Penn State Sandusky Trial #12 (GUILTY-post verdict discussion)

J. J. in Phila · Jul 1, 2012

Reader said:
Now why did I know that would be your response, J. J.? lol

Wasn't trying to change anyone's mind, just stating where I am coming from with what we know now....

Well, I think you need evidence that he knew. It is possible, certainly, but possible isn't the same as, "It happened."

costalpilot · Jul 1, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
Well, I think you need evidence that he knew. It is possible, certainly, but possible isn't the same as, "It happened."

whatever.

you think "you" need "evidence that he knew". for what?

today, newspapers and commentators across the country are calling joepa a liar, a conspirator, indeed, the leader of a conspiracy that resulted in the rapes of many young men.

maybe you need more "evidence" but most have got all they need. its a personal choice in every case.

you may never get there. most already have.

many of your state colleagues know.

HMSHood · Jul 1, 2012

costalpilot said:
you forgot an example. maybe the closest one.

nazie germany.

its the same. "cult of the individual" mentality" with pretty much the same outcome. the big difference (and its a huge one, thankfully, for penn state) is that in germany pretty much everyone was involved.

in happy valley, the participants were limited to, what, ten, twenty, a hundred at most.

other than that, its the same phenomena...absoulte power corrupts absolutely.

one man gets power, wins a lot, consolidates that power, is lionized as a god, and has a massive moral failure. he covers it up, because he can. for a time.

in the end, though, he cant. everything unravels. he brings it all down.

its a tragedy. literally.

if you dont believe that, just go to the penn state boards, he is STILL being defended there by well over half the posters. they STILL can't believe it.

and they defend him by saying, "hes dead. he cant defend himself."

well, so what. Hitlers dead too.

dont get me wrong. im not sayin joepa is comparable to hitler. Im saying what happened at penn state is a lot like what happened in germany.

one man rule.

Nazis were the Axis, which includes Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy.

costalpilot · Jul 1, 2012

HMSHood said:
Nazis were the Axis, which includes Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy.

nazi germany was nazi germany.

HMSHood · Jul 1, 2012

costalpilot said:
nazi germany was nazi germany.

The scary fact is Germany was a very advanced and civilized nation. It could fall to such evil and be manipulated by a megalomaniac. Jerry Sandusky was powerful, but no megalomaniac like Adolf Hitler. Interestingly, both are emotionally immature. They act like overgrown adolescents.

costalpilot · Jul 1, 2012

HMSHood said:
The scary fact is Germany was a very advanced and civilized nation. It could fall to such evil and be manipulated by a megalomaniac. Jerry Sandusky was powerful, but no megalomaniac like Adolf Hitler. Interestingly, both are emotionally immature. They act like overgrown adolescents.

there is something very appealing about the cult of the individual. nations arent the only entities to fall victim to its allure....corporations, colleges, institutions of every type....you name it.

ive not compared sandusky to hitler. i wouldnt.

HMSHood · Jul 1, 2012

costalpilot said:
there is something very appealing about the cult of the individual. nations arent the only entities to fall victim to its allure....corporations, colleges, institutions of every type....you name it.

ive not compared sandusky to hitler. i wouldnt.

That is a sad fact. It could be school, company, religious organizations, and even nations. These are all human institutions, so they can fall under control.

Same here. Sandusky molested children. Hitler killed many millions in the Holocaust and World War II.

ynotdivein · Jul 1, 2012

Please all, let's keep the focus in this thread on Sandusky's victims and on the alleged/apparent coverup by those in power at Penn State, and leave aside the comparisons to Nazi Germany or to other perps and other coverups.

Where this post lands is random, and :tyou:

HMSHood · Jul 1, 2012

Rlaub44 said:
I have been wondering the same thing JJ. I also noted the wording in Curley's e-mail - "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe"; as if the second thoughts about the plan occurred before the conversation with Paterno.

This whole thing is horrific - Central PA Gothic to be sure - but I wish I knew exactly how this happened. In any case, it was a horrible decision and a terrible lack of judgment by people who should have known better, especially if, as we now have heard, they sought legal advice before choosing Plan B.

This leads me to thinking, could this happen at other universities.

