Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #9

[Reader]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

There could be a lot of stuff on his retirement package.

Ya think? I'm not arguing but it seems to me the president wouldn't need to be involved in that. Wouldn't his package be approved by Paterno and Schultz, the financial officer? I understood that was not a special arrangement just for JS but something that was available to anyone who was eligible to retire those years.

Here, we just send in paperwork to the HR dept. and after that work directly with the state retirement board. The head of the agency/school is not involved.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Reader

Ya think? I'm not arguing but it seems to me the president wouldn't need to be involved in that. Wouldn't his package would be approved by Paterno and Schultz, the financial officer? I understood that was not a special arrangement just for JS but something that was available to anyone who was eligible to retire those years.

Here, we just send in paperwork to the HR dept. and after that work directly with the state retirement board. The head of the agency/school is not involved.

There could be a number of things, but Spanier might have been hands on enough to deal with retirement.

There were also contacts (even innocent ones) with TSM board members. He might been talking to Paterno about (again innocent) succession.

I can understand why he wants to review everything.

[Reader]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

There could be a number of things, but Spanier might have been hands on enough to deal with retirement.

There were also contacts (even innocent ones) with TSM board members. He might been talking to Paterno about (again innocent) succession.

I can understand why he wants to review everything.

Oh, me too, I have no problem with him getting the emails for his own legal protection. Just wondering if they are really pertinent to the case. Maybe we'll find out something really juicy, lol !

Hope Sara gets copies....

[ohiogirl]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/25/us/san...html?hpt=ju_c2

Sandusky's charity seeks approval to close

[ohiogirl]

Couldn't happen to a nicer charity.
Now we all know why he founded it in the first place.

[Reader]

Critical 'Victim 2' decision awaits Jerry Sandusky judge

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...tml#incart_hbx

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A judge will soon decide the most significant pretrial issue in former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's child sexual abuse case: whether to dismiss charges.

It's a question that once again brings to the forefront "Victim 2," a still-unidentified boy whom a witness has said he saw being molested by Sandusky in the football team showers a decade ago, drawing a response from then-head football coach Joe Paterno that ultimately cost him his job.
-------

The Victim 2 allegations are among the most serious that Sandusky faces, and the fact that prosecutors haven't been able to find him has complicated their case, as demonstrated by the recent change in the allegation's date, from March 2002 to February 2001.

Adding to the mystery is the report by Amendola that a young man contacted him after Sandusky's arrest to say he believed he might be Victim 2. The young man, accompanied by his mother and brother, met with Amendola, but Amendola wasn't convinced he fit the description and the lawyer said he wasn't planning to call him as a witness.
"I wasn't sure" he was Victim 2, Amendola said in March. "I'm still not sure. I haven't been able to verify it. Jerry's very sure."

Amendola said the young man told him Sandusky hadn't abused him, but he later obtained a lawyer and cut off contact.

More at link....

[Reader]

Stop the victim-blaming tactics in Jerry Sandusky case

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/i...ng_tactic.html

W�ith Jerry Sandusky’s criminal trial approaching, his attorney, Joe Amendola, is conducting a “fishing expedition” by issuing subpoenas to find documentation about the alleged victims’ backgrounds, such as behavioral issues, mental health problems, arrest records and drug or alcohol use. ........

Amendola’s questioning of victim credibility directs the attention of the media and public to the boys’ personal histories rather than focusing on Sandusky’s alleged abuse. This victim-blaming tactic relies on the public to focus on victim behaviors and distracts from the actions of the offender.
-------

Judging and labeling of victims is always problematic, but it is important to take this opportunity to better understand why offenders often target victims with vulnerabilities to exploit. Offenders might purposefully select victims with characteristics the public might be willing to judge harshly. While factors like family structures and difficulties in school never excuse an act of abuse, offenders target those who could be viewed with skepticism when they report abuse or easily be labeled because of “issues.”

More at link.....

And TMS gave JS the perfect targets since most of the boys were referred to the charity because of their problems at home and school....

[Rlaub44]

Originally Posted by Reader

Duh....Spanier, Curley and Schultz did not know that Baldwin worked for Penn. State? lol

What held them back from a simple question: are you coming to the GJ for me or for the school?

