reporting to the police, then why are the governor, the trustees, the state police and the Penn St. police saying it was not reported to the police, and now saying publicly and in writing that is what Paterno should have done?

Well, because Schultz and Curley had the obligation to bring in the police. The didn't and they are charged with not doing so (which is a summary offense and for which the statute of limitations might have expired.)

J. J. in Phila
03-13-2012, 11:52 AM
Amendola's request for more information is denied:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/13/3124246/judege-dismisses-the-defenses.html

Here is the actual order: http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMORANDUM%20AND%20ORDER%20TO%20DEFS%20 APPLICATION%20FOR%20MORE%20SPECIFIC%20BILL%20OF%20 PARTICULARS.pdf

Dr.Fessel
03-13-2012, 01:14 PM
I'm not sure if he could. That might constitute a violation of the whistle blower law. Further, I'm not sure, but I think he was the one that relayed it to Schultz.

As soon as Schultz gets in the mix, it is reported.

I can't understand any possible whistle blower conflict but it would not be surprising to me someone filled in Paterno on all the laws involved while he was waiting the 24 hours to do his "legal reporting". Funny how he got that reporting in just under the time limit.

Reader
03-13-2012, 02:46 PM
I can't understand any possible whistle blower conflict but it would not be surprising to me someone filled in Paterno on all the laws involved while he was waiting the 24 hours to do his "legal reporting". Funny how he got that reporting in just under the time limit.

Good point!

Also funny how he never followed up with Curley and Schultz about reporting the abuse to the police as required and made no move to do so himself, or to tell MM he should do this. Funny how nobody thought about calling CPS to investigate the abuse incident with an actual witness when they obviously knew no police investigation was being done.

If the police or CPS had been notified in a timely manner, an investigation could have been started and Sandusky questioned about the incident and the identify of the child. Funny how the ONE abuse incident with a witness was covered up. But, of course, it was probably ONLY a SM child, so no one was really concerned. JS would make sure this child kept quiet. Didn't I read way back somewhere that JS gave Curley the child's name and phone number? Wonder what happened to that little slip of paper? Funny how it disappeared.

Funny how no follow up whatsoever insured there would be no sexual abuse scandal at the time, when Paterno was still working on marking up his wins for a football record and his group of backers were trying to get loans to complete The Village.

Funny how those things, money and wins, seem to have been more important to a man who had a reputation of 'integrity' and 'doing the right thing'. Funny how he, Curley, Schultz, Spanier and MM just 'forgot' about the incident and child until it blew up in their faces, but very conveniently too long in the past to identify the child so he could testify before the grand jury.

All IMO....

Reader
03-13-2012, 02:56 PM
Amendola's request for more information is denied:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/13/3124246/judege-dismisses-the-defenses.html

Here is the actual order: http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMORANDUM%20AND%20ORDER%20TO%20DEFS%20 APPLICATION%20FOR%20MORE%20SPECIFIC%20BILL%20OF%20 PARTICULARS.pdf

From your link:

In his four-page ruling, Cleland there are plenty of cases involving assaults against children in which prosecutors didn’t have to provide specific times or dates.

“However, the commonwealth stated at argument that it cannot provide further details beyond what it has already supplied in its bill of particulars,” Cleland wrote. “Therefore, any order directing the commonwealth to supply details would be a futile act since the commonwealth has explained it cannot supply the details requested,” he wrote in his four-page ruling.

Because of the decision, Amendola said Tuesday he will ask the judge to drop the case.

So, Amendola thinks that 8, 9, 10 year old children should have kept diaries to record the dates and places when JS abused them?

I can assure you that if the great state of Penn. does not have laws that allow their testimony about their sexual abuse to be given without the exact date and time, the federal government does.

Dream on, Amendola....

Reader
03-13-2012, 02:59 PM
I think if Paterno was had been the witness, had first person knowledge of it, they would have. He didn't, so his comments regarding Sandusky are hearsay.



He did know who the parent was; the police still don't.

He did the right thing by calling Curley and Schultz. Where there was a failure was not going back to Curley in 3-4 weeks and saying, "What did you do regarding the Sandusky situation."


BBM - He did???? Then why didn't he tell anybody?

J. J. in Phila
03-13-2012, 03:16 PM
BBM - He did???? Then why didn't he tell anybody?


Sorry, that should be that Paterno did not know who the parents were, or the name of the victim. McQueary didn't, and doesn't know, either. Neither do the police.

Tipstaff
03-13-2012, 03:24 PM
Sorry, that should be that Paterno did not know who the parents were, or the name of the victim. McQueary didn't, and doesn't know, either. Neither do the police.

He, Paterno didn't know ok but he didn't ask he just moved on with what was important to him and his silence protected a child predator.

Tipstaff
03-13-2012, 03:34 PM
Talk about every legal trick in the book - this statement by Amendola makes me want to throw up!


"Mr. Amendola said on Monday that he would ask for the charges to be dismissed if prosecutors did not provide more details about timing."

Karen Langley: klangley@post-gazette.com

Dr.Fessel
03-13-2012, 04:03 PM
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/penn_state_trustees_look_to_co.html


The new chairman of the Penn State board of trustees told members of the faculty senate today that the university has talked to officials at Cornell University about a smooth transition to becoming a private university.
Peetz.jpgView full sizeCHRIS KNIGHT/The Patriot-NewsPenn State trustees chairwoman Karen Peetz

Karen Peetz, elected chairwoman after the Jerry Sanusky sex abuse scandal rocked Penn State in November, stressed that the conversation was only exploratory, and said "this can't be rushed."

Peetz, during a reservation and question and answer session, said the Cornell model "is of great interest."

"I dont think that's going to be a quick decision," she said.

Transparency has been a prevailing theme since the board came under firing for its handling of the scandal and the decision to fire Joe Paterno and president Graham Spanier.

Gov. Tom Corbett said the university will need to choose between continual state funding and its exemption from open records laws.

Peetz said the board's attorney is reviewing open records law

Dr.Fessel
03-13-2012, 04:12 PM
He, Paterno didn't know ok but he didn't ask he just moved on with what was important to him and his silence protected a child predator.

Yeah and all these caring people including Paterno who knew how serious it was and how it needed to be reported never wrote a single thing on paper about it. They met in homes and secret rooms away from people to talk about it. None of them filled out a report or wrote down a single statement. All their talks were off the record in other words.

ThoughtFox
03-13-2012, 04:14 PM
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/penn_state_trustees_look_to_co.html


The new chairman of the Penn State board of trustees told members of the faculty senate today that the university has talked to officials at Cornell University about a smooth transition to becoming a private university.
Peetz.jpgView full sizeCHRIS KNIGHT/The Patriot-NewsPenn State trustees chairwoman Karen Peetz

Karen Peetz, elected chairwoman after the Jerry Sanusky sex abuse scandal rocked Penn State in November, stressed that the conversation was only exploratory, and said "this can't be rushed."

Peetz, during a reservation and question and answer session, said the Cornell model "is of great interest."

"I dont think that's going to be a quick decision," she said.

Transparency has been a prevailing theme since the board came under firing for its handling of the scandal and the decision to fire Joe Paterno and president Graham Spanier.

Gov. Tom Corbett said the university will need to choose between continual state funding and its exemption from open records laws.

Peetz said the board's attorney is reviewing open records law

Good grief! They'd rather go private and raise tuition than answer questions and shed light on their own actions.

If the university was a human being, that would be "consciousness of guilt."

Tipstaff
03-13-2012, 06:23 PM
As a state university Penn State attracts a lot of locals to their branch campuses like McKeesport and Johnstown etc. I can only imagine the costs per student if Penn State would go private - no way would these branch campuses draw PA students that can't get into the main campus - but wanted to graduate from Penn State. Penn State would be half the size it is now, if that, at private tuition rates.

What else are the powers that be in Happy Valley afraid to shine the light on?

And the famous Penn State football team and the alumni - who would they give to? Would love to know the name of the this private school.

The University of Pennsylvania is in Philly and they are not about to surrender their name.

Pensfan
03-13-2012, 07:54 PM
Good grief! They'd rather go private and raise tuition than answer questions and shed light on their own actions.

If the university was a human being, that would be "consciousness of guilt."
Penn State doesn't want to go private. Penn State, Univ. of Pitt, and Temple are being forced to become private because the governor keeps axing of their funds (and other state universities) to reduce Pennsylvania's deficit.



The $230 million funding cut for Pittsburgh, Temple and Penn State is “a dismantling of a long commitment by the state to public higher education,” said University of Pittsburgh chancellor Mark Nordenberg at the state House Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday.

“And we are being pushed in the direction of becoming private universities where tuition is much higher and in-state students get no discounts,” he said.
If the state-related universities become private, Nordenberg said, the schools also would offer fewer graduate programs for students.
The schools are called “state-related” because they have a long history of receiving taxpayer money, but are not owned or controlled by the state.
Earlier this month, Corbett announced his planned funding cuts as part of his $27.1 billion budget proposal.

The $230 million in savings would help plug a projected $719 million deficit, Corbett said. Such a cut would follow a 24-percent decrease, amounting to $144 million, in state aid this year.
http://statehousenewsonline.com/2012/02/22/university-presidents-pa-govs-cuts-could-lead-to-privatization/

J. J. in Phila
03-13-2012, 07:58 PM
He, Paterno didn't know ok but he didn't ask he just moved on with what was important to him and his silence protected a child predator.

There is no question that he should have been doing followup with Schultz and Curley. Beyond that, there is not too much more that could be done.

Pensfan
03-13-2012, 08:06 PM
As a state university Penn State attracts a lot of locals to their branch campuses like McKeesport and Johnstown etc. I can only imagine the costs per student if Penn State would go private - no way would these branch campuses draw PA students that can't get into the main campus - but wanted to graduate from Penn State. Penn State would be half the size it is now, if that, at private tuition rates.

What else are the powers that be in Happy Valley afraid to shine the light on?

And the famous Penn State football team and the alumni - who would they give to? Would love to know the name of the this private school.

The University of Pennsylvania is in Philly and they are not about to surrender their name.
I have no idea how most will pay tuition if the governor continues to cut funds to state universities to reduce the state's deficit incurred by out-of-control spending. (I currently have two sons at Penn State and one at Univ of Pitt.) :furious:

Tipstaff
03-13-2012, 09:26 PM
There is no question that he should have been doing followup with Schultz and Curley. Beyond that, there is not too much more that could be done.

J.J. following your posts brings me back repeatedly to this board.

If the great and powerful OZ, I mean Joe Paterno went to the Pennsylvania State police one time and told them he had a FEELING yes a feeling that Sandusky was molesting children, or made a phone call to the head of CPS with a suspicion that one his former coaches was taking children to the Toftree Hotel and spending the night, he could have done more, a lot more to end Sandusky's access to children.

We probably will never agree on how much sooner the great and powerful Joe Paterno could have shut Jerry Sandusky down. It was the least Paterno could have done 12 years ago.

InTheGarden
03-13-2012, 11:00 PM
Talk about every legal trick in the book - this statement by Amendola makes me want to throw up!


"Mr. Amendola said on Monday that he would ask for the charges to be dismissed if prosecutors did not provide more details about timing."

Karen Langley: klangley@post-gazette.com

Counselor Amendola - ask your client Jerry Sandusky to fill you in on the details. He was there.

Pensfan
03-13-2012, 11:17 PM
Counselor Amendola - ask your client Jerry Sandusky to fill you in on the details. He was there.
If TSM hadn't lost years of their computer records (cough cough), some of these dates could be determined through Jerry's expense reports and expense requests.

(I am still waiting to hear the investigation has begun on Dr. Jack Raykovitz, a child psychologist and the CEO of The Second Mile for 28 years. :furious:)

Reader
03-13-2012, 11:45 PM
If TSM hadn't lost years of their computer records (cough cough), some of these dates could be determined through Jerry's expense reports and expense requests.

(I am still waiting to hear the investigation has begun on Dr. Jack Raykovitz, a child psychologist and the CEO of The Second Mile for 28 years. :furious:)

Pensfan, check out this post...I think the good dr. will be under the fed light pretty soon:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky cover-up: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #8

J. J. in Phila
03-14-2012, 10:31 AM
If the great and powerful OZ, I mean Joe Paterno went to the Pennsylvania State police one time and told them he had a FEELING yes a feeling that Sandusky was molesting children, or made a phone call to the head of CPS with a suspicion that one his former coaches was taking children to the Toftree Hotel and spending the night, he could have done more, a lot more to end Sandusky's access to children.


Paterno never knew about Toftrees. The only thing he had, in 2002, was a grad student who said he saw something; McQueary's status was not high at the time.

There are a couple of possibilities, from Paterno's viewpoint:
1. McQueary saw something accurately, but he doesn't give Paterno the details.
2. He saw something innocent and misinterpreted what he saw.
3. He's not telling the truth.

At best, Paterno can think, "Sandusky may have done something inappropriate and maybe criminal, but I don't know what exactly." He doesn't know the details.

I frankly don't agree, when it came to the police, and certainly the PSP or child services. They want specifics, not something this vague.

To top it off, Sandusky is not under Paterno's authority. Paterno can't reassign him, or discipline him, or order him not to do something.



We probably will never agree on how much sooner the great and powerful Joe Paterno could have shut Jerry Sandusky down. It was the least Paterno could have done 12 years ago.

It was 9 years prior to the indictment.

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.

Now, that said, Paterno could have done more in regard to followup with Curley and Schultz, even if he had to go over their heads to Spanier. From an administrative standpoint, he should have, IMO. I think, had he pressed it with them, he would not have been terminated.

pinktoes
03-14-2012, 01:56 PM
The feds will have their best access to Second Mile & Raykovitz coming in from the PSU side. Because PSU receives a number of federal grants. (Remember, Jer said TSM tries to operate privately.) BUT, TSM "partnered" with PSU on programs where fed monies came in. Therefore, fed oversight and access now.

Just a couple. I haven't looked at all the funding, and don't think as a PSU outsider I could, for this. But here's a clip about a PSU student, written by Raykovitz, and a partnering arrangement:

"...During that same period [that she was a camp volunteer at TSM], she interacted with additional Second Mile programs through her selection as a Penn State Fellow in the America’s Promise Program, since we are a Promise Partner."

I'll give the link below, since this next program--which we all remember--comes from the same source:

"By Erin E. Reid and Melissa A. Reid,
The Pennsylvania State University
Prior to the summer of 2004,
The Second Mile staff formed a
partnership with The Pennsylvania
State University’s Prevention Research
Center to assess the intrapersonal
and environmental factors of children
served in the Summer Challenge
Program. As a result, campers at
the University Park site now are
asked to complete a computer-based
questionnaire, the Assessment of
Liability and Exposure to Substance
Abuse and Antisocial Behavior
(ALEXSA), during their stays at camp.
The information that is collected then
can be used to examine the effects
of camp attendance on specific areas
of concern. To date, three years of
data have been collected. This article
describes the ALEXSA in more detail
and provides information gained
from analyzing the data collected
from children attending the Summer
Challenge Program in 2004 and 2005...."

link:
http://www.thesecondmile.org/pdf/MilestonesFall06.pdf

The governor's office has oversight of all federal grant monies coming into the state. JJ will remember the name of one of the oversight committees--some commission on juvenile justice and prevention (not the old one that PA legislature disbanded; this is current).