Rlaub44 · Jul 1, 2012

costalpilot said:
whatever.

you think "you" need "evidence that he knew". for what?

today, newspapers and commentators across the country are calling joepa a liar, a conspirator, indeed, the leader of a conspiracy that resulted in the rapes of many young men.

maybe you need more "evidence" but most have got all they need. its a personal choice in every case.

you may never get there. most already have.

many of your state colleagues know.

Respectfully, why is it difficult to accept that some people may want to withhold complete judgment until more evidence is released? Nobody (at least not that I have seen on WS) is stating as fact that Paterno absolutely didn't know about '98; but many people have declared for certain that he did, and seem to be calling into question the motives of those who are waiting to see more. I can't speak for JJ in Phila, but I am completely prepared to admit that you may be right, but I can't say that just yet.

During the Curley/Schultz trial, I am certain that there will be plenty of testimony about what role each person had, and with Paterno's death, there is no reason for the accused to protect Joe's legacy at the expense of their own interests, so I am certain at that time, or when more e-mails have been released (remember that CNN hasn't actually seen the e-mails; only sharing what a source told them), I will be able to state with reasonable certainty what level of complicity Paterno held.

Until then, I don't think it is unreasonable for me to suspect something, but wait for the evidence to confirm it. As JJ indicated, the new evidence is damning, but I still don't know what Paterno said that apparently changed the minds of each of Curley, Spanier, and Schultz. All of the media outlets you mentioned seem to know that, but I don't yet.

Please be patient with some of us; if the evidence leads there, we will get there with the rest of you. :fence:

Rlaub44 · Jul 1, 2012

HMSHood said:
This leads me to thinking, could this happen at other universities.

As much as I identify with Penn State, I have to admit that it could, but it is probably not as likely. With Paterno coaching there for over 60 years, the administration was too tied to the football program, and thus there wasn't the oversight, or the levels of administration that were removed enough, to do the right thing regardless of how it might reflect on the program.

J. J. in Phila · Jul 1, 2012

Rlaub44 said:
Respectfully, why is it difficult to accept that some people may want to withhold complete judgment until more evidence is released? Nobody (at least not that I have seen on WS) is stating as fact that Paterno absolutely didn't know about '98; but many people have declared for certain that he did, and seem to be calling into question the motives of those who are waiting to see more. I can't speak for JJ in Phila, but I am completely prepared to admit that you may be right, but I can't say that just yet.

I'm waiting for evidence, but I would not be surprised if the evidence was forthcoming. I will reserve judgment because it could strongly impact the Gricar case.

Until then, I don't think it is unreasonable for me to suspect something, but wait for the evidence to confirm it. As JJ indicated, the new evidence is damning, but I still don't know what Paterno said that apparently changed the minds of each of Curley, Spanier, and Schultz. All of the media outlets you mentioned seem to know that, but I don't yet.

Please be patient with some of us; if the evidence leads there, we will get there with the rest of you. :fence:

Even if there is no evidence that Paterno knew about 1998, in 1998, there is now evidence, yes damning evidence, that Paterno was complicit in the decision not to report Sandusky in 2001. I will add that being complicit in that decision does not mean strongly supporting it and pushed it.

Rlaub44 · Jul 2, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
Even if there is no evidence that Paterno knew about 1998, in 1998, there is now evidence, yes damning evidence, that Paterno was complicit in the decision not to report Sandusky in 2001.

You are probably right; I just would have felt more comfortable labeling Paterno the ringleader if Curley's email said, "After talking with Joe, he thinks we should ... ". Again, if the emails were meant to be privately between them, and Curley wanted to persuade Spanier and Schultz, why not tell them it was Joe's idea? He didn't write that Joe was uncomfortable, he wrote that he was.

Curley wrote "I am having trouble with going to everyone but the person involved". Could Paterno have simply suggested they talk to Sandusky also, and that sparked Curley's new plan, to start there and go further if it didn't work?

The full release of e-mails will probably clear it up for me.