I don't buy it....they didn't think anything would come out of the GJ and were there only to lie and protect the university and their jobs themselves...big backfire, eh?

imo

My guess is that at the time, they each thought the school had their backs, and that Baldwin was representing their interests on behalf of Penn State.

It is very hard for me to imagine that all three of these educated men wrongly assumed that she were representing them, especially since two of them stated it as fact before the grand jury, and were not corrected by Ms. Baldwin.

It seems more likely to me that they were led to believe so. The fact that Ms. Baldwin has recently obtained her own counsel seems to validate the thought that her murky role in apparently misleading the administrators may be coming under question.

Makes me wonder who was directing these actions? I can't tell if Spanier was planning on hanging Schultz and Curley out to dry before the board took him out, or if a few power players on the board were overseeing the cover-up from the beginning, or even if Attorney Baldwin on her own allowed the waters to be muddy out of a sense of loyalty to the BOT.

Spanier's suit might certainly require investigators to take another look at Ms. Baldwin's questionable ethical position, and we may end up finding out the real truth about how quickly and how high the conspiracy went.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Rlaub44

Spanier's suit might certainly require investigators to take another look at Ms. Baldwin's questionable ethical position, and we may end up finding out the real truth about how quickly and how high the conspiracy went.

I think that might be the reason she hired a lawyer.

Spanier was very supportive of Schultz and Curley, however. That was part of what got him terminated.

[Reader]

Originally Posted by Rlaub44

My guess is that at the time, they each thought the school had their backs, and that Baldwin was representing their interests on behalf of Penn State.

It is very hard for me to imagine that all three of these educated men wrongly assumed that she were representing them, especially since two of them stated it as fact before the grand jury, and were not corrected by Ms. Baldwin.

It seems more likely to me that they were led to believe so. The fact that Ms. Baldwin has recently obtained her own counsel seems to validate the thought that her murky role in apparently misleading the administrators may be coming under question.

Makes me wonder who was directing these actions? I can't tell if Spanier was planning on hanging Schultz and Curley out to dry before the board took him out, or if a few power players on the board were overseeing the cover-up from the beginning, or even if Attorney Baldwin on her own allowed the waters to be muddy out of a sense of loyalty to the BOT.

Spanier's suit might certainly require investigators to take another look at Ms. Baldwin's questionable ethical position, and we may end up finding out the real truth about how quickly and how high the conspiracy went.

Yep, I had questioned Baldwin's ethics at one time also and was told right off that because of her esteemed background she was above reproach. Looks like the chickens are coming to roost all over..

As far as Curley and Schultz, education does not always mean smarts. They both were pretty dumb IMO to believe that a lawyer who they were not paying was working for them, and to go before a GJ and lie about something when they knew 2 other people at the time could expose them for it, and most of all to lie for whoever/whatever they were lying for, whether Spanier, the school or the BOT.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Reader

Yep, I had questioned Baldwin's ethics at one time also and was told right off that because of her esteemed background she was above reproach. Looks like the chickens are coming to roost all over..

Balwin was very high powered. She's a former State Supreme Court Justice (and a long term county judge in Allegheny County). She would probably be arguing a case before ex-colleagues.

She was also a former member of the BOT.

The thing is, if she is hiring an attorney, there must be at least a chance of some problem.

[Rlaub44]

Originally Posted by Reader

Yep, I had questioned Baldwin's ethics at one time also and was told right off that because of her esteemed background she was above reproach. Looks like the chickens are coming to roost all over..

As far as Curley and Schultz, education does not always mean smarts. They both were pretty dumb IMO to believe that a lawyer who they were not paying was working for them, and to go before a GJ and lie about something when they knew 2 other people at the time could expose them for it, and most of all to lie for whoever/whatever they were lying for, whether Spanier, the school or the BOT.

Honestly, my suspicion is that they thought they were part of the cover-up, and they assumed they would all stick together, to have the best chance of succeeding. They were definitely dumb in the sense of being naive - they didn't catch on that they were going to be the designated fall-guys.

Having Spanier "seemingly" on their side probably gave them lots of confidence that they were going to be supported. I wonder if they don't wish now that they could re-do their entire GJ testimony, changing their story from "I don't recall" and "I didn't think it was serious/sexual" (i.e. the party line), to "I told Graham, and he instructed me ..." (i.e. watching their own backsides).

If they knew then what they know now, I am certain Curley and Schultz would have retained their own counsel, and looked to push the blame higher up the food chain. Whether or not that is more accurately what happened, I hope we find out.

[Reader]

Originally Posted by StellarsJay

"Recently, Spanier learned some emails from before 2004 were retrievable, the suit said, adding that Spanier has placed the condition on speaking with the Freeh investigators that the university first give him access to communications from 1998 to 2004.Spanier had been told that emails from that time period couldn’t be obtained “inasmuch as a new email system installed in 2004 at Penn State had eliminated email records prior to 2004,” the suit said.

The suit also said that when Spanier spoke to the grand jury, he was accompanied by an attorney he thought was representing his interests, an apparent reference to Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State’s outgoing attorney.
“However, that counsel later (in 2012) took the position that she, in fact, was representing only the interests of Penn State,” the suit said."

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/05/2...opular#wgt=pop

I had read before that Curley and Schultz thought Baldwin was representing them; this is the first time I've seen that Spanier had the same idea.

In the same link above is this:

"Penn State spokesman David La Torre issued a statement, saying the university “cannot comment on any specifics related to pending litigation. However, the university has cooperated fully with the Office of Attorney General and the Freeh Group and expects all of its faculty, staff and administrators, including Dr. Spanier, to cooperate to the fullest extent. The university believes it has done nothing that would prevent Dr. Spanier from meeting with the Freeh Group, which has already met with hundreds of university employees.”

Wonder if this will work for Spanier or if Freeh will subpeona him anyway, with or without his emails. This seems like a desperate measure to get out of having to testify before the Freeh Group. And the school is sure not helping him in this.

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

Balwin was very high powered. She's a former State Supreme Court Justice (and a long term county judge in Allegheny County). She would probably be arguing a case before ex-colleagues.

She was also a former member of the BOT.

The thing is, if she is hiring an attorney, there must be at least a chance of some problem.

Oh yes, I had read about her background way back when the GJ report came out and it's a shame that she has gotten herself involved so deep in this mess. Seems like she realizes she needs representation now since all the knifes are out in all directions. Freeh sure has opened up the can of worms, eh?

Houston, you got a problem, indeed....

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Rlaub44

Having Spanier "seemingly" on their side probably gave them lots of confidence that they were going to be supported. I wonder if they don't wish now that they could re-do their entire GJ testimony, changing their story from "I don't recall" and "I didn't think it was serious/sexual" (i.e. the party line), to "I told Graham, and he instructed me ..." (i.e. watching their own backsides).

I don't think it was "seemingly." Spanier lost his job over the defense and the AG has not ruled out an indictment. They may have thought that Spanier would be in a position to support them, and he wasn't.

Schultz, in particular has a problem, because he knew about 1998 and because he claimed that 2001 was turned over to the same agency, yet he never called the University Police (which he ran), nor contacted another LE agency. Who did he think contacted them? Tiny elves?

Ironically, if Gricar had known about 2001, and didn't prosecute, I actually would have understood. 2001 is solely dependent on how credible McQueary was/is, and that would be a difficult situation to second guess.

McQueary, be he had much more to lose in 2010-11, became more credible. He had a lot less to lose in 2001.

[StellarsJay]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

McQueary, be he had much more to lose in 2010-11, became more credible. He had a lot less to lose in 2001.

Oh, my, that strikes me as so true but so cynical- not on JJ's part but on the legal system's part.

With Curley and Schultz, we've heard that Baldwin never discussed how they would testify, even driving with them to the GJ- so says Lanny (Davis?), also saying that she didn't hear either of them say she represented them.

But the fact it has taken until now to reveal that she also went into court with Spanier makes me question that the communication was all one way and he never told her his version of 2001. With him as her boss, she was in a worse conflict of interest than with the others, and it seems very likely that until he was fired he had told her that defending PS and defending its "innocent" executives were the same thing.

What order did Curley, Schultz and Spanier testify in? I'm wondering how Baldwin heard the stories unfold.

[Tipstaff]

Originally Posted by Rlaub44

Honestly, my suspicion is that they thought they were part of the cover-up, and they assumed they would all stick together, to have the best chance of succeeding. They were definitely dumb in the sense of being naive - they didn't catch on that they were going to be the designated fall-guys.