Access the PSU Prevention Research Center here:
http://prevention.psu.edu/about/index.html

It is still headed up by Mark Greenberg, member of TSM's board of directors:
http://prevention.psu.edu/people/index.html

PSU's Prevention Research Center is a division of their College of Health and Human Development, where in 2007 Sandusky made the commencement speech. (IIRC, he had also been made an honorary member/alum of it, or some other sort of honor).

There's lots of ways to gather info on JS or other TSMers starting from the federal $$ into PSU. Hope there's the will to do so.

pinktoes
03-14-2012, 02:13 PM
I'm still trying to find any possible link between Sandusky, TSM, and Christian Amos Goodall--the son of H. Amos Goodall, Jr, atty who handled Ray Gricar's estate. Christian committed suicide in Nov, 2010, at age 29. He graduated from PSU in June, 2010.

So far as I've found, Linda Gall (TSM volunteer and Board member--don't have the years on that) and husband Blake set up a memorial grant in remembrance of Christian (at that CCCF, where Blake is a professional advisor). And planted a tree in his remembrance. Linda was quite active is lots of community activities where she might have known Christian from. IDK.

H. Amos Goodall, Jr was also a TSM volunteer. But lots of locals were. One thing that strikes me, as always, is how intertwined these people all are. It's just odd that only Linda Gall went this far. And, she posted on his memorial site online. I didn't recognize any other names posting there who had TSM involvement.

Christian was a summer lifeguard at a local public pool. A "best friend" posted about his demons. My hope is that he wasn't drawn into Jer's web; but it's possible. If he was, maybe his friends know. This'd be a good time to get the whole truth out.

J. J. in Phila
03-14-2012, 02:26 PM
The governor's office has oversight of all federal grant monies coming into the state. JJ will remember the name of one of the oversight committees--some commission on juvenile justice and prevention (not the old one that PA legislature disbanded; this is current).


That is Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. The chairmanship is a "gift" of the incumbent governor. That would be Rendell in 2004, and the chairman might have been Jim Eisenhower.

The Commission which I think meets twice yearly, basically hands out money (from the Feds) for programs.

Concerned Papa
03-14-2012, 02:54 PM
If TSM hadn't lost years of their computer records (cough cough), some of these dates could be determined through Jerry's expense reports and expense requests.

(I am still waiting to hear the investigation has begun on Dr. Jack Raykovitz, a child psychologist and the CEO of The Second Mile for 28 years. :furious:)

Unless TSM was paying Sandusky in green for expenses, the Feds won't necessarily need to have their records. Provided they have some indication of which bank TSM used, they can get checks written to Jer through subpoena.

Years ago, I was subpoenaed as a witness in a Federal trial for a guy I had business connections with 5 or 6 years prior. Because I had been out of town on a job, they hadn't served me and I didn't know anything about it. I, litterally, got the subpoena one day and was on a plane to be in court the next. When I was on the witness stand, they had copies of checks going back for years they had obtained from my bank.

It could be that these "missing" records are suddenly "found" once the full weight of the investigation is brought to bear on people like Raykovitz. Whatever income Jer drew from TSM will be supported through W-2's and withholdings. Any other checks the Feds find could bite TSM execs AND Sandusky in the rear without proper explanation and documentation.

There's also the likely possibility of credit cards, both business and personal, having been used for Jer's lil junkets. If the Feds really want to dig, they can get all of this type information. If they do, someone better be ready to explain it, record or no records.

pittsburghgirl
03-14-2012, 10:55 PM
Paterno never knew about Toftrees. The only thing he had, in 2002, was a grad student who said he saw something; McQueary's status was not high at the time.

There are a couple of possibilities, from Paterno's viewpoint:
1. McQueary saw something accurately, but he doesn't give Paterno the details.
2. He saw something innocent and misinterpreted what he saw.
3. He's not telling the truth.

At best, Paterno can think, "Sandusky may have done something inappropriate and maybe criminal, but I don't know what exactly." He doesn't know the details.

I frankly don't agree, when it came to the police, and certainly the PSP or child services. They want specifics, not something this vague.

To top it off, Sandusky is not under Paterno's authority. Paterno can't reassign him, or discipline him, or order him not to do something.



It was 9 years prior to the indictment.

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.

Now, that said, Paterno could have done more in regard to followup with Curley and Schultz, even if he had to go over their heads to Spanier. From an administrative standpoint, he should have, IMO. I think, had he pressed it with them, he would not have been terminated.

JJ, Paterno was arguably the most powerful man in Pennsylvania over the last 30 years, beloved by Penn Staters, a sports icon, a respected and influential figure in Republican political circles, hated but respected by Pitt fans. He was also tenured at his institution, and so McQueary was a graduate student under his supervision. He wasn't just a football coach; he was a faculty member and so had the ethical and moral obligation to not only follow upon McQueary's report to him, but to make sure he (Paterno) followed up on the report, not only in regard to the child who was raped but also to his grad student and to others working under his supervision. HE should have made sure he KNEW the details. And I say that as someone who has supervised graduate students and junior faculty.

There should have been meetings of the football staff to inform them to be aware of and alert to the presence of children in the facilty and to make very clear that overt sexual activity of any kind was absolutely prohibited.

Wait till the civil suits ramp up--that is one of the first things all of those involved will be asked: What steps did the football program and athletic department take to secure the facility, to post notices and inform all employees, athletes and students that overt sexual activity is prohibited, etc.?
That ka-ching you hear is the sound of big judgments in civil court going to victims who were assaulted in the PS facility.

J. J. in Phila
03-15-2012, 12:47 AM
JJ, Paterno was arguably the most powerful man in Pennsylvania over the last 30 years, beloved by Penn Staters, a sports icon, a respected and influential figure in Republican political circles, hated but respected by Pitt fans.

Who's son couldn't get elected to Congress, despite having that great name.

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.


He was also tenured at his institution, and so McQueary was a graduate student under his supervision.


McQueary wasn't in 2002.


He wasn't just a football coach; he was a faculty member and so had the ethical and moral obligation to not only follow upon McQueary's report to him, but to make sure he (Paterno) followed up on the report, not only in regard to the child who was raped but also to his grad student and to others working under his supervision. HE should have made sure he KNEW the details. And I say that as someone who has supervised graduate students and junior faculty.


He had a legal obligation to report it and, I'd argue, an administrative duty to follow up after it was reported. He did the first, but not the second.

There should have been meetings of the football staff to inform them to be aware of and alert to the presence of children in the facilty and to make very clear that overt sexual activity of any kind was absolutely prohibited.

And what if it was completely innocent and, as I've indicated, McQueary misinterpreted what he saw? You mentioned civil suits; do you think that Paterno spread rumors, without evidence, he wouldn't be sued? He was not ever in the position to investigate it.

Even now, the 2002 incident is not the strongest case against Sandusky. It isn't the weakest, but both 2005-07 and 1998, though less serious, are stronger.

Paterno did the right thing in following the law, and reporting it to his supervisor. He failed to do the right thing, administratively, by not following up. I have no disagreement with his removal on the second ground.

pinktoes
03-15-2012, 05:02 AM
I'd submit that the power Paterno derived from being football coach was equaled by the power derived from his connections with the money-power figures within the community. We've seen a great deal of those connections. Not the least of which is signified by Paterno's words at William A. Schreyer's funeral, "he was like a brother to me."

Schreyer for some reason wanted Spanier hired enough to go get him, donate $1 million to have the former Schreyer home remodeled to suit the needs of the Spaniers. Spanier was the hired help. And Paterno was the hired talent. We aren't looking at the real power in the community. Yet.

StellarsJay
03-15-2012, 11:56 AM
The Non-Profit Quarterly reports that Second Mile's insurance company is fighting paying Amendola's fees:
Excerpt: "One issue appears to be whether Sandusky was acting in an insured capacity at the charity. Though he founded the charity and served on its board until 2010, it’s unclear whether he was ever officially listed, trained, or supervised as a Second Mile volunteer working with children. In order to avoid paying Sandusky’s legal expenses, the insurance company will likely have to prove that The Second Mile failed to enact or enforce policies relating to Sandusky’s contact with children served by the charity. Of course, the insurance company may also have to show that it exercised its own due diligence by reviewing the operating policies and procedures it was being paid to insure."
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/governancevoice/19978-second-mile-insurer-refuses-to-pay-sanduskys-legal-costs.html

pinktoes
03-15-2012, 12:39 PM
So, StellarsJay, you think TSM actually had any policies regulating the training, etc, of ANY of their staff, volunteers, board--whatever? Betcha they didn't.

J. J. in Phila
03-15-2012, 02:56 PM
So, StellarsJay, you think TSM actually had any policies regulating the training, etc, of ANY of their staff, volunteers, board--whatever? Betcha they didn't.

They might have been required to.

Pensfan
03-15-2012, 08:30 PM
They might have been required to.
It SHOULD be a state requirement for all organizations serving children to have a mandatory training/inservice on pedophiles, but it isn't. PA doesn't even have a law requiring all daycare employees to be screened for child abuse after their initial employment screen.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts initiated "how to recognize and stop a pedophile" training for volunteers/staff on their own after recognizing that this is an effective way to deter pedophiles in their organizations.

J. J. in Phila
03-15-2012, 09:56 PM
It SHOULD be a state requirement for all organizations serving children to have a mandatory training/inservice on pedophiles, but it isn't. PA doesn't even have a law requiring all daycare employees to be screened for child abuse after their initial employment screen.


They do require background checks at licensed facilities (and unlicensed facilities operate outside the law).

The Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts initiated "how to recognize and stop a pedophile" training for volunteers/staff on their own after recognizing that this is an effective way to deter pedophiles in their organizations.

I don't know if Sandusky, who wasn't technically a volunteer, was required.

Pensfan
03-16-2012, 12:24 AM
They do require background checks at licensed facilities (and unlicensed facilities operate outside the law).
The child abuse clearance and crimi check at daycares in PA are only required when an individual is hired. Daycare operators are not required to run another check on their employees after the initial clearance.

An employee could be placed on the state's child abuse registry one day after their initial clearance. An employer might never check again because they are not required to check again. The state of PA requires $20 to check their child abuse registry. This info. isn't published anywhere else, so an employer has to pay the state's fee.

When I volunteered for my kid's activities at their Catholic school, the volunteers were required to pay the state's $20 fee for a child abuse registry check which can only be checked through the state's site. At minimum wage, daycare employees wouldn't be happy about being docked 3 hours of pay to pay for this. Daycare owners are not likely to pay unless it is mandated by law. The fee discourages the "rechecking" of employees. PA's system and laws are woefully inadequate and warped!

J. J. in Phila
03-16-2012, 09:19 AM
The child abuse clearance and crimi check at daycares in PA are only required when an individual is hired. Daycare operators are not required to run another check on their employees after the initial clearance.

An employee could be placed on the state's child abuse registry one day after their initial clearance. An employer might never check again because they are not required to check again. The state of PA requires $20 to check their child abuse registry. This info. isn't published anywhere else, so an employer has to pay the state's fee.


Isn't someone convicted in order to be in the registry. After the initial check, aren't any employers going to know that they were convicted.

I do know the Megan's Law list is available publicly. It's online and fee of charge. http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/

That may not show a nonsexual crime against a child, but it relating to molestation.

pinktoes
03-16-2012, 09:41 AM
Was Sandusky acting as a representative of TSM when he (alledgedly) molested those boys? So many questions. TSM's original statement in Nov said they hoped/expected to have their internal review complete by Dec (2011).

Amendola is looking for someone to pay his bills. JS apparently has insufficient funds. So, one reason Amendola needs to know more about the victims, with exact dates, etc, is so he can show TSM was responsible in some way. And so, their insurance company needs to pay his fees.

But, then, the battle over his fees continues, with that final sentence from StellarsJay's link:

"Of course, the insurance company may also have to show that it exercised its own due diligence by reviewing the operating policies and procedures it was being paid to insure. –Michael Wyland"

http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/governancevoice/19978-second-mile-insurer-refuses-to-pay-sanduskys-legal-costs.html

That's all about money. Not the victims--as usual.

TSM was relatively unregulated, partially due to their funding sources and the type of programs they ran. I believe that was intentional on Sandusky's part.

It also looks to me like TSM, and their legal eagle, has decided to put this mostly on Sandusky, and secondarily on Raykovitz. Perhaps justifiably, at least within that organization. IDK.

In this interview of Nov 16, 2011, Lynne Abraham said as much:

Her answer to a question about the grand jury report was, "
I was horrified. It was the same modus operandi as all pedophiles engage in...."

And her answer to a question about that Bob Costas interview:

"...What Sandusky has done is admit virtually everything that the attorney general has accused him of, except the ultimate act."

Also, when discussing TSM responsibilities she said, "Some people were aware. Who were they, and why didn't they act in an appropriate fashion by informing the police?"

Well, now who were those "some people"? I've got Raykovitz. Anyone else? Or is that what Abraham hopes to discover?

http://articles.philly.com/2011-11-16/news/30405989_1_sexual-abuse-second-mile-jerry-sandusky

Have any of you ever hired a lawyer to investigate your own company? If so, you understand the tricky position they are in.

One of the first items on everyone's agenda is, and must be, who is paying for the legal defense fees.

pinktoes
03-16-2012, 09:46 AM
If anyone wants to see what crimes Megan's Law covers and doesn't cover, that'd be an interesting exercise. It's a start. That's all it is.

Sandusky is not atypical. How many offenses do child predators usually commit before their first conviction? And does that conviction qualify them for a sexual registry--in which states? I know in Oregon, not everyone I think ought to be on the registry is.

Dr.Fessel
03-16-2012, 01:53 PM
LOL LOL LOL So Much for all that openness at Penn State.

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


STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Penn State’s in-house lawyer says state prosecutors have served subpoenas on “a number of other university employees,” but she isn’t elaborating.

cynthia baldwin.jpgView full sizeSubmitted photoCynthia Baldwin

General counsel Cynthia Baldwin said on the school’s website today that said it would be up to the employees and their lawyers to say who received them. Baldwin didn’t say what the attorney general’s office was investigating, or how many subpoenas were issued.

A phone message for the AG’s office wasn’t immediately returned.

Last month, the university made public a federal subpoena related to the child sexual abuse scandal for which former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky is awaiting trial. Sandusky faces 52 counts and denies the allegations.

Baldwin says the university doesn’t plan to make any additional comment about the newly disclosed subpoenas.

pinktoes
03-16-2012, 02:45 PM
Dr F: unless something's changed, that AP story on Pennlive got it wrong on Baldwin. She's no longer General Counsel to PSU.

However, one of the commenters at that article pointed out that she remains, however, an expert on ethical leadership.

"Cynthia A. Baldwin, Vice President and General Counsel, The Pennsylvania State University, Retired Justice, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, will speak on the topic of "The Responsibility of Ethical Leadership."

April 12, 2012
11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Duquesne Club
325 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

I sure hate that I can't be there. Oh, wait, I wasn't invited.

What kills me is the way public figures get away with their stuff is they just brazenly say it. With a straight face. Just like lowlife con men do. And most people either believe it, or think it's possibly true.

The "open" portion of the program is over. If it ever started. I think not. The shock-and-awe portion we observers are experiencing just continues. And personally, I'm not enjoying it nearly as much as I did its namesake in Iraq.

Dr.Fessel
03-16-2012, 03:00 PM
Dr F: unless something's changed, that AP story on Pennlive got it wrong on Baldwin. She's no longer General Counsel to PSU.

However, one of the commenters at that article pointed out that she remains, however, an expert on ethical leadership.

"Cynthia A. Baldwin, Vice President and General Counsel, The Pennsylvania State University, Retired Justice, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, will speak on the topic of "The Responsibility of Ethical Leadership."

April 12, 2012
11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Duquesne Club
325 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

I sure hate that I can't be there. Oh, wait, I wasn't invited.

What kills me is the way public figures get away with their stuff is they just brazenly say it. With a straight face. Just like lowlife con men do. And most people either believe it, or think it's possibly true.

The "open" portion of the program is over. If it ever started. I think not. The shock-and-awe portion we observers are experiencing just continues. And personally, I'm not enjoying it nearly as much as I did its namesake in Iraq.

Nope, AP got it right.

Statement regarding additional subpoenas
Friday, March 16, 2012

"The Pennsylvania Attorney General has served personal subpoenas on a number of other University employees. We believe it is appropriate that it be left up to them and their attorneys whether to reveal their identities. The University will have no further comment, consistent with our past policies regarding the ongoing investigations."

-- Cynthia Baldwin, General Counsel for Penn State University

http://live.psu.edu/story/58468

pinktoes
03-16-2012, 04:14 PM
Dr Fessel: yep. I was wrong. She is still in the process of departing, contrary to many media reports that she had departed. She is "transitioning" out of there, working with Damon Sims, vice president for student affairs, as they co-chair a search committee to fill the position. I believe she said she'll stay till they find her replacement. Anyone want to apply? Might be a tough position to fill just now.

Well, at least she's still earning credits toward her existing retirement as long as she's working there.

Baldwin took a lump sum of some $294K from the state employees retirement system before joining PSU, she continued to draw [after leaving her judge position and entering private practice], "...$113,521 in yearly pension benefits in January 2008 accrued over her 29.1 years of state service. Those pension payments stopped when she took her paid position with the university, the records show. During her time with the university, she added to her pension credits."

Everyone spoke as if she had left PSU already. So she has not; and is continuing to add--present tense--to her pension credits. This is as it should be. I wouldn't be in her shoes for the world.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/01/departing_penn_state_in-house.html

pinktoes
03-16-2012, 04:20 PM
"This material should be sent via e-mail to John K. Thornburg and Elizabeth K. Bohan at: PSUCounsel@wittkieffer.com. Review of candidate materials will begin immediately with the intent of making an appointment not later than July 2012. "

That's from the a posting of the job opening, made by the headhunters' firm that represents PSU, and posted at:
http://www.nacua.org/careercenter/jobs/listings.asp

Pensfan
03-16-2012, 05:13 PM
Isn't someone convicted in order to be in the registry. After the initial check, aren't any employers going to know that they were convicted.

I do know the Megan's Law list is available publicly. It's online and fee of charge. http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/

That may not show a nonsexual crime against a child, but it relating to molestation.
Anyone can see the Megan's Law site which shows convicted sexual predators. The state's site showing who has been investigated by CPS and had a CPS case opened on them for all types of child abuse cannot be seen online. One does not have to be convicted to show up on this site. (Yes, that is true. It is a long story that can be found online.) CPS cases that are closed without finding are removed from this site after 6 months.)
http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/form/s_001762.pdf

Tipstaff
03-16-2012, 05:17 PM
From the Breaking News of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.


Penn State trustees eye changes to board structure

Friday, March 16, 2012

By Bill Schackner, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


HERSHEY, Pa. --- Penn State University trustees are meeting here today, where they are expeted to adopt governance changes to address criticism that members failed to properly address child sex allegations against former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.

But even as the board's afternoon session was convened at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, there were other developments relating to the ongoing scandal.

Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's general counsel, issued a statement confirming that state prosecutors have served subpoenas on "a number of other university employees."

Ms. Baldwin, in a statement posted today on the Penn State's website, said that it would be up to the employees and their lawyers to say who received them.

Ms. Baldwin didn't say what the attorney general's office was investigating, or how many subpoenas were issued.

Last month the university made public a federal subpoena related to the child sexual abuse scandal for which Mr. Sandusky is awaiting trial. He faces 52 counts and denies the allegations.

Baldwin said the university doesn't plan to make any additional comment about the newly disclosed subpoenas.

Also today, Quinnipiac University released a poll today showing support for the university's late football coach Joe Paterno.

Pennsylvania voters, by a margin of 46 percent to 40 percent, like the idea of renaming Penn State's Beaver Stadium "Joe Paterno Stadium," according to the Quinnipiac poll.

There was, not surprisingly, even higher support among football fans: 55 percent yes and 37 percent no. Non-football fans are against the idea, 44 percent saying no to 37 percent saying yes.

Those registered to vote who are 65 years old and up support the renaming, 51 percent yes to 32 percent.

"There is lingering respect for Joe Paterno," Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a statement this morning. "One has to wonder: If the Sandusky scandal had never happened whether support for renaming the stadium would have approached 100 percent."

The survey of 1,256 registered voters took place March 7-12.

Trustees fired Mr. Paterno in November amid the media firestorm that followed the Nov. 5 arrest of Mr. Sandusky, accused of sexually abusing at least 10 boys over 15 years, some of them on Penn State's University Park campus.

Though Mr. Paterno alerted superiors when informed of one alleged sexual assault in a campus shower in 2002, trustees said Mr. Paterno failed to meet a moral obligation to do more to see that the matter reached the hands of law enforcement. For nearly a decade, it did not.

A statement reiterating that position this week further inflamed alumni supporters of the nation's winningest major college football coach, who died in January at age 85 of complications from lung cancer.

A reform group, Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship, vowed to send representatives to today's meeting and said the full board must resign.

A half-dozen disenfranchised supporters showed up as today's meeting began, each wearing a white t-shirt with blue letters that collectively spelled out the word "Resign."

Nevertheless, the board has said it wants to stay focused on improving transparency and governance, and said today's proposed changes are a start.

Trustees are expected to act on proposals to create three new board committees, modify three existing ones and establish a steering group of key university officials tasked with providing the full board with more frequent briefings on university matters.

Board Chair Karen Peetz has said faculty are likely to join the 32-member board as non-voting advisory committee members. Students and staff may gain a similar role.


Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/12076/1217251-454-0.stm#ixzz1pJhNLk7G

Pensfan
03-16-2012, 05:46 PM
Rodney Erickson told the board of trustees this afternoon that the university is enhancing background checks for staff working with children and adding more staffers to oversee its compliance with various federal laws and NCAA rules.

He said Penn State will immediately retrieve keys, access cards and other property from people who aren’t formally associated with the university. Sandusky, charged with sexually assaulting youths on campus, had a key to the football building long after his 1999 retirement.
http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/form/s_001762.pdf


It's hard to believe these things have not been in place for decades. A humongous scandal from the suffering of young boys is what it takes to educate "the educated" about child predators. Good grief!

StellarsJay
03-16-2012, 06:11 PM
Recap: Was Baldwin ever an leader or just a tool?
url]www.centredaily.com/2012/01/20/3059397/trustees-warned-of-prior-probes.html#storylink=cpy[/url]
Interview with two trustees, pub Jan 20th:
UNIVERSITY PARK — Penn State’s in-house counsel told trustees last May that administrators didn’t think anything would come out of a grand jury investigating Jerry Sandusky because three prior grand juries never recommended charges against him.
That five-minute briefing, the first information trustees say they heard about the allegations of child sex abuse against the former defensive coordinator, was recounted Thursday by trustees Mark Dambly and Joel Myers during a 20-minute interview with the Centre Daily Times.
“We were told in May 2011 ... by Cynthia Baldwin this was the fourth grand jury that was convened. The prior three led to no charges,” Dambly said. He added the trustees were further told something like “ ‘We don’t think there’s anything that’s going to come of this.’ ”

The meeting in May 2011 came a little more than a month after The (Harrisburg) Patriot-News published the first report about Sandusky being the subject of a grand jury investigation.
The newspaper reported two separate incidents, one about a Clinton County boy who alleges Sandusky touched him inappropriately over four years, and another about Sandusky showering with a boy in 1998 on Penn State’s campus…
Furthermore, they said none of the trustees asked follow-up questions after being briefed…
Earlier this week, Penn State announced Baldwin will step down from her post as vice president, general counsel and chief legal officer. [vice president? How does this affect ethical roles?]The university created the position in January 2010 and Baldwin has held it since then, with a plan to step down once the office was established and a replacement found.

Lanny Davis interview pub Jan 18: http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/12018/1204208-143.stm?cmpid=education.xml
"Mr. Spanier and Cynthia Baldwin gave a briefing lasting under an hour regarding the status of the grand jury investigation but limited by the rules of grand jury secrecy,"
It's uncertain if Mr. Spanier informed trustees during the session about a 2002 campus allegation never reported to police that Mr. Sandusky had sexually assaulted a boy in a campus shower.
However, Mr. Davis said "it is my understanding that no one [at the meeting] can recall any mention of the 2002 incident." Let alone 1988, which Spanier knew about. So there were 3 incidents being talked about at the time and the only one trustees admit to hearing about was Clinton. The only thing they recall is a brief description of another investigation of Mr. Sandusky involving alleged misconduct at the Second Mile Foundation" that did not involve Penn State and occurred after Mr. Sandusky retired. Mr. Sandusky founded the nonprofit Second Mile for disadvantaged kids.
"It's my understanding that [trustees] were left with the impression that this was not a serious (campus) matter," he said. He said they apparently did not interpret the briefing as requiring follow-up and did not take further action.
Spanier knew about all three, maybe idn't tell Baldwin about 1998.And then there is Baldwin letting the grand Jury, Curley (and Schultz?) think she represented them because she didn’t want to correct it before the court. And lose her chance to watch what happened. I wouldn't envy her her current role, but I can’t find words for what I think of this woman's recent performance and ethics.

Hmph- Would be nice if one of the new employees suboenaed was Ms. Balwin.

Reader
03-16-2012, 07:59 PM
Recap: Was Baldwin ever an leader or just a tool?
url]www.centredaily.com/2012/01/20/3059397/trustees-warned-of-prior-probes.html#storylink=cpy[/url]
Interview with two trustees, pub Jan 20th:
UNIVERSITY PARK — Penn State’s in-house counsel told trustees last May that administrators didn’t think anything would come out of a grand jury investigating Jerry Sandusky because three prior grand juries never recommended charges against him.
That five-minute briefing, the first information trustees say they heard about the allegations of child sex abuse against the former defensive coordinator, was recounted Thursday by trustees Mark Dambly and Joel Myers during a 20-minute interview with the Centre Daily Times.
“We were told in May 2011 ... by Cynthia Baldwin this was the fourth grand jury that was convened. The prior three led to no charges,” Dambly said. He added the trustees were further told something like “ ‘We don’t think there’s anything that’s going to come of this.’ ”

The meeting in May 2011 came a little more than a month after The (Harrisburg) Patriot-News published the first report about Sandusky being the subject of a grand jury investigation.
The newspaper reported two separate incidents, one about a Clinton County boy who alleges Sandusky touched him inappropriately over four years, and another about Sandusky showering with a boy in 1998 on Penn State’s campus…
Furthermore, they said none of the trustees asked follow-up questions after being briefed…
Earlier this week, Penn State announced Baldwin will step down from her post as vice president, general counsel and chief legal officer. [vice president? How does this affect ethical roles?]The university created the position in January 2010 and Baldwin has held it since then, with a plan to step down once the office was established and a replacement found.

Lanny Davis interview pub Jan 18: http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/12018/1204208-143.stm?cmpid=education.xml
"Mr. Spanier and Cynthia Baldwin gave a briefing lasting under an hour regarding the status of the grand jury investigation but limited by the rules of grand jury secrecy,"
It's uncertain if Mr. Spanier informed trustees during the session about a 2002 campus allegation never reported to police that Mr. Sandusky had sexually assaulted a boy in a campus shower.
However, Mr. Davis said "it is my understanding that no one [at the meeting] can recall any mention of the 2002 incident." Let alone 1988, which Spanier knew about. So there were 3 incidents being talked about at the time and the only one trustees admit to hearing about was Clinton. The only thing they recall is a brief description of another investigation of Mr. Sandusky involving alleged misconduct at the Second Mile Foundation" that did not involve Penn State and occurred after Mr. Sandusky retired. Mr. Sandusky founded the nonprofit Second Mile for disadvantaged kids.
"It's my understanding that [trustees] were left with the impression that this was not a serious (campus) matter," he said. He said they apparently did not interpret the briefing as requiring follow-up and did not take further action.
Spanier knew about all three, maybe idn't tell Baldwin about 1988.And then there is Baldwin letting the grand Jury, Curley (and Schultz?) think she represented them because she didn’t want to correct it before the court. And lose her chance to watch what happened. I wouldn't envy her her current role, but I can’t find words for what I think of this woman's recent performance and ethics.

BBM....I'm sorry, I'm confused about the 1988 date...checked the timelines and don't see an incident listed for that year? TIA

StellarsJay
03-16-2012, 08:26 PM
Thanks, Reader- I should have typed 1998.

Reader
03-16-2012, 08:51 PM
Thanks, Reader- I should have typed 1998.

Thank you! At first I figured it was 1998 but when it was there 2 times, I started thinking this would be BIG if Spanier knew about another incident and did not report it.

And thank you for the articles on those meetings. It seems Baldwin and Spanier were really downplaying the GJ investigation to the trustees and led them to believe it would not involve the university and would all just go away.

I'm wondering now, why wasn't she fired?

J. J. in Phila
03-16-2012, 09:40 PM
And thank you for the articles on those meetings. It seems Baldwin and Spanier were really downplaying the GJ investigation to the trustees and led them to believe it would not involve the university and would all just go away.

I'm wondering now, why wasn't she fired?

My guess is that they feel she is well connected. She was a justice on the PA Supreme Court.

Reader
03-16-2012, 09:55 PM
My guess is that they feel she is well connected. She was a justice on the PA Supreme Court.

I knew that...but why would connections matter when the person is not doing the job they should be for the university?

Spanier was pretty connected also, and then Paterno had been there forever and was very revered in the state...

J. J. in Phila
03-17-2012, 12:34 AM
I knew that...but why would connections matter when the person is not doing the job they should be for the university?

Spanier was pretty connected also, and then Paterno had been there forever and was very revered in the state...