J. J. in Phila · Jul 2, 2012

Rlaub44 said:
You are probably right; I just would have felt more comfortable labeling Paterno the ringleader if Curley's email said, "After talking with Joe, he thinks we should ... ". Again, if the emails were meant to be privately between them, and Curley wanted to persuade Spanier and Schultz, why not tell them it was Joe's idea? He didn't write that Joe was uncomfortable, he wrote that he was.

Curley wrote "I am having trouble with going to everyone but the person involved". Could Paterno have simply suggested they talk to Sandusky also, and that sparked Curley's new plan, to start there and go further if it didn't work?

In real life, I am a consultant. I will have a client. I may advise a client to do X in Situation Y, saying based on my experience and training, I think you should do X.

Now, am I advocating that my client do X? Yes. Am I complicit in the decision to do X. Yes, because I advocate that position and know about Situation Y. Am I the ringleader, forcing my client to do X? I would say, no. I would put Paterno's presumed advice in that context (and no, it would have been my advice).

Pensfan · Jul 2, 2012

Rlaub44 said:
Respectfully, why is it difficult to accept that some people may want to withhold complete judgment until more evidence is released? Nobody (at least not that I have seen on WS) is stating as fact that Paterno absolutely didn't know about '98; but many people have declared for certain that he did, and seem to be calling into question the motives of those who are waiting to see more. I can't speak for JJ in Phila, but I am completely prepared to admit that you may be right, but I can't say that just yet.

During the Curley/Schultz trial, I am certain that there will be plenty of testimony about what role each person had, and with Paterno's death, there is no reason for the accused to protect Joe's legacy at the expense of their own interests, so I am certain at that time, or when more e-mails have been released (remember that CNN hasn't actually seen the e-mails; only sharing what a source told them), I will be able to state with reasonable certainty what level of complicity Paterno held.

Until then, I don't think it is unreasonable for me to suspect something, but wait for the evidence to confirm it. As JJ indicated, the new evidence is damning, but I still don't know what Paterno said that apparently changed the minds of each of Curley, Spanier, and Schultz. All of the media outlets you mentioned seem to know that, but I don't yet.

Please be patient with some of us; if the evidence leads there, we will get there with the rest of you. :fence:

It's possible that one of Shultz', Raykovitz', Curley, and/or Spanier's defense attorney(s) spread this info to place all the blame on the dead guy who can't defend himself. Yep, all their clients wanted to do the "right thing", but most evil JoePa coerced them not to do the right thing.

(Remember the putrid actions of Jerry's defense attorneys? They gave Matt S's tape describing his embarrassing abuse to the Today Show without his permission in an attempt to punish him and make it appear that he was a horrid liar. MS finally was able to admit he was also sexually abused after his grand jury testimony had occurred.)

Pensfan · Jul 2, 2012

One of the most gut-wrenching scenarios a general counsel ever faces is learning that a top executive is accused of personal or professional misconduct. The damage potential moves from an individual lawsuit to a major reputational hit, possible shareholder actions and even federal investigation. In that case, in-house counsel must take great care that investigation is fully independent.

“If the misconduct is at the CEO level or there’s any allegation of a cover-up that might taint or involve the CEO, then the in-house counsel has a duty to notify someone independent on the board,” says Cooley partner Frederick Baron. “The people who conduct the investigation should also be in an absolutely independent chain.”

The general counsel must also exhaustively record the investigation and decision-making process to ensure transparency, Baron says.
“You definitely don’t want any second-guessing later about whether the fact gathering was part of a cover-up rather than part of a thorough investigation,” he says. Anytime such allegations arise in the executive ranks, counsel must take swift action to avoid any secondary liability.

“If you don’t take rapid investigative action and make appropriate remedial or disciplinary steps, then you’re increasing risk to the institution,” says Frederick Baron, who leads the labor and employment practice at Cooley. “You’re taking what may be a case of individual misconduct or perhaps individual criminal conduct, and adding institutional exposure for failure to act.”
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/01/01/lessons-from-the-penn-state-scandal?page=2

Apparently counsel for Penn State slept through this lecture.

Rlaub44 · Jul 2, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
In real life, I am a consultant. I will have a client. I may advise a client to do X in Situation Y, saying based on my experience and training, I think you should do X.