Having Spanier "seemingly" on their side probably gave them lots of confidence that they were going to be supported. I wonder if they don't wish now that they could re-do their entire GJ testimony, changing their story from "I don't recall" and "I didn't think it was serious/sexual" (i.e. the party line), to "I told Graham, and he instructed me ..." (i.e. watching their own backsides).

If they knew then what they know now, I am certain Curley and Schultz would have retained their own counsel, and looked to push the blame higher up the food chain. Whether or not that is more accurately what happened, I hope we find out.

BINGO - in their circle they believed they were connected and had the power to cover up the Sandusky problem just like they did in 1998 and so on - then came Ms. Ganim and her prize winning journalism expose that went global.

[Reader]

Sandusky team meets with prosecutors, judge in Bellefonte

Read more: http://www.wgal.com/news/susquehanna...#ixzz1wJLArxCm

BELLEFONTE, Pa. -
Media outlets in State College are reporting an unscheduled meeting has been taking place between prosecutors and the Jerry Sandusky defense team members this afternoon.

According to the reports, Jerry Sandusky and his attorneys Joe Amendola and Karl Rominger, are meeting with prosecutors and Judge Cleland.

The meeting started about 3 p.m. in the courthouse annex in Bellefonte.

Emails and phone calls to the lawyers have gone unanswered.........

Representatives of the accusers filed a number of motions Tuesday requesting their identities not be revealed at trial.

Wonder what this is all about?

[J. J. in Phila]

Plea deal?

[Reader]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

Plea deal?

lol, I had typed that question and took it off...thought maybe I was jumping the gun again....

This has been added to the article:

The meeting took a lot of people by surprise. It was not scheduled in the public court docket.

Read more: http://www.wgal.com/news/susquehanna...#ixzz1wJWfmwtg

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Reader

lol, I had typed that question and took it off...thought maybe I was jumping the gun again....

This has been added to the article:

The meeting took a lot of people by surprise. It was not scheduled in the public court docket.

Read more: http://www.wgal.com/news/susquehanna...#ixzz1wJWfmwtg

Or further charges, maybe against others.

Curley and/or Schultz taking a plea.

Outside chance something involving the person I'm looking for.

[Reader]

Also in the article:

Lawyers for so-called victims 3, 5 and 7 filed motions Tuesday asking Cleland to prevent identities of alleged victims from being disclosed publicly.

Lawyers for Victim 4 are asking for a pseudonym to be used for him during the upcoming trial.

The lawyers for Victims 3 and 7 said Sandusky's lawyer isn't opposed, but they haven't heard back from state prosecutors.

Victim 4's lawyers said his psychologist is worried about what effect disclosure of his name will have on his well-being.


Maybe they are discussing this issue? but for the victims' sake I'm still hoping for a plea deal....

[StellarsJay]

Newly published interview with Amendola from before the gag order.
http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_phill...mendola-talks/

[Reader]

http://articles.philly.com/2012-05-2...-court-filings

Pretrial meeting sets off speculation about Sandusky

Jerry Sandusky met with his attorney, state prosecutors, and the judge handling his case Tuesday in a private, three-hour session, a day before the last scheduled pretrial hearing in his child sex-abuse case.

The previously unannounced session fueled talk of potential eleventh-hour developments in the widely watched case against the former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach, which is set to begin jury selection next week.

"There’s a lot of speculation that a plea [deal] is going on," James Koval, a spokesman for the state Supreme Court, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "I have no indication of that at this point."
-------

And up until this week, state prosecutors were preparing the young men in the Sandusky case to testify publicly using their given names, lawyers for one said this week.

Most news organizations, including The Inquirer, have policies against identifying purported victims of sexual abuse in published accounts.

But Tuesday’s motions suggest a growing concern over the worldwide interest in the case and the effect overwhelming publicity could have on the accusers.

[suz1729]

Just heard report that Jury selection will begin June 5th.heard it on insessions

[Reader]

Sandusky judge denies legal team's attempt to delay case

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...elay-case?lite

The trial of Jerry Sandusky will begin next week in Pennsylvania as scheduled, the presiding judge ruled Wednesday, denying a request for a delay by lawyers for the former Penn State assistant football coach.
--------

Still unresolved are a defense effort to have the charges dismissed and motions by four alleged victims to have their identities protected by court order.