Neither is as well connected in legal circles.

J. J. in Phila
03-17-2012, 01:33 AM
Amendola back in curt, trying to get the documents: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120316_Sanduskys_attorney_seeks_records_of_accus ers.html

Tipstaff
03-17-2012, 10:14 AM
Amendola back in curt, trying to get the documents: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120316_Sanduskys_attorney_seeks_records_of_accus ers.html

The Sandusky/ Amendola plan for JS's defense is going to be put the victims on trial!

My hope is it will come back to bite Sandusky in the butt if these victims had problems AFTER being sexually assaulted by JS. The prosecution team needs to have a firm grasp of what happened to each of the victims after being "mentored" by JS.

pinktoes
03-17-2012, 10:38 AM
While Patty Fornicola was a victim's advocate in the Centre County DA's office, there was a second victim advocate there. That person had contact with victims following a criminal incident occurring but prior to filing of charges and who served as an advocate in juvenile cases.

Who was that?

(And, yes, I believe my question belongs here, not in the Gricar-disappearance thread. Please humor me for now.)

pinktoes
03-17-2012, 10:50 AM
IF a CYS case is opened, administrative law re those cases requires all records to be destroyed after 14 months if there's nothing to the charges.

More importantly, if someone actually charged with a crime (sex offense or any other) gets an ARD----all records of all court proceedings are expunged. Remember Christopher Lee and his ARD--given to him by Madeira?

Remember that Madeira is the champion of ARD procedures.

Remember what J Karen Arnold said at her Ladies and Gentlemen site?

"Significant changes occurred at the office fairly quickly following Ray’s disappearance in terms of previously-established policies and guidelines for case dispositions, as well as what was or was not appropriate for ARD disposition.

Ray was also firm about what was/was not appropriate for ARD disposition because completion of the program eliminates all record that the offense ever occurred."

Lance Marshall, later fired--by dragging-his-feet-on-it Madeira (2009) was the ADA in that office in 2005, and for many years. He tried the Vargas shaken-baby case.

Marshall, Madeira, Corbett--all pretty tight. Who else? Who might have been coming down the pipe for investigation in that office, his victim having come to the attention of the juvenile victim's advocate there? And who would have wanted that adult to be protected? At the very least to receive an ARD?

Or, who was already in the works for an ARD, but Ray adamantly opposing?

Did Ray move Patty out of her VA position into the safer clerical position there in order to protect her?

So many questions. So much time.

StellarsJay
03-17-2012, 12:02 PM
Sounds like three new jobs at Pen State:
Compliance Director, Clery Act Coordinator and a new staff person to deal with security in Intercollegiate Athletics.

http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/erickson-penn-state-to-hire-compliance-director-clery-act-coordinator-1026875/

Board reorganization:
http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/penn-state-trustees-overhaul-committee-structure-1027019/

J. J. in Phila
03-17-2012, 01:05 PM
While Patty Fornicola was a victim's advocate in the Centre County DA's office, there was a second victim advocate there. That person had contact with victims following a criminal incident occurring but prior to filing of charges and who served as an advocate in juvenile cases.

Who was that?

(And, yes, I believe my question belongs here, not in the Gricar-disappearance thread. Please humor me for now.)

I don't think either was there in 1998. I'm not certain that there was a V/WA position at that point.

From what I'd heard, they generally dealt with witnesses/victims after charges were filed and helped them with getting to court or compensation.

Further, at least according to Arnold (JKA), there was a month between the WVA position being open and Fornicola (PEF) taking it. It wasn't a quick move.

J. J. in Phila
03-17-2012, 01:17 PM
More importantly, if someone actually charged with a crime (sex offense or any other) gets an ARD----all records of all court proceedings are expunged. Remember Christopher Lee and his ARD--given to him by Madeira?


It depends. Conviction on some is an automatic Megan's List designation, so those would have to be dropped. Some of those related to 1998, would have been, even at the time.

ARD comes out as a result of being found guilt or a plea deal (possibly the latter).



Lance Marshall, later fired--by dragging-his-feet-on-it Madeira (2009) was the ADA in that office in 2005, and for many years. He tried the Vargas shaken-baby case.




Marshall, Madeira, Corbett--all pretty tight.


Marshall was appointed by Gricar and as far as I know, Marshall was not "tight" with Corbett. He had a fairly impressive trial record and from what I've heard, that is why Madeira retained him.

Madeira was however active in the GOP, including serving on the State Committee. He was (unlike Paterno) fairly powerful politically and Corbett needed all the support he could to win the AG nomination in 2004; that included the endorsement of the State Committee. Corbett's support for Madeira in 2005 and 2009 was not unexpected.

pinktoes
03-17-2012, 05:22 PM
JJ: I read somewhere that Corbett dropped the ball in terms of supporting Madeira in 2009. Know anything about that?

Russell Wantz is another guy who plead to a sex crime when he got caught up in the sting operation. Wantz got an ARD from Marisco in Dauphin County.

Personal opinion here: ARD is inappropriate for sex crime charges involving a child. You get accused of those--you defend yourself at trial. Sorry; no first time offender ARD. And, BTW, after your charges are expunged, exactly how is it determined that you're a first time offender later on, should you offend again? Is the entire state plugged in somehow to a "secret" set of files? The whole nation? Or does the investigator/prosecutor have to trudge thru internet caches like we do to pull up that stuff?

J. J. in Phila
03-17-2012, 07:40 PM
JJ: I read somewhere that Corbett dropped the ball in terms of supporting Madeira in 2009. Know anything about that?


He endorsed Madeira (MTM). That brought some criticism from the Democratic State Chair (Soles?) because of some of MTM's actions. There was l'affair Marshall and MTM didn't disclose some information in a murder trial (getting a conviction tossed). A laundry list of misrule is here: http://www.centredaily.com/2009/07/01/2396955/the-dueling-press-conferences.html

I think Corbett did as much in 2009 as he did in 2005; he may have helped with fundraising, though Parks-Miller did better. You have to give Corbett credit for loyalty; it was obvious MTM was going to have an uphill battle, but Corbett tried to help him.

As for the rest, the was no possibility for ARD because Sandusky was never charged.

pittsburghgirl
03-17-2012, 08:24 PM
There is no question that he should have been doing followup with Schultz and Curley. Beyond that, there is not too much more that could be done.

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 the university attorney or his own attorney. He could have called Sandusky and demanded to know the name and address of the boy who had been in the shower room. Then he could have called that child's parent. He could have called child welfare. What would any normal person do who heard from a subordinate that a child had been raped in the physical space he or she supervises?

And to say as you do later that Paterno had no political clout in PA is mind-boggling. That's like saying Dan Rooney has no political clout. You can't rewrite history, JJ. Had Paterno just been your ordinRy football coach, he would have been "retired" 15 years before Sandusky's scandal came out. He had clout at PSU and all over PA.

J. J. in Phila
03-17-2012, 08:38 PM
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?"


He could have called the university attorney or his own attorney.


Yes, he could have done follow through with Curley, Spanier, etc. That is where I fault him.


He could have called Sandusky and demanded to know the name and address of the boy who had been in the shower room. Then he could have called that child's parent.


Sandusky didn't work for him it the time. He didn't know who the child's parents were.


He could have called child welfare. What would any normal person do who heard from a subordinate that a child had been raped in the physical space he or she supervises?

Child welfare is the same with police; Paterno had no direct knowledge of the incident.

A normal person would report it to his superior, as both policy and as a matter of law. Paterno, however, was someone who had power withing the university. He should have done follow up.

pittsburghgirl
03-17-2012, 08:59 PM
JJ, read my post: I said that Paterno should have called Sandusky, or better yet, called him into the office and demanded to know the name of the boy. And if Sandusky didn't comply, he could have made it clear to PSU's police that Sandusky could have no access to PSU facilities, even if that meant security guards or whatever.

Are you really saying that Paterno or anyone else would have to SEE the rape before calling police or child welfare? Then Paterno should have had McQueary with him when he reported. This isn't rocket science. A child was raped. The people in power at PSU did nothing to find him or help him or prevent it from happening again.

A normal person would care more about the child who had been raped than about following the chain of command. A normal person would have also have set a proper example for McQueary and all of the other boys and young men with access to that facility. A normal person would have walked over to Sandusky's house and demanded answers. And the key to the football facility. Really.

Concerned Papa
03-17-2012, 10:58 PM
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 the university attorney or his own attorney. He could have called Sandusky and demanded to know the name and address of the boy who had been in the shower room. Then he could have called that child's parent. He could have called child welfare. What would any normal person do who heard from a subordinate that a child had been raped in the physical space he or she supervises?

And to say as you do later that Paterno had no political clout in PA is mind-boggling. That's like saying Dan Rooney has no political clout. You can't rewrite history, JJ. Had Paterno just been your ordinRy football coach, he would have been "retired" 15 years before Sandusky's scandal came out. He had clout at PSU and all over PA.

I agree with every word of your post and have posted my similar belief of what could, and should, have been done by Paterno to protect these children as well as the University he worked for.

Originally Posted by Concerned Papa
I respectfully submit that there was MUCH more that Joe Paterno could have, and should have done to protect these children. Starting with calling the local police and working his way all the way to calling the President of The United States, if that's what it took.

I'm betting he had their phone numbers.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7522480&postcount=243)

Aside from a moral duty to protect those children, Paterno and Penn State, each, had a problem with someone closely tied to their multi million dollar business interests. Why wouldn't he call the State Police or even the President for help?

J. J. in Phila
03-17-2012, 11:44 PM
JJ, read my post: I said that Paterno should have called Sandusky, or better yet, called him into the office and demanded to know the name of the boy. And if Sandusky didn't comply, he could have made it clear to PSU's police that Sandusky could have no access to PSU facilities, even if that meant security guards or whatever.


Pittsburghgirl, Paterno never had the authority to do any of that. He didn't have the authority to tell Sandusky not to use the facilities.


Are you really saying that Paterno or anyone else would have to SEE the rape before calling police or child welfare?


To be credible, yes. You can't call the police and say, "I heard that Jerry murdered someone or burglarized a house or raped someone, but I didn't see him do it and I don't know who he did it to."


Then Paterno should have had McQueary with him when he reported. This isn't rocket science. A child was raped. The people in power at PSU did nothing to find him or help him or prevent it from happening again.


Which he did do, when he reported it to Curley and Schultz. Paterno didn't see it. He can't tell if McQueary is reporting it accurately. He can only do follow up and say, "Did you investigate?" Now, I agree that he should have done that. I don't know if he would have gotten an honest answer.

You basically expect Paterno to be:

A. Head of every police force in PA.

B. Be able to unilaterally cancel contracts the University made.

C. Be able to determine that McQueary saw what he said he saw.

Reader
03-18-2012, 01:26 AM
I agree with every word of your post and have posted my similar belief of what could, and should, have been done by Paterno to protect these children as well as the University he worked for.



Aside from a moral duty to protect those children, Paterno and Penn State, each, had a problem with someone closely tied to their multi million dollar business interests. Why wouldn't he call the State Police or even the President for help?

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....

pittsburghgirl
03-18-2012, 01:57 AM
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
03-18-2012, 02:19 AM
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
03-18-2012, 04:03 AM
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:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 06:06 AM
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
03-18-2012, 08:37 AM
~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.

http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/PaternoandGeorgeBush.jpg

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-paterno-legendary-penn-state-football-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/college/football/story/2012-01-22/reaction-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.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky cover-up: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #8

pinktoes
03-18-2012, 09:35 AM
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
03-18-2012, 09:51 AM
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
03-18-2012, 10:17 AM
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
03-18-2012, 11:30 AM
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
03-18-2012, 11:58 AM
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. PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #9 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

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
03-18-2012, 12:20 PM
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
03-18-2012, 12:25 PM
Sara Ganim's latest article about the status of Louis Freeh's investigation:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/former_fbi_director_focuses_pe/3032/comments-2.html

Dr.Fessel
03-18-2012, 12:47 PM
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 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7584042#post7584042)



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
03-18-2012, 01:54 PM
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
03-18-2012, 02:00 PM
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
03-18-2012, 02:14 PM
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
03-18-2012, 02:16 PM
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
03-18-2012, 03:01 PM
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
03-18-2012, 03:25 PM
Sara Ganim's latest article about the status of Louis Freeh's investigation:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/former_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
03-18-2012, 03:46 PM
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.

pittsburghgirl
03-18-2012, 04:04 PM
We're back to the "witnesses" thing, as if the police officers listening in on a sting that produced no cofession to a crime are the same as witnesses to a crime and the in my opinion unbelievable assertion that the 1998 case is stronger than a rape case in 2002 where someone saw actual sexual assault on a child. The only reason anyone would make that argument is to pin the blame for Sandusky's later crimes on Ray Gricar, who is conveniently missing and cannot defend himself. If, as the feds seem to think, there was a coverup at Penn State, we will all find out that RG 's efforts were undermined by those who protected Sandusky from at least 1998 until the wheels fell off their wagon.

Let me also express my concern that regular posters shouldn't be telling other regular posters where to post. If pinktoes or anyone else can make a connection between Ray Gricar and this thread, that is what we are here for. In this case you looked like you were trying to shut pinktoes's line of thought down, which of course you would never do, being interested in the free exchange of ideas. We are all still at the beginning of a compicated puzzle.

pittsburghgirl
03-18-2012, 04:19 PM
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.)

The JKA connection is coming around again as the trial approaches and we may get to see why she was critical of the GJ process, why she disagreed with RG and what light that sheds on why Sandusky has been allowed to continue his terrible practices for so long.

I don't think clarifying any poster's relationship to people actually involved in the Sandusky case is inappropriate or doesn't belong on this thread. For my part: I have no relationship to anyone in the case. I never went to Penn State or lived in Centre County or knew RG or anyone in his family or in the DA's office. Just a WS poster with an interest in what happened to a public servant in my own state.

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 04:39 PM
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.


Good lord, he set up the sting, compiled a 90+ page report, and took it to the DA's Office in 1998. The DA didn't prosecute. The AG is using the report to prosecute now.

Sorry, but it is unrealistic to expect Schreffler to do more. He can't prosecute the case.

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 04:46 PM
The JKA connection is coming around again as the trial approaches and we may get to see why she was critical of the GJ process, why she disagreed with RG and what light that sheds on why Sandusky has been allowed to continue his terrible practices for so long.

I don't think clarifying any poster's relationship to people actually involved in the Sandusky case is inappropriate or doesn't belong on this thread. For my part: I have no relationship to anyone in the case. I never went to Penn State or lived in Centre County or knew RG or anyone in his family or in the DA's office. Just a WS poster with an interest in what happened to a public servant in my own state.


I think Pinktoes question has nothing to do with Sandusky, but if she wants to discuss it, it should be in the context that JKA referred to it and that I referred to it. That contexty is solely the Gricar case and those comments from JKA were made before Sandusky was even being investigated.

Now, he comments about the grand jury, or her recent comments about the Sandusky case, or my recent comments in that regard are fair game. My comments are completely positive to JKA, though I agree that we need more information.

pinktoes
03-18-2012, 05:09 PM
pittsburghgirl: I understand your rationale about JJ's position wrt the relative strengths of the 1998 vs 2002 incidents. And, thanks for giving me a bit of clarity on that.

For me, there's, perhaps, a bit more there. And JJ, unlike Gricar, IS here to present his own position. Here's the more part: in reading widely JJ's posts back over the last few years, before Sandusky ever was known about to the public, it often went thru my head, "JJ, why do you dislike Gricar so much?" Other posters raised similar issues. To many of us, that dislike is almost tangible, and words cannot deny it. So, I still wonder "why?" It seems personal to me, and I say that as someone who knows none of the cast of characters and lives out of state.

So, my further qualification of what you so nicely pulled together is that while JJ (or anyone else) might want to blame Gricar now for Sandusky's post 1998 rampage, JJ himself seems to have had something against Gricar before this became public. That could have to do with Sandusky--unbeknownst to us. Or not. For example, although I wouldn't know all the places to look for a police/arrest report on Sandusky, JJ might.

JJ can clarify if he hasn't lost patience with me by now. It's all very confusing and mystifying to me. And I'd like to learn more.

Rlaub44
03-18-2012, 05:12 PM
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:




How conveeeenient....

Thank you for fixing my link.

I'm not sure I understand your comment about the Paterno family's voluntary cooperation being "how conveeeeenient....". If they weren't cooperating, people would be clamoring that they were trying to hide something. Since they are fully cooperating, without "lawyering up" and waiting for a subpoena like the remainder of the case players, I would have thought that would have pleased Paterno's critics.

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 05:20 PM
pittsburghgirl: I understand your rationale about JJ's position wrt the relative strengths of the 1998 vs 2002 incidents. And, thanks for giving me a bit of clarity on that.

For me, there's, perhaps, a bit more there. And JJ, unlike Gricar, IS here to present his own position. Here's the more part: in reading widely JJ's posts back over the last few years, before Sandusky ever was known about to the public, it often went thru my head, "JJ, why do you dislike Gricar so much?" Other posters raised similar issues. To many of us, that dislike is almost tangible, and words cannot deny it. So, I still wonder "why?" It seems personal to me, and I say that as someone who knows none of the cast of characters and lives out of state.


People interpret dislike as, I don't agree with their theory. Some people also don't like the possibility that he walked away. That is the prevalent theory.

I do certainly think he was wrong not to prosecute the case in 1998.



So, my further qualification of what you so nicely pulled together is that while JJ (or anyone else) might want to blame Gricar now for Sandusky's post 1998 rampage, JJ himself seems to have had something against Gricar before this became public. That could have to do with Sandusky--unbeknownst to us. Or not. For example, although I wouldn't know all the places to look for a police/arrest report on Sandusky, JJ might.


:what:

Since their wasn't an investigation of Sandusky when I started posting on the Gricar case, the answer is "or not." For example, JKA's comments that you recently quoted were made in July 2007. Madeira turned the case over in Jan-March of 2009.



JJ can clarify if he hasn't lost patience with me by now. It's all very confusing and mystifying to me. And I'd like to learn more.

Since this is the Sandusky thread, the only relevant part of your comments relate to RFG decision not to prosecute the case in 1998.

pittsburghgirl
03-18-2012, 05:29 PM
Good lord, he [Schreffler] set up the sting, compiled a 90+ page report, and took it to the DA's Office in 1998. The DA didn't prosecute. The AG is using the report to prosecute now.

Sorry, but it is unrealistic to expect Schreffler to do more. He can't prosecute the case.

Not according to PennLive:

The travesty and tragedy of botched attempts to investigate Jerry Sandusky began in 1998.

Though the grand jury indictment includes four previous victims, an 11-year old boy in 1998 was the first to come forward. He is called Victim Six in the grand jury presentment.

The boy told police that Sandusky had showered naked with him. A second boy was in the showers at the time, but did not testify before the grand jury.

Then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar set up a sting in the mother’s home. Sandusky had requested to meet with the mom, and Gricar had officers hide in another room and listen to their conversation.

One of those officers was Detective Ron Schreffler, the lead investigator in the case. [Emphasis added]


http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html

New York Times:

Ray Gricar set up a sting for Sandusky at the 11-year-old's house, hiding officers in another room to eavesdrop as the boy's mom confronted Sandusky. According to court files, Sandusky asked the mother for forgiveness, saying: "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness from you. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."
Police eventually interviewed Sandusky, who admitted to hugging the boy while naked in the shower.
Ray Gricar didn't press charges. He didn't explain why, because in 1998 the media didn't know about that investigation.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/pennsylvania_state_university/index.html

I did re-visit the GJ presentment, which simply says that Schreffler and another officer were present during the sting and Gricar did not prosecute. And of course, RG is conveniently not around to clarify his role.

And as to the relative wonderfulness of 1998 vs. 2002, revisit CBS in New York, discussing the 2008 case:

The Clinton County teenager — Victim 1, as he would become known in the grand jury report made public in November 2011 — alleged that he first met Sandusky through the Second Mile when he was 11 or 12. Sandusky had indecently fondled him and performed oral sex on him, the boy said.
But prosecutors, lacking physical evidence of an assault, worried about the fortunes of a case that might end up with little more than competing claims — by the boy and by Sandusky. To make a charge stick, they concluded, they needed to explore whether one boy’s claims were merely one among others, perhaps many.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/17/kallas-analyzing-the-joe-paterno-interview/

Here, with a 2008 victim who was able to say he was indecently fondled and JS had "performed oral sex on him"; but without physical evidence they were worried that the "case that might end up with little more than competing claims — by the boy and by Sandusky." Which is a lot more than RG had with showering and hugging and a kid with wet hair. And NO WITNESSES as in 2000 and 2002.

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 05:30 PM
Pinktoes, I've rather specifically said that you can't blame Gricar for these other incidence, because, as far as we know, Gricar didn't know about them. There was never an investigation for any of these other cases, and many of them, including 1998, are weak.

pittsburghgirl
03-18-2012, 05:48 PM
pinktoes, I share your puzzlement about JJ's position regarding Ray Gricar, although I have not searched any further than what we have here on WS and JKA's "tome," which is a good word for that document. The efforts made to argue that RG is a walkaway requires a good bit of character assassination, in my view, because for someone to walk away and leave family and colleagues with a horrendous search and years of uncertainty indicates poor character at best. So while I disagree with JJ about "walkaway," I also notice what he needs to say about RG to make that argument stick. I am more in JKA's camp, that RG was pretty much a by-the-book kind of guy.

However, the need to argue that RG's decision not to prosecute in 1998 was not based on the weaknesses or merits of the case, but rather some unnamed motivation is where I make my stand. Objective investigators in the current case told the NY Times (links posted on the Gricar case) that whether or not to prosecute in 1998 was a close call. There is always in such cases the question of how well the victim will hold up through police interviews, community reactions and the hoopla of a major trial--because a PSU football coach being tried for child sexual abuse, even at the "hugging" and showering level, would have been huge news in 1998, when Sandusky was a hero.

And as you see in the link I posted above, current prosecutors NOW felt the need to make a case with multiple victims who can testify--even with a living eyewitness to rape (McQueary), a record of a 2000 eyewitness to oral rape who cannot testify (the janitor), and Schreffler's account of the 1998 sting. So there are many neutral sources that don't jump to any conclusions about Gricar in regard to 1998. We still don't know. The trial is sure to bring out more because everyone has to testify under oath. (Not to say that people can't lie, but they can be impeached based on other witnesses, GJ testimony, police statements, etc.)

That is not to say that the question of why RG didn't prosecute doesn't interest me or that I think he made the right call. We can certainly see that even just bringing charges might have made it harder for JS to continue his actions in Centre Co. But all that would have meant was that he would start up somewhere else once his ARD was over. Because without rape or physical evidence, that was the very best RG could have got in 1998, a guilty verdict or plea to some low-level offense like "corrupting the morals" followed by ARD and expungement. But for me, the insistence on the 1998 case as the best one is a clear anti-Gricar position. There's no reason to make that argument unless it is to vilify RG.

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 05:50 PM
Not according to PennLive:



Yes according to Post Gazette:

Retired University Park Detective Ronald Schreffler believed he had enough evidence in 1998 to charge then-Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky with something after the man admitted to a boy's mother to showering naked with her son.

"At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors," Mr. Schreffler said on Wednesday, the day after Mr. Sandusky chose to waive his preliminary hearing on 52 counts that accuse him of molesting 10 boys over the last several years.


Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm#ixzz1pVTgJCSh

Now, let's be blunt about two several things:

1. Schreffler didn't speak until after the preliminary hearing, so he didn't provide any information to the earlier articles.

2. That has been posted, first by another poster, and you have read it and referred to it.

3. Schreffler has a good reputation as a police officer. JKA posted, prior to this coming out, called him, "a truly top-notch investigator." His report was considered outstanding by the current investigators. I, from what I can tell, agree with these assessments.

1998 was not a rape case, but the charges are serious and include 4 felonies. If Sandusky is convicted on at least one felony, he will be placed on Megan's List, and would have been at the time. It is the one where Sandusky admitted to his action, in front of witnesses.

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 05:54 PM
That is not to say that the question of why RG didn't prosecute doesn't interest me or that I think he made the right call. We can certainly see that even just bringing charges might have made it harder for JS to continue his actions in Centre Co. But all that would have meant was that he would start up somewhere else once his ARD was over. Because without rape or physical evidence, that was the very best RG could have got in 1998, a guilty verdict or plea to some low-level offense like "corrupting the morals" followed by ARD and expungement. But for me, the insistence on the 1998 case as the best one is a clear anti-Gricar position.

As I just noted, there are four felonies in the 1998 incident (Victim 6) and, IIRC, conviction on any of them would land Sandusky on Megan's list, and I believe would have in 1998.

Now, if you want to claim that it is okay to let someone inappropriately touching a child to walk around until he does something worse, be my guest. That is, however, what you are claiming.

Concerned Papa
03-18-2012, 06:11 PM
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

pinktoes, I'm trying to understand a little about your post and link.

-Who is JKA and what is this link?

-I read through it, and it appears to be someone's analysis of posters on a forum?

-Is the author part of the prosecutor's office?

Thanks for any explanation you could offer.

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 06:35 PM
pinktoes, I'm trying to understand a little about your post and link.

-Who is JKA and what is this link?

-I read through it, and it appears to be someone's analysis of posters on a forum?

-Is the author part of the prosecutor's office?

Thanks for any explanation you could offer.

Karen Arnold was an ADA from 1988-2005, who, starting at some point in 1998, handled all the child abuse cases. She ran for DA in 2005, losing to Madeira, losing about 43% to 54% (there was an undervote).

When Madeira was sworn in, he did not renew her position.

She posted Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury in July of 2007, which had the unintended effect of making me prominent in the Gricar case (people now sometimes return my e-mails). It is a fairly good source of background information, and I do cite it.

She ran again in 2009 and got less than 20% in a three way primary; Parks Miller got in excess of 50% of the vote. In the general, she endorsed Madeira, who lost 35% to 64%.

She was called before the grand jury, possibly in March of 2011, relating to the 1998 incident. She did not handle it, but in filings there was an indication that JKA had "extensive disagreements" in 1998 over how RFG handled the case. The blog I just cited gives that information in greater detail.

pittsburghgirl
03-18-2012, 06:43 PM
Yes according to Post Gazette:

Retired University Park Detective Ronald Schreffler believed he had enough evidence in 1998 to charge then-Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky with something after the man admitted to a boy's mother to showering naked with her son.

"At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors," Mr. Schreffler said on Wednesday, the day after Mr. Sandusky chose to waive his preliminary hearing on 52 counts that accuse him of molesting 10 boys over the last several years.


Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm#ixzz1pVTgJCSh

Now, let's be blunt about two several things:

1. Schreffler didn't speak until after the preliminary hearing, so he didn't provide any information to the earlier articles.

2. That has been posted, first by another poster, and you have read it and referred to it.

3. Schreffler has a good reputation as a police officer. JKA posted, prior to this coming out, called him, "a truly top-notch investigator." His report was considered outstanding by the current investigators. I, from what I can tell, agree with these assessments.

1998 was not a rape case, but the charges are serious and include 4 felonies. If Sandusky is convicted on at least one felony, he will be placed on Megan's List, and would have been at the time. It is the one where Sandusky admitted to his action, in front of witnesses.

I don't know what you mean by "That" has been posted. Have I read the article? Yes. What you have above does not state that Schreffler set up the sting. For those who are interested, then, you need to read the whole article. In it, Schreffler takes 100% of the credit and the whole piece is told from his point of view. Now, that could be the result of poor reporting or just the natural tendency people have to take full credit for whatever happens. But at best, we have two very reliable sources saying something different. And, as always, RG is conveniently not here to tell things from his perspective.

Charges are one thing. Police officers always want charges. Prosecutors want convictions. Hence, disagreement.

I have no reason to think anything negative of Officer Schreffler. It does seem, however, that there must be people involved with the case who see RG as being the initiator of the sting, people sufficiently knowledgeable for the Patriot-News and NY Times to accept their version. And no one in 2011 has any reason to give RG credit for anything, as he (like Paterno, at this point) is not here to defend himself. It seems likely to me that both RG and Schreffler were trying to nail Sandusky RG decided not to press charges.

pittsburghgirl
03-18-2012, 06:56 PM
As I just noted, there are four felonies in the 1998 incident (Victim 6) and, IIRC, conviction on any of them would land Sandusky on Megan's list, and I believe would have in 1998.

Now, if you want to claim that it is okay to let someone inappropriately touching a child to walk around until he does something worse, be my guest. That is, however, what you are claiming.

No. I am not. I am arguing, as you know, about a legal process, not morality or street justice. Just as I don't "claim" it's all right for suspected murderers to walk around, e.g., Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson, when prosecutions fail. But when a prosecutor brings charges and prosecutes, as I have said to you before, he or she had better get a conviction or that case is gone forever and the guilty walk. In this country, we don't put people in prison just because we suspect them of being pedophiles or murderers or thieves--at least, that is supposed to be the case. There is a process by which guilt is determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that Jerry Sandusky and a high-price defense attorney would have trouble taking apart a young boy on the stand? Eh? How many parents quit on prosecutions because their kids are taunted by others in the community because they must publicly talk about sexual touching and the like? And of course we have yet to learn whether PSU or some other entity covered up the case in 1998 in some way. That's what the feds are looking at.

Now, once there were eyewitnesses to RAPE--now in 2000 and 2002 Schreffler or whoever would have had lots to work with, including a pattern that spanned 4 years and a shot at getting warrants to look at Second Mile. But then--no one reported that. And child rape? Sandusky spends the rest of his life in prison, if all goes well in court.

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 07:04 PM
I don't know what you mean by "That" has been posted. Have I read the article? Yes. What you have above does not state that Schreffler set up the sting. For those who are interested, then, you need to read the whole article. In it, Schreffler takes 100% of the credit and the whole piece is told from his point of view. Now, that could be the result of poor reporting or just the natural tendency people have to take full credit for whatever happens. But at best, we have two very reliable sources saying something different. And, as always, RG is conveniently not here to tell things from his perspective.