Now, am I advocating that my client do X? Yes. Am I complicit in the decision to do X. Yes, because I advocate that position and know about Situation Y. Am I the ringleader, forcing my client to do X? I would say, no. I would put Paterno's presumed advice in that context (and no, it would have been my advice).

In a previous life, I was a counselor. When talking with someone trying to make a life decision, we would often look at all sides of an issue and the client would talk through the pros and cons of each option, helping them to determine the direction they felt most comfortable with.

Would I be responsible for the actions my client chose to take? Not if I didn't personally advocate for any of the possibilities, but the client simply crystallized their own beliefs based on the questions I asked.

Again, I expect the evidence on this is probably forthcoming, but not knowing how Curley came to change his mind is just holding me back a bit. It's easy to imagine that Paterno suggested it, but there are other possibilities that haven't yet been ruled out for me.

LaLaw2000 · Jul 2, 2012

IzzyBlanche said:
Interesting two paragraphs at the very end of this article BBM:

Freehs investigators are also exploring the circumstances surrounding Paternos decision to eventually hire McQueary as an assistant coach, the person familiar with the investigation said. McQueary, a former quarterback for Paterno at Penn State, has testified under oath that when he first contacted Paterno to inform him of what he had seen in the showers, Paterno assumed he was calling to ask for a job, and that Paterno brusquely told him he would not be hired.

McQueary was ultimately hired over another, more experienced candidate, and investigators are curious about whether that development came as a consequence of what he told Paterno that morning in 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/s...sandusky-e-mails-indicate.html?pagewanted=all

The bolded part about McQueary being ultimately hired over a much more experienced candidate just makes me believe even more that McQueary sold those victims (or at least the one he saw being assaulted) out as well. I know he testified at trial as to what he saw in that locker room shower, but he had to, IMO. I have thought McQueary was more or less bribed by giving the job to him. Was he given the job to stay quiet? I will be very interested in what might be coming to light before this is over and done.

JMO, of course.

*Sorry if I have interrupted the flow of posts, but I did want to comment on this as I was catching up.

J. J. in Phila · Jul 2, 2012

LaLaw2000 said:
The bolded part about McQueary being ultimately hired over a much more experienced candidate just makes me believe even more that McQueary sold those victims (or at least the one he saw being assaulted) out as well. I know he testified at trial as to what he saw in that locker room shower, but he had to, IMO. I have thought McQueary was more or less bribed by giving the job to him. Was he given the job to stay quiet? I will be very interested in what might be coming to light before this is over and done.

Well, I think the job aspect is way overblown. McQueary was a graduate assistant, a non permanent position. When he called Paterno, Paterno basically said, we don't have any openings now, so if it's about that, don't bother me.

The incident occurred in 2001 (February?) and throughout the 2001, and 2002, seasons, he was still in the same positions. In 2003, he was an administrative assistant, and wasn't named to the coaching position until 2004. http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/mcqueary_mike00.html

McQueary could have been "hired away" at some point, and he, arguably, did a good job. They were also kind of know for hiring from within.

LaLaw2000 · Jul 2, 2012

Well, I still believe in what I wrote in my post. Why didn't McQueary stop JS the moment he saw what was happening? All he did was leave a child victim in the hands of a child rapist in the shower, IMO. He left. He called his Dad, then they told Paterno the next morning, IIRC. That young boy was failed at every level.

As for McQueary could have been 'hired away' at some point, McQueary was exactly where he wanted to be, IMO. Penn State. He probably would have never left. His aspirations were most likely to be the new Paterno when Paterno left. It is my opinion that McQueary knows even more than what he has said.

Just my thoughts and opinion. It's cool for each of us to have a differing opinion.

MOO

Penn State Sandusky Trial #12 (GUILTY-post verdict discussion)

Verified Insider

Active Member

Admiral-Class Battlecruiser

Active Member

Admiral-Class Battlecruiser

Active Member

Admiral-Class Battlecruiser

Retired WS Staff

Admiral-Class Battlecruiser

Member

Member

Verified Insider

Member

Verified Insider

Former Member

Former Member

Member

Louisiana

Verified Insider

Louisiana

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics