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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 #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).
 
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:
 
When my students who are football fans used to tell that story (pre-Sandusky), it always ended with "Get off my lawn!"
 
pinktoes said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
J. J. in Phila said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Concerned Papa said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
When my students who are football fans used to tell that story (pre-Sandusky), it always ended with "Get off my lawn!"
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dr.Fessel said:
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.
Click to expand...

What an interesting possibility.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
Concerned Papa said:
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!"
Click to expand...

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-...te-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...ficer-questioned-joe-paterno-player-treatment

The source of Paterno's power was that he would raise money.
 
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.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
J. J. in Phila said:
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 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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
J. J. in Phila said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 123 more.
Total: 3,896 (members: 124, guests: 3,772)

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
3,772
Total visitors
3,896
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,674
Messages
17,957,363
Members
228,584
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top