The article and the link. We have no reliable sources saying anything different. We have the investigator, widely praised, the various references to his report. We have an early report where some of thios information is unavailbe.

Are you suggesting that Schreffler isn't honest? Remember, he will be a key witness against Sandusky.

Charges are one thing. Police officers always want charges. Prosecutors want convictions. Hence, disagreement.


No disagreement from the AG; they charged on the same incident with less evidence.

Perhaps the question should be why RFG didn't prosecute in this circumstance?

I have no reason to think anything negative of Officer Schreffler. It does seem, however, that there must be people involved with the case who see RG as being the initiator of the sting, people sufficiently knowledgeable for the Patriot-News and NY Times to accept their version. And no one in 2011 has any reason to give RG credit for anything, as he (like Paterno, at this point) is not here to defend himself. It seems likely to me that both RG and Schreffler were trying to nail Sandusky RG decided not to press charges.

Actually, no one from the NYT story was the actual investigator. Then we have JKA's "disagreements."

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 07:13 PM
No. I am not. I am arguing, as you know, about a legal process, not morality or street justice. Just as I don't "claim" it's all right for suspected murderers to walk around, e.g., Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson, when prosecutions fail.


You just cited two cases where a prosecutor tried. I wouldn't be critical of RFG if he tried. Keep in mind that a County DA may get a grand jury empanneled to further investigate. RFG didn't try that either.


Now, once there were eyewitnesses to RAPE--now in 2000 and 2002 Schreffler or whoever would have had lots to work with, including a pattern that spanned 4 years and a shot at getting warrants to look at Second Mile. But then--no one reported that. And child rape? Sandusky spends the rest of his life in prison, if all goes well in court.

I don't care how much or how little time Sandusky gets, so long as he can't be around children. That protects children (though jail is the best way to guarantee that).

When you talk about the long jail sentence, you miss the point that had Sandusky been prosecuted in 1998-2002, and convicted, he would not be able to be around children. Second Mile would never, after that, let him be around children, for liability purposes.

Prosecuting Sandusky then would have taken away the opportunity for him to do anything in the future. It might have even been possible for him to get psychological help.

Reader
03-18-2012, 07:16 PM
Thank you for fixing my link.

I'm not sure I understand your comment about the Paterno family's voluntary cooperation being "how conveeeeenient....". If they weren't cooperating, people would be clamoring that they were trying to hide something. Since they are fully cooperating, without "lawyering up" and waiting for a subpoena like the remainder of the case players, I would have thought that would have pleased Paterno's critics.

I say that because without a subpeona there is no oversight in the process of the family handing over materials requested. They could say 'such n such' doesn't exist or they can't find it and no one is the wiser. I have nothing against the family but I think their front-end cooperating could be a way to control these materials and conceal anything they think would bring harm to Paterno's legacy and reputation. IMO

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 07:35 PM
Thank you for fixing my link.

I'm not sure I understand your comment about the Paterno family's voluntary cooperation being "how conveeeeenient....". If they weren't cooperating, people would be clamoring that they were trying to hide something. Since they are fully cooperating, without "lawyering up" and waiting for a subpoena like the remainder of the case players, I would have thought that would have pleased Paterno's critics.

I think, from a public relations standpoint, you are absolutely correct.

pinktoes
03-18-2012, 07:39 PM
You know, the AG now has a fist full of charges, all various sexual assaults to charge Sandusky with. So far as I know, from 1998 thru the day Gricar disappeared, he had ONE incident and several related charges based on it.

There's a world of difference between those two legal scenarios. And it makes all the difference.

Can you imagine, in 1998, with Sandusky still a coach--or even if PSU booted him by the time it came to trial or pleading down to an ARD--he would be a very recently booted out coach. That, too, would've made it more difficult to do much with him in 1998.

And, realistically, look at all the people of influence who would have had a better chance of pulling strings for Sandusky with that one 1998 charge. VS now, when it's very hard to say, well, he made one mistake---blah, blah, blah.

I imagine that JKA, who liked doing child abuse cases, might have wanted charges against JS in 1998. I imagine that Gricar, as the DA, although torn about it (a "close-call"), knew the political and other powerful influences he'd be up against. And decided to try to wait for the equivalent of what's being charged now.

And don't tell me Gricar had no reason to believe this wasn't a pattern of behavior on JS' part. It was known. He knew more victims would turn up.

And, BTW, I had no theories about what happened to Gricar before I started reading all the old posts--which was after Nov, 2011. So, when I say I sense JJ's dislike for Gricar in old posts, it is NOT because he disagrees with my theory about Gricar. It's just how your old posts came across, JJ. And, further, there's nothing wrong with disliking someone. There are people I dislike and I've never even met them. It happens. It just makes people take note and factor that in as they judge the impartiality of your argument.

Dr.Fessel
03-18-2012, 08:03 PM
You know, the AG now has a fist full of charges, all various sexual assaults to charge Sandusky with. So far as I know, from 1998 thru the day Gricar disappeared, he had ONE incident and several related charges based on it.

There's a world of difference between those two legal scenarios. And it makes all the difference.

Can you imagine, in 1998, with Sandusky still a coach--or even if PSU booted him by the time it came to trial or pleading down to an ARD--he would be a very recently booted out coach. That, too, would've made it more difficult to do much with him in 1998.

And, realistically, look at all the people of influence who would have had a better chance of pulling strings for Sandusky with that one 1998 charge. VS now, when it's very hard to say, well, he made one mistake---blah, blah, blah.

I imagine that JKA, who liked doing child abuse cases, might have wanted charges against JS in 1998. I imagine that Gricar, as the DA, although torn about it (a "close-call"), knew the political and other powerful influences he'd be up against. And decided to try to wait for the equivalent of what's being charged now.

And don't tell me Gricar had no reason to believe this wasn't a pattern of behavior on JS' part. It was known. He knew more victims would turn up.

And, BTW, I had no theories about what happened to Gricar before I started reading all the old posts--which was after Nov, 2011. So, when I say I sense JJ's dislike for Gricar in old posts, it is NOT because he disagrees with my theory about Gricar. It's just how your old posts came across, JJ. And, further, there's nothing wrong with disliking someone. There are people I dislike and I've never even met them. It happens. It just makes people take note and factor that in as they judge the impartiality of your argument.

Who knows what a grand jury might have turned up in 1998.

Who knows what a handful of state investigators might have turned up then/

Nobody knows because they dropped it, kept it all quite and swept under the rug.

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 08:09 PM
You know, the AG now has a fist full of charges, all various sexual assaults to charge Sandusky with. So far as I know, from 1998 thru the day Gricar disappeared, he had ONE incident and several related charges based on it.



He had two, Victim 6 and B. K. B. K isn't available today.

There's a world of difference between those two legal scenarios. And it makes all the difference.


Each charge must be proved separately and, as noted, some of them are very weak. I fully expect Sandusky to be found not guilty on a few.

Can you imagine, in 1998, with Sandusky still a coach--or even if PSU booted him by the time it came to trial or pleading down to an ARD--he would be a very recently booted out coach. That, too, would've made it more difficult to do much with him in 1998.


Remember that charges could still be filed at any point after that; the statute of limitation still hasn't been hit.

And, realistically, look at all the people of influence who would have had a better chance of pulling strings for Sandusky with that one 1998 charge. VS now, when it's very hard to say, well, he made one mistake---blah, blah, blah.

I imagine that JKA, who liked doing child abuse cases, might have wanted charges against JS in 1998. I imagine that Gricar, as the DA, although torn about it (a "close-call"), knew the political and other powerful influences he'd be up against. And decided to try to wait for the equivalent of what's being charged now.


If you wish to claim, as you do here that RFG's decision was part of the "culture of cover up" at Penn State, feel free. But remember, you are the one claiming it.

And don't tell me Gricar had no reason to believe this wasn't a pattern of behavior on JS' part. It was known. He knew more victims would turn up.


You can't prosecute on rumors.



And, BTW, I had no theories about what happened to Gricar before I started reading all the old posts--which was after Nov, 2011. So, when I say I sense JJ's dislike for Gricar in old posts, it is NOT because he disagrees with my theory about Gricar. It's just how your old posts came across, JJ. And, further, there's nothing wrong with disliking someone. There are people I dislike and I've never even met them. It happens. It just makes people take note and factor that in as they judge the impartiality of your argument.

Such as? Here is one you might want to read: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/08/27/2397563/the-legacy-of-district-attorney.html

RFG's decision in the Sandusky case was a horrifically bad one, but it was also an uncharacteristically bad one.

Reader
03-18-2012, 08:34 PM
He had two, Victim 6 and B. K. B. K isn't available today.



Each charge must be proved separately and, as noted, some of them are very weak. I fully expect Sandusky to be found not guilty on a few.



Remember that charges could still be filed at any point after that; the statute of limitation still hasn't been hit.



If you wish to claim, as you do here that RFG's decision was part of the "culture of cover up" at Penn State, feel free. But remember, you are the one claiming it.



You can't prosecute on rumors.



Such as? Here is one you might want to read:http://www.centredaily.com/2010/08/27/2397563/the-legacy-of-district-attorney.html

RFG's decision in the Sandusky case was a horrifically bad one, but it was also an uncharacteristically bad one.

Makes you wonder if there was some outside influence on him in that decision...

pinktoes
03-18-2012, 09:00 PM
JJ: you totally misunderstood me. I think perhaps Gricar was realistically assessing just how far he'd get in a courtroom--and outside of a courtroom--going up against all the power brokers and politicians in that town, from 1998 thru 2005 with that 1998 incident. I think he was hoping to build a stronger case, with more victims. Perhaps 10 was his trigger. IDK

I do know that community has some people much more influential than Gricar, who, collectively, didn't need his help in covering up Sandusky's crimes. I see him on the opposite side of them. Just so you're not twisting my words.

The coverup worked a long time. And the feds will hopefully find out the mechanics of that. We're not going to here.

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 09:20 PM
[/B]

Makes you wonder if there was some outside influence on him in that decision...

RFG's record, apart from this case, was good. He prosecuted cases that, looking at them from the outside, were far more flimsy that Sandusky. He lost a high profile rape trial in 2002-03 against a Penn State football player, one that was controversial and that involved Paterno. Paterno let the suspect suit up for a bowl game and that produced controversy. RFG lost the case, but he tried to win it. He didn't drop it on a staffer; he personally prosecuted.

He was a tough prosecutor for the most part. There were a few cases like, almost impossible from the start, but he pressed forward. Even Schrieffer said that he was a top notch prosecutor.

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 09:27 PM
JJ: you totally misunderstood me. I think perhaps Gricar was realistically assessing just how far he'd get in a courtroom--and outside of a courtroom--going up against all the power brokers and politicians in that town, from 1998 thru 2005 with that 1998 incident. I think he was hoping to build a stronger case, with more victims. Perhaps 10 was his trigger. IDK

I do know that community has some people much more influential than Gricar, who, collectively, didn't need his help in covering up Sandusky's crimes. I see him on the opposite side of them. Just so you're not twisting my words.

The coverup worked a long time. And the feds will hopefully find out the mechanics of that. We're not going to here.

I'm not twisting your words, because you just repeated them. You are saying that, when faced with force, he backed off. That is being part of the culture of cover up (and, if so, he certainly was not alone). I hope that is not the case.

As for trying to find more victims, as noted, he had the ability to call a grand jury. He'd have to go to court and get a judge's approval, but it would have been likely to be granted. He didn't. We can rule that out.

Rlaub44
03-18-2012, 09:44 PM
I say that because without a subpeona there is no oversight in the process of the family handing over materials requested. They could say 'such n such' doesn't exist or they can't find it and no one is the wiser. I have nothing against the family but I think their front-end cooperating could be a way to control these materials and conceal anything they think would bring harm to Paterno's legacy and reputation. IMO

If there ever came a time that investigators suspected that the family was not being forthcoming, the subpoena would quickly follow. If they haven't received a subpoena, it would seem that they willingly offered to provide whatever was needed up front, to the satisfaction of those leading the investigation.

I'm going to give the Paterno family the benefit of the doubt for the time being; I understand if others might be skeptical, but I certainly prefer the idea of their cooperation instead of stonewalling.

On another note, I'm having a hard time imagining what relevant documents Joe Paterno could have maintained. Any employment materials regarding Sandusky would have been maintained at the administrative level, there has been no suggestion of any written reports that would have been shared with Paterno, and if there was an organized cover-up, as has been hinted, one certainly wouldn't maintain written documentation about it.

Can anyone else think of what relevant materials investigators might hope to find from Joe Paterno's personal records?

J. J. in Phila
03-18-2012, 10:15 PM
.

Can anyone else think of what relevant materials investigators might hope to find from Joe Paterno's personal records?

Personnel reports? He was Sandusky's supervisor. Personal e-mails/letters? Maybe with some reference to watch Sandusky. Travel schedules?

Concerned Papa
03-18-2012, 10:15 PM
If there ever came a time that investigators suspected that the family was not being forthcoming, the subpoena would quickly follow. If they haven't received a subpoena, it would seem that they willingly offered to provide whatever was needed up front, to the satisfaction of those leading the investigation.

I'm going to give the Paterno family the benefit of the doubt for the time being; I understand if others might be skeptical, but I certainly prefer the idea of their cooperation instead of stonewalling.

On another note, I'm having a hard time imagining what relevant documents Joe Paterno could have maintained. Any employment materials regarding Sandusky would have been maintained at the administrative level, there has been no suggestion of any written reports that would have been shared with Paterno, and if there was an organized cover-up, as has been hinted, one certainly wouldn't maintain written documentation about it.

Can anyone else think of what relevant materials investigators might hope to find from Joe Paterno's personal records? BBM

IDK, but I would think the investigators would want to take a look at the financial records for any of his co mingled business deals with PSU and/or TSM people such as Pinnacle Development. Seems I remember there were also some convenience stores.

Reader
03-18-2012, 10:35 PM
Personnel reports? He was Sandusky's supervisor. Personal e-mails/letters? Maybe with some reference to watch Sandusky. Travel schedules?

Pictures of JS with the kids he brought on those trips, at dinners, meeting the football players...those were some of his draws for the boys.

Pensfan
03-18-2012, 11:14 PM
If there ever came a time that investigators suspected that the family was not being forthcoming, the subpoena would quickly follow. If they haven't received a subpoena, it would seem that they willingly offered to provide whatever was needed up front, to the satisfaction of those leading the investigation.

I'm going to give the Paterno family the benefit of the doubt for the time being; I understand if others might be skeptical, but I certainly prefer the idea of their cooperation instead of stonewalling.

On another note, I'm having a hard time imagining what relevant documents Joe Paterno could have maintained. Any employment materials regarding Sandusky would have been maintained at the administrative level, there has been no suggestion of any written reports that would have been shared with Paterno, and if there was an organized cover-up, as has been hinted, one certainly wouldn't maintain written documentation about it.

Can anyone else think of what relevant materials investigators might hope to find from Joe Paterno's personal records?
bbm

Here is one thing. They are searching for letters/emails to try to prove that money was donated to Penn State by Jerry’s friends, so Jerry the perv could retain his special campus privileges (his locker room key and office) after he was told to not bring boys onto the campus (because he was a perv/showered with boys).

Concerned Papa
03-19-2012, 09:29 AM
Aside from being a legendary "Rah Rah, Go Team Go" football coach, Joe Paterno was in charge of a $70 million dollar per year business making a profit of over $50 MILLION each year. Now, instead of Joe Paterno running a football business with income relying heavily on alumni and supporter's remembrance of the "Glory Years" and their defensive guru, Ole Jer, let's pretend that Joe Paterno ran a Widget factory with the same astronomical revenue and profit numbers. For running this Widget factory, let's also say Joe Paterno, personally, made the same $1 MILLION per year in salary as he was making with the football team.

In our scenario let's pretend that one of Joe's up and coming management trainees came to his house one morning and told him that he had observed this Widget factory's legendary top producer in an "extremely sexual situation" at the company's headquarters with a TEN YEAR OLD CHILD! In fairness, we've also got to remember that a janitor in the company building had told of seeing the same "Widget King", loved by all of America, performing oral sex on ANOTHER child, two years earlier!

What should Joe Paterno, the Widget factory manager, do since he had't personally seen any of this? If this wasn't handled properly, and word got out, sales would almost surely plummet! Forget for a moment the morally bankrupt absence of concern for the child, what would be the most prudent course of action for Joe, the Widget factory manager, to take in order to maintain his fiduciary responsibility to the company and it's Board of Directors?

Would reporting the matter to Sargent Shultz, head of the parking lot guards, be enough? Would reporting a matter that could jeopardize MILLLIONS of dollars to someone with ZERO training or experience in investigative procedure be the wise and prudent way to find the truth? Would Joe, the Widget factory manager, reporting this potentially financially devastating situation directly to upper levels of government Law Enforcement to investigate for the truth, really be the most prudent course of action?

As I said, forget the child. If there's one thing that's obvious in this situation, NO ONE at the Widget factory OR Penn State University took any action for the child up to and including even finding out his name.

Now back to Joe at the Widget factory and his dilemma. Since no plan of action could realistically be formed until the TRUTH regarding this "Widget King's" acts was determined, why didn't they consider spending relative chump change to hire a top level private investigative firm to find the truth? If the accusations were untrue, the matter would have stayed in house. If the accusations were true, and with a prompt and decisive response to Law Enforcement, instead of financial devastation Joe and the Widget factory could have become heroes to every parent in America. Think of all the widgets they would have sold then!

There's only one reason that makes any sense. Joe Paterno and the rest of these people already knew the truth about this monster and had been covering it up for many years. Now the monster is devouring them all, one by one.

J. J. in Phila
03-19-2012, 10:35 AM
Aside from being a legendary "Rah Rah, Go Team Go" football coach, Joe Paterno was in charge of a $70 million dollar per year business making a profit of over $50 MILLION each year. Now, instead of Joe Paterno running a football business with income relying heavily on alumni and supporter's remembrance of the "Glory Years" and their defensive guru, Ole Jer, let's pretend that Joe Paterno ran a Widget factory with the same astronomical revenue and profit numbers. For running this Widget factory, let's also say Joe Paterno, personally, made the same $1 MILLION per year in salary as he was making with the football team.


First, let's say that it was, senior executive Joe, who had to answer to the VP in charge of manufacturing and the CEO. That is a closer analogy.


In our scenario let's pretend that one of Joe's up and coming management trainees came to his house one morning and told him that he had observed this Widget factory's legendary top producer in an "extremely sexual situation" at the company's headquarters with a TEN YEAR OLD CHILD! In fairness, we've also got to remember that a janitor in the company building had told of seeing the same "Widget King", loved by all of America, performing oral sex on ANOTHER child, two years earlier!


First, take out the janitor part, because that was never reported. Second, note that it is a retired top producer, who is now effectively under the jurisdiction of the VP in charge of manufacturing.


What should Joe Paterno, the Widget factory manager, do since he had't personally seen any of this? If this wasn't handled properly, and word got out, sales would almost surely plummet! Forget for a moment the morally bankrupt absence of concern for the child, what would be the most prudent course of action for Joe, the Widget factory manager, to do in order to maintain his fiduciary responsibility to the company and it's Board of Directors?


Report it, and then do a followup to see if the matter was taken care of.

Would reporting the matter to Sargent Shultz, head of the parking lot guards, be enough?


It probably would have been taken to internal security, but he the analogy ends. Internal security doesn't have actual LE authority. So let's say their head of local security is also the mayor of the town where the factory is located, and, as such, head of the local police force (which is the case in PA boroughs). That is the proper analogy.

I'd fully expect that security head/mayor to call in his police chief and say, "I think you should be investigating this." I'd also expect Joe to ask the VP of production what has been done.

Concerned Papa
03-19-2012, 11:03 AM
~Snipped~

First, let's say that it was, senior executive Joe, who had to answer to the VP in charge of manufacturing and the CEO. That is a closer analogy.


I'd also expect Joe to ask the VP of production what has been done.

BBM

Sure, whatever you say :floorlaugh:

Paterno's doorbell rang Nov. 21, 2004 -- a Sunday -- only one sunrise separating the coach from the conclusion of a 4-7 football season. Four high-ranking Penn State officials, including university president Graham Spanier and athletic director Tim Curley, walked into Paterno's home and told him, for the second time in less than two weeks, that they wished him to stop coaching, either at that minute or very soon.

Curley, Spanier and the others arrived with a message they had heard from many. The 2004 season convinced legions that Paterno was instinctively driving his program to its grave. For the first time, folks spotted the coach's sincere, growling confidence and figured it the root of his decay.

The four men who arranged the meeting with Paterno spoke first.

Recalled Paterno during a recent interview: "The direction they wanted to take was, 'Maybe it's time to go, Joe. You ought to think about getting out of it.' I had not intended to discuss that with them, because I felt I would know when to get out of it."

So Paterno, speaking to the four school officials only briefly that day, stressed several things. He refused to quit

Paterno said. "They didn't quite understand where I was coming from or what it took to get a football program going. ... I said, 'Relax. Get off my backside.' "

"I was able to say [to the administrators], 'Stay over there.' " Paterno pushed his hands away from his body -- an illustrative shooing motion.

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/05359/627761-143.stm

J. J. in Phila
03-19-2012, 11:47 AM
BBM

Sure, whatever you say :floorlaugh:

That didn't mean that, in 2002, he could order other people around. Paterno's strength was that he said, **You can get rid of me, but I won't raise another dollar for the University.**

Paterno contributed a lot of his personal funds to the PSU, and raised a lot more. (And, bluntly, he did a lot of good in that respect.) While Sandusky didn't, people at Second Mile did as well. And Sandusky, in 2002, was the power in Second Mile.

Concerned Papa
03-19-2012, 12:09 PM
That didn't mean that, in 2002, he could order other people around. Paterno's strength was that he said, **You can get rid of me, but I won't raise another dollar for the University.**

Paterno contributed a lot of his personal funds to the PSU, and raised a lot more. (And, bluntly, he did a lot of good in that respect.) While Sandusky didn't, people at Second Mile did as well. And Sandusky, in 2002, was the power in Second Mile.

So you're saying his power to order the University President and Athletic Director was non existent in 2002, but was in place for the meeting where they tried to fire him in 2004?

Ok. Must have been the football team's record that brought about that metoric increase in Joe's authority. IDK, guess a combined won-loss record of 16 wins and 20 loses between 2002 and 2004 must have been just the trick.

2002, 9-4
2003, 3-9
2004, 4-7

Funny how little it takes to be able to say things like "Get off my backside" and "Stay over there" to your bosses, huh?

J. J. in Phila
03-19-2012, 12:41 PM
So you're saying his power to order the University President and Athletic Director was non existent in 2002, but was in place for the meeting where they tried to fire him in 2004?


I'm saying the full "power" he had was to threaten to quit and not raise funds. He used it a couple of times, according to reports.



Funny how little it takes to be able to say things like "Get off my backside" and "Stay over there" to your bosses, huh?

When they ask you to retire, and they are not willing to fire you, you can say just about anything to them.

Concerned Papa
03-19-2012, 02:08 PM
I'm saying the full "power" he had was to threaten to quit and not raise funds. He used it a couple of times, according to reports.


When they ask you to retire, and they are not willing to fire you, you can say just about anything to them.

Sure, and the conversation between Spanier and Curley probably went something like this as they approached Paterno’s door:

“YOU tell him”

“NO, YOU tell him”

“I’m not gonna tell him, he might fire ME”

“Tell ya what, let’s try ASKING him real nice, OK?”

“Good idea! Think he’ll fall for it?”

“I don’t know, just be ready to get the heck out of there!"

:floorlaugh:

Dr.Fessel
03-19-2012, 02:17 PM
Sure, and the conversation between Spanier and Curley probably went something like this as they approached Paterno’s door:

“YOU tell him”

“NO, YOU tell him”

“I’m not gonna tell him, he might fire ME”

“Tell ya what, let’s try ASKING him real nice, OK?”

“Good idea! Think he’ll fall for it?”

“I don’t know, just be ready to get the heck out of there!

:floorlaugh:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

pinktoes
03-19-2012, 02:35 PM
Dr F and Concerned PaPa: you're killing me! Love your humor.

Didn't William Schreyer go along on that trip to JoePa's house that day?

Concerned Papa
03-19-2012, 02:38 PM
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Reading between the lines, the conversation sounds like it was kinda one sided and BRIEF, LOL

Paterno, speaking to the four school officials only briefly that day, stressed several things

"That's all I said to them," Paterno said.

I said, "Relax. Get off my backside."

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/05359/627761-143.stm

Good thing Joe didn't have any power, huh?

al66pine
03-19-2012, 02:46 PM
Concerned Papa #475 linked 2005 Post-Gazette story, stating:

He never read a single e-mail that rolled into his university-issued account. He has maintained rules for everything, refusing the notion that time ought to change his principles.

Read more: http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/05359/627761-143.stm#ixzz1paWZzdCu

Of course, the he-never-read-email statement may be ---
---literary license on reporter's part, or
---employee or cohort spin, or
---JoePa's I-don't-have-to-play-by-rules or I don't need no stinkin' technology.
Who knows. Could even be factual.

IIRC, JoePa handled 'situations' w. his players entirely outside PennSt rules or Pa. legal sytem (or football gov'ing entity) by deciding how to deal w. (for drunk driving or sexual assaults, have an underling pick up offenders, drive the boys to coach's home to sleep it off?).
Or maybe I misrecall? Anyone?

If anyone expects to find what JoePa knew about JerSan's nefarious activities and when he knew it, by reviewing JoePa's uni email or other email, texts. etc, they may be disappointed in coming up empty.

IMO, what JoePa knew about JerSan's activities, he also knew was too important and potentially damaging to be put on paper (electronic or hardcopy).

Concerned Papa
03-19-2012, 02:48 PM
Got to be the only time in the history of Corporate America that an underling, of a $70 MILLION business, can make 2-4 times the salary of his bosses AND tell these bosses "Hell No I Won't Go" when they come to "ASK" him to quit!

Sweet gig, if you can get it! :floorlaugh:

pittsburghgirl
03-19-2012, 02:53 PM
When my students who are football fans used to tell that story (pre-Sandusky), it always ended with "Get off my lawn!"

Concerned Papa
03-19-2012, 03:03 PM
Dr F and Concerned PaPa: you're killing me! Love your humor.

Didn't William Schreyer go along on that trip to JoePa's house that day?

IDK, but it would tend to surprise me if true. After all, Schreyer was one of JoePa's 2 partners in that multi million dollar developement deal for The Villages, Pinnacle Development.

pittsburghgirl
03-19-2012, 03:10 PM
RFG's record, apart from this case, was good. He prosecuted cases that, looking at them from the outside, were far more flimsy that Sandusky. He lost a high profile rape trial in 2002-03 against a Penn State football player, one that was controversial and that involved Paterno. Paterno let the suspect suit up for a bowl game and that produced controversy. RFG lost the case, but he tried to win it. He didn't drop it on a staffer; he personally prosecuted.

He was a tough prosecutor for the most part. There were a few cases like, almost impossible from the start, but he pressed forward. Even Schrieffer said that he was a top notch prosecutor.

You don't know RG's record on this case, because you haven't seen his notes or heard from him about his decision-making. He is, conveniently for someone, missing and cannot explain.

However, I will note that the sources as to Gricar's involvement in the sting are both credible--the New York Times and the Patriot-News (probably going to get a Pulitzer for regional reporting, at least). That several mainstream news sources would have a different version of the sting story than one article that interviewed the police officer does not surprise me. It's not that someone lied; it's that two stories included Gricar's role and the other did not. It's that the stories came at things from different points of view.

And--here's an interesting new development that suggests maybe Schreffler didn't know everything that Gricar may have known:

But Friday's motion offered some of the most concrete details so far about those allegations. Most surprising was Amendola's assertion that a psychologist evaluated one of the accusers - identified in court filings as "Victim 6" - and concluded that the young man had not been sexually abused by Sandusky.
Prosecutors were refusing to turn over his findings, the attorney alleged, because it could help Sandusky's defense.
According to the grand jury presentment, Victim 6 was the boy at the center of a 1998 investigation undertaken by Penn State police, after his mother accused the former coach of inappropriately touching her 12-year-old son in a locker-room shower.
Though officers filed a long report of their findings at the time, the case was never prosecuted. Amendola has previously requested any documents from the office of former Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar that might explain his decision not to press charges in the case.
In his motion Friday, Amendola did not elaborate on how he became aware of the psychologist's evaluation of the boy and did not immediately respond to requests for comment.


http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-18/news/31207615_1_accusers-grand-jury-victims

This may explain why Gricar didn't bring charges, once we learn more about when, where, and how this victim was examined. If a psychologist didn't find that the boy had been sexually abused--poof. There goes the case. That doesn't mean that Sandusky wasn't up to no good. I am sure he didn't molest kids on his first or second contact with them.

Tipstaff
03-19-2012, 03:54 PM
Got to be the only time in the history of Corporate America that an underling, of a $70 MILLION business, can make 2-4 times the salary of his bosses AND tell these bosses "Hell No I Won't Go" when they come to "ASK" him to quit!

Sweet gig, if you can get it! :floorlaugh:

Yes, and this 'underling' didn't know enough to call CRIME STOPPERS!

Oh by the way before anyone wonders Crime Stoppers was founded in 1978.

Dr.Fessel
03-19-2012, 04:37 PM
You don't know RG's record on this case, because you haven't seen his notes or heard from him about his decision-making. He is, conveniently for someone, missing and cannot explain.

However, I will note that the sources as to Gricar's involvement in the sting are both credible--the New York Times and the Patriot-News (probably going to get a Pulitzer for regional reporting, at least). That several mainstream news sources would have a different version of the sting story than one article that interviewed the police officer does not surprise me. It's not that someone lied; it's that two stories included Gricar's role and the other did not. It's that the stories came at things from different points of view.

And--here's an interesting new development that suggests maybe Schreffler didn't know everything that Gricar may have known:



http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-18/news/31207615_1_accusers-grand-jury-victims

This may explain why Gricar didn't bring charges, once we learn more about when, where, and how this victim was examined. If a psychologist didn't find that the boy had been sexually abused--poof. There goes the case. That doesn't mean that Sandusky wasn't up to no good. I am sure he didn't molest kids on his first or second contact with them.

I want to make a bet this is a psychologist connected to or hired by Second Mile to "evaluate" the child and send the report to the SA once they got wind of the investigation.

Concerned Papa
03-19-2012, 05:02 PM
When my students who are football fans used to tell that story (pre-Sandusky), it always ended with "Get off my lawn!"

I had to look that one up, but that's what Sports Illustrated says (along with a different perspective on the true nature of Paterno's power):

Unlike Schultz and Curley, Paterno is not classified as a senior staff member—he ran the place. "He built this university, he built this town, and everybody knows it," says longtime State College resident Mark Brennan, a journalist who chronicles Penn State athletics.

In 2004, Curley and Spanier visited Paterno at his home to suggest that, at age 77 and after a 3--9 season in '03, he should retire.

Paterno, in effect, told them to get off his lawn.

They acceded.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1192198/2/index.htm

You gotta admit, this is funny stuff, a University President and an Athletic Director getting ran off by a 77 year old subordinate whose employment they came to terminate,

BUT COULDN'T! :floorlaugh:

Good thing they had more POWER than him. Heavens to Betsy, he might've gotten away with it and coached EIGHT MORE YEARS or something.

pittsburghgirl
03-19-2012, 06:43 PM
I want to make a bet this is a psychologist connected to or hired by Second Mile to "evaluate" the child and send the report to the SA once they

got wind of the investigation.

What an interesting possibility.

J. J. in Phila
03-19-2012, 07:10 PM
You don't know RG's record on this case, because you haven't seen his notes or heard from him about his decision-making. He is, conveniently for someone, missing and cannot explain.


We can see the results.


However, I will note that the sources as to Gricar's involvement in the sting are both credible--the New York Times and the Patriot-News (probably going to get a Pulitzer for regional reporting, at least). That several mainstream news sources would have a different version of the sting story than one article that interviewed the police officer does not surprise me. It's not that someone lied; it's that two stories included Gricar's role and the other did not. It's that the stories came at things from different points of view.


They are very good papers, but they didn't have Schreffler.


And--here's an interesting new development that suggests maybe Schreffler didn't know everything that Gricar may have known:


This may explain why Gricar didn't bring charges, once we learn more about when, where, and how this victim was examined. If a psychologist didn't find that the boy had been sexually abused--poof. There goes the case. That doesn't mean that Sandusky wasn't up to no good. I am sure he didn't molest kids on his first or second contact with them.

No, if you look at what is claimed regarding Victim 6, there is no rape. Victim 6 didn't claim it, his mother, and the police witnesses never claimed, Sandusky isn't charged with it in that case. It becomes does the act that Sandusky admitted to violate the law. The law, in this case is [i]unlawful Contact with a Minor, http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html

Does it constitute an act of "open lewdness" to get naked with a small child and then bear hug him. If you answer is yes, and you believe the witnesses, Sandusky is guilty.

You don't need to know the reaction of Victim 6. You just need to know that these were Sandusky's actions.

J. J. in Phila
03-19-2012, 08:02 PM
Sure, and the conversation between Spanier and Curley probably went something like this as they approached Paterno’s door:

“YOU tell him”

“NO, YOU tell him”

“I’m not gonna tell him, he might fire ME”

“Tell ya what, let’s try ASKING him real nice, OK?”

“Good idea! Think he’ll fall for it?”

“I don’t know, just be ready to get the heck out of there!"



Probably pretty close to it.

Paterno's salary was comparable to other coaches: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/39131/a-look-at-big-ten-head-coaches-salaries

The difference between Paterno and the others was he donated a lot of it back to PSU and he raised money for them. He actually had donated 4 times his final year's salary back to the University.

It wasn't related directly to Sandusky, but here is the quote:

Triponey also said she was told by Spanier that the coach had given the president an ultimatum: Fire her or Paterno would stop raising funds for the university. Spanier told Triponey that he would pick her, though he didn’t want to have to make that decision.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-27/paterno-put-his-penn-state-money-above-disclosure-of-child-abuse.html

Basically, it was a turf battle over who would discipline football players. After a great deal of conflict, Paterno gave his ultimatum.

Here is an interview with Triponey: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7268172/penn-state-nittany-lions-former-officer-questioned-joe-paterno-player-treatment

The source of Paterno's power was that he would raise money.

pittsburghgirl
03-20-2012, 12:45 AM
JJ, regarding RG's role innthe sting: I am pretty sure the people covering this case for the Patriot News have talked to Schreffler at some point. And both the NYT and the Patriot News articles had a larger scope than the P-G article, which focused solely on Schreffler. If the stories were incorrect, the papers could and would correct them. If you are certain of your information--that the NYT and the P-N got their stories wrong--you should ask for a correction. I feel confident, however, that both papers were reporting from multiple sources that indicate Gricar was involved in the sting. That doesn't mean Schreffler wasn't involved, but perhaps that he sees his role differently than others saw it. we can look forward to the trial testimony, where all of this will be made more clear.

The term the article used about the participation of the psychologist was "sexually abused," not raped. that was the point Lauro made, also, that there was no abuse. If there was no sexual abuse, insofar as the experts could determine based on the child's testimony, there really could be no case.

The defense motions and requests bring out how different a case looks when the adverserial process is underway; we can look at what we hear of a case through GJ reports or the news media and feel sure we know what happened but then the defense tells its story and a jury has to hold the prosecution to proving beyond a reasonable doubt. We all think Sandusky was sexually abusing kids, but in any specific instance, the defense will look for so,e element to raise that reasonable doubt--in this case, a report from a psychologist. If it was the state's expert, what would that look like on the witness stand for the prosecution and then after cross-examination? I'm waiting tomsee what more we can learn.

J. J. in Phila
03-20-2012, 01:12 AM
I am pretty sure the people covering this case for the Patriot News have talked to Schreffler at some point. And both the NYT and the Patriot News articles had a larger scope than the P-G article, which focused solely on Schreffler. If the stories were incorrect, the papers could and would correct them. If you are certain of your information--that the NYT and the P-N got their stories wrong--you should ask for a correction. I feel confident, however, that both papers were reporting from multiple sources that indicate Gricar was involved in the sting. That doesn't mean Schreffler wasn't involved, but perhaps that he sees his role differently than others saw it. we can look forward to the trial testimony, where all of this will be made more clear.


No, that is what their source told them. You had a number of people that said, "That sounds like something Gricar would do," but no one actually saying, "I was there when Gricar did it."


The term the article used about the participation of the psychologist was "sexually abused," not raped. that was the point Lauro made, also, that there was no abuse. If there was no sexual abuse, insofar as the experts could determine based on the child's testimony, there really could be no case.

Again, if you read the statute, "sexual abuse" is not required for conviction. Let's review the statute once again:

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html

§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
within this Commonwealth:
(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31
(relating to sexual offenses).
(2) Open lewdness as defined in section 5901 (relating
to open lewdness).
(3) Prostitution as defined in section 5902 (relating to
prostitution and related offenses).
(4) Obscene and other sexual materials and performances
as defined in section 5903 (relating to obscene and other
sexual materials and performances).
(5) Sexual abuse of children as defined in section 6312
(relating to sexual abuse of children).
(6) Sexual exploitation of children as defined in
section 6320 (relating to sexual exploitation of children).

You, and Amendola, are going to have to claim that a naked, unrelated 55 year old man, bear hugging a naked pre-teen boy from behind isn't "Open Lewdness." Are you willing to claim, publicly that this isn't "Open Lewdness," publicly?

There is enough case law in PA to say that it is. It does not require the defendant to get any gratification from it, or even for the defendant to touch the victim.

Nobody is claiming Victim 6 was raped or that he was "sexually abused." They are claiming that Sandusky's conduct violated this statute which includes "open lewdness."

Open lewdness is defined in statute as:

§ 5901. Open lewdness.
A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he does
any lewd act which he knows is likely to be observed by others
who would be affronted or alarmed.

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.059.001.000.html

The courts have held that the "others who would be affronted or alarmed," can include the victim.

Would you say that the naked 55 year old unrelated man would realizes that others would be "affronted or alarmed" by him bear hugging a naked pre-teen boy from behind?

StellarsJay
03-20-2012, 01:15 PM
From the 2005 article that al66pine posted:

He decided he would never fire an assistant coach, finding it senseless to let one go when he could help make him better. "You showed you were committed to it," former assistant Kenny Jackson said, "and he'd die with you."

Read more: http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/05359/627761-143.stm#ixzz1pg5xFLM2

pittsburghgirl
03-20-2012, 04:59 PM
We can see the results.



They are very good papers, but they didn't have Schreffler.



No, if you look at what is claimed regarding Victim 6, there is no rape. Victim 6 didn't claim it, his mother, and the police witnesses never claimed, Sandusky isn't charged with it in that case. It becomes does the act that Sandusky admitted to violate the law. The law, in this case is [i]unlawful Contact with a Minor, http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html

Does it constitute an act of "open lewdness" to get naked with a small child and then bear hug him. If you answer is yes, and you believe the witnesses, Sandusky is guilty.

You don't need to know the reaction of Victim 6. You just need to know that these were Sandusky's actions.

The articles I quoted and linked state specifically that Gricar was involved in and/or initiated the sting. They don't cite a specific source for that statment; they most likely got it on "background" from someone in the DA's office or law enforcement.

Because there were no charges, we can't know what statute(s) Gricar was considering--or even exactly what Schreffler had in mind. The whole point of an investigation is to discover and uncover wrongdoing, so both men, who undoubtedly know and knew more that we do about pedophiles, may have been looking at other possibilities as well. My point was that without "abuse," we are deep in the murk of "he said"/"he said," a situation that an article linked above indicates that the current prosecutors are concerned about. The clever aspect of Sandusky's behavior is that showering involves nakedness, by definition, and a pedophile can claim that showering was normal. It is hard to argue that being naked in a sports locker room shower is "open lewdness" when many people change and shower in small gyms, YMCA locker rooms, college sports facilities and the like. They are all not involved in "open lewdness," which seem to me to be about walking around buck naked or flashing what should be private out in public (in the park, in the car, etc.)

That many of us find the hugging and "horsing around" sick and recognize it as part of grooming kids for abuse is obvious. And it is that circumstance which leads me to argue that having more victims and being able to show a pattern of befriending kids, taking them places, and "grooming" them for abuse has lead to a far stronger case that RG had in 1998. We can debate this further once it becomes clear what the psychologist said about Victim 6 and when he or she said it.

pittsburghgirl
03-20-2012, 05:16 PM
You, and Amendola, are going to have to claim that a naked, unrelated 55 year old man, bear hugging a naked pre-teen boy from behind isn't "Open Lewdness." Are you willing to claim, publicly that this isn't "Open Lewdness," publicly?

i'm not a lawyer. I would like to see one of the certified WS lawyers weigh in on this. That said--no, I don't think anyone (adult or child) being naked in a running shower is "open lewdness." My understanding of "open lewdness" involves what I describe above. Your post indicates that it is a "lewd act" that will "affront" or "offend" an observer, like men who flash their privates or a streaker. No doubt Sandusky was counting on NO observers. All that's left is a "lewd act"--and Sandusky is claiming hugging. And the whole thing is just a misdemeanor, no? Where anal rape on a child is a felony or two or three, depending on circumstances.

Amendola is a lawyer and moreover has taken on the constitutionally required job of defending Sandusky. That will require him to torture logic and argue that up is down. I have no idea what he will argue in court. I, however, am just a WS poster who believes that the 1998 case was weak and probably would not have gotten a conviction, even if it had moved forward. The current prosecutors say 1998 was a close call and could have gone either way. I've said that as many times as I am going to say it. We just disagree.

Do I think Jerry Sandusky was grooming this kid for abuse? Yes. Do I think any adult man should be naked in a shower with a unrelated pre-teen? No. Do I see myself in agreement with Amendola or sympathetic to Sandusky's defense or his actions? No and No. Do I think a jury would have convicted Sandusky based on a story about a shower, with a psych report saying there was no sexual abuse? Not for one minute; he was nearly as venerated as Paterno at that point.

So far as I can see, Sandusky and Amendola are birds of a feather. Maybe what would really be useful is a law against grooming kids for abuse.

J. J. in Phila
03-20-2012, 06:20 PM
The articles I quoted and linked state specifically that Gricar was involved in and/or initiated the sting. They don't cite a specific source for that statment; they most likely got it on "background" from someone in the DA's office or law enforcement.


LE didn't talk to those in LE, and remember RFG didn't discuss the details of the case with anyone in the office.

Because there were no charges, we can't know what statute(s) Gricar was considering--or even exactly what Schreffler had in mind.


Schreffler indicated a few and we know what Sandusky was charged with in 2011. We also know that LE didn't have one additional victim RFG had in 1998.

We also know what RFG could have charged Sandusky with in 1998. Now, that statute was 5 months old in 1998, and it is possible RFG missed it. Even if that is so, that was still a major mistake, a lapse of judgment in not checking the then new statute.

As pointed out, the charges are separate; they won't depend on any of the other incidents.

J. J. in Phila
03-20-2012, 06:41 PM
i'm not a lawyer. I would like to see one of the certified WS lawyers weigh in on this. That said--no, I don't think anyone (adult or child) being naked in a running shower is "open lewdness." My understanding of "open lewdness" involves what I describe above. Your post indicates that it is a "lewd act" that will "affront" or "offend" an observer, like men who flash their privates or a streaker. No doubt Sandusky was counting on NO observers. All that's left is a "lewd act"--and Sandusky is claiming hugging. And the whole thing is just a misdemeanor, no? Where anal rape on a child is a felony or two or three, depending on circumstances.

I didn't ask you about being naked. I asked you about a "naked 55 year old unrelated man would realizes that others would be 'affronted or alarmed' by him bear hugging a naked pre-teen boy from behind". And no, in front of a child, it is a felony, punishable by 5 years, and would subject the defendant to being listed on Megan's list. The link has been provided to note the grading.

I would add that, in the past fortnight, at least two individuals have been charged with open lewdness in Centre County.

I doubt that Amendola could convince anyone that a naked 55 year old unrelated manbear hugging a naked pre-teen boy from behind would not cause others, including the victim, to be "affronted or alarmed."

I certainly would not want a prosecutor to be re-elected who didn't realize that. It isn't illegal not to prosecute that, it is not unethical not to prosecute that, it isn't immoral not to prosecute that, but is a colossal lapse of judgment not to prosecute that.