Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7

[J. J. in Phila]

The debate is not whether Paterno met the requirements legally but morally.

For over a decade Sandusky remained 'involved' in the program, Paterno saw him with young boys at a variety of venues, he failed to protect more young men from a known molester.

Legally Paterno met the mandate - morally he failed and in Paterno's own words "I wish I had done more".

Well, then becomes a question of the level of moral culpability. How much more could Paterno have done, without violating either the law or morality.

I've put forward the argument that there was not too much more he could have done.

 

[Reader]

I don't believe that quote was attributed to A.G. Kelly; when I read that SI article from November, I read it to be that the author was speculating on a possibility, despite the AG saying that Paterno wouldn't face charges. If you can find other confirmation that the statement was actually made by the Attorney General, I would appreciate having it clarified for me.

Also, I am not an attorney, but as someone familiar with PA's Child Protective Services law (having been certified to provide training to PA school employees), Paterno met the requirements of the PA code by reporting allegations to an member of his school's administration, who were then duty bound to call either the state ChildLine or the county CYS agency within 24 hours, and to follow up with a written report.

Besides, Paterno might not even have been a mandated reporter at that time. Back at the time of the 2002 incident, the law required that school employees, who suspected that a child that they came into contact with while performing their duties was abused, were mandated to cause a report to be made. Paterno never had any contact with the child, so it could be argued that he would not even meet that criteria of the CPS Act.

The quote and article may be interpreted however anyone wishes. I think it's obvious the AG was having questions asked and answered with reporters besides her press conference remarks. Here is another article, different reporter, that has a direct quote from her regarding the investigation being ongoing, and that although Paterno was cleared "at this point', there were clearly other situations and possible charges for him down the road (which doesn't matter now of course).

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=pf-forde_paterno_not_regarded_target110711

HARRISBURG, Pa. – Pennsylvania attorney general Linda Kelly said in a news conference Monday that the Jerry Sandusky child-molestation case is an ongoing investigation but that Penn State football icon Joe Paterno is “not regarded as a target at this point.”............

Despite the current clearance of Paterno, Kelly did acknowledge that the alleged presence of Sandusky at a 2007 preseason Penn State football practice with a child – identified only as Victim 1 in the attorney general’s finding of facts – could still be an avenue of investigation. When asked by Yahoo! Sports whether Paterno and McQueary would have had a heightened legal responsibility to report seeing Sandusky and a child together at their team’s practice, Kelly responded,”That’s a good question. That might have to be addressed down the line.”

------

Be that as it may in 2002, there was nothing stopping him or others either. The Pa. CPS Act has this section also:

http://www.yccys.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=C9WJxFpbw40=&tabid=494

§ 6312. Persons permitted to report suspected child abuse.
In addition to those persons and officials required to report suspected child abuse, any person may make such a report if that person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is an abused child.

Since Paterno and others continued to observe Sandusky at campus facilities and activities with minor children, and were affiliated with him through the Second Mile, knowing what they knew, how could they NOT make that call?

It astounds me the search for excuses to exonerate this man for not doing what the law says he should and could have done to protect children!!

What is more valuable and required here...to protect somebody's reputation or to protect children...many of whom were abused or continued to be abused FOR YEARS because he was too cowardly or unfeeling (except for himself) to report a CRIME AGAINST A CHILD to the police or CPS?

Again, no one was tying his hands from doing this and he had more power and influence than anyone at the school, even his 'superiors'.

Another link to the law:

Child Protective Services Law

http://www.pa-fsa.org/CPSL_5_09.pdf

(a) General rule.--A person who, in the course of employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made in accordance with section 6313 (relating to reporting procedure) when the person has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of medical, professional or other training and experience, that a child under the care, supervision, guidance or training of that person or of an agency, institution, organization or other entity with which that person is affiliated is a victim of child abuse, including child abuse by an individual who is not a perpetrator.

Second Mile anyone?

 

[Reader]

Well, then becomes a question of the level of moral culpability. How much more could Paterno have done, without violating either the law or morality.

I've put forward the argument that there was not too much more he could have done.

Frank Noonan disagrees:

Police official: Paterno didn't do enough to stop abuse

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...p-officials-step-down-amid-penn-state-scandal

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Football coach Joe Paterno and other Penn State officials didn't do enough to try to stop suspected sexual abuse of children at the hands of a former assistant football coach, the state police commissioner said Monday.

Paterno may have fulfilled his legal requirement to report suspected abuse by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, state police Commissioner Frank Noonan said, "but somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child."

He added: "I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone. Not whether you're a football coach or a university president or the guy sweeping the building. I think you have a moral responsibility to call us."

 

[Reader]

Sandusky case shows where Pa. child protective services law fails

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/11/where_pa_child_protective_serv.html

By Julia L. Tilley

I am a Penn State alumna (I earned a bachelor’s degree in applied behavioral science in 1996). Today, I am a licensed clinical social worker and also a state-mandated reporter of suspected child abuse. So were/are the staff at Penn State.

I am distraught about the failure of Penn State to follow the law in reporting suspected child abuse. I also am frustrated with our legislators in their failure to build a fail-safe mechanism into Pennsylvania’s child protective laws.
----------

This means that any teacher, staff, administrator, grad assistant or coach (and others who in their routine workday come into contact with children) are mandated to report any and all suspected child abuse to the Department of Public Welfare.

Most people report by calling the Childline at 800-932-0313. That seems fairly straightforward. However, that same law goes on to state that mandated reporters at an educational institution are only obligated to “notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge of the suspected abuse.”

The implication being that the “person in charge” of the educational institution will make the call to notify DPW. This sounds good in theory. But what if, as has happened at Penn State, the alleged perpetrator is an admired icon of the institution?

Should we trust the institution to make the call to DPW? What if it doesn’t report it? What if it sweeps it under the rug? What if it misinterprets the situation? What if it attempts to make it seem “unclear” that a notification of potential child abuse was reported to them?

I propose that we amend the law to require the mandated reporter to make a report directly to DPW and notify the “person in charge” of the institution where they work.


and more at link...

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Frank Noonan disagrees:

Police official: Paterno didn't do enough to stop abuse

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...p-officials-step-down-amid-penn-state-scandal

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Football coach Joe Paterno and other Penn State officials didn't do enough to try to stop suspected sexual abuse of children at the hands of a former assistant football coach, the state police commissioner said Monday.

Paterno may have fulfilled his legal requirement to report suspected abuse by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, state police Commissioner Frank Noonan said, "but somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child."

He added: "I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone. Not whether you're a football coach or a university president or the guy sweeping the building. I think you have a moral responsibility to call us."

I didn't see Paterno could not have done more, only that that there wasn't a lot more he could have done.

 

[Rlaub44]

It astounds me the search for excuses to exonerate this man for not doing what the law says he should and could have done to protect children!!

What is more valuable and required here...to protect somebody's reputation or to protect children...many of whom were abused or continued to be abused FOR YEARS because he was too cowardly or unfeeling (except for himself) to report a CRIME AGAINST A CHILD to the police or CPS?

Again, no one was tying his hands from doing this and he had more power and influence than anyone at the school, even his 'superiors'.

Another link to the law:

Child Protective Services Law

http://www.pa-fsa.org/CPSL_5_09.pdf

(a) General rule.--A person who, in the course of employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made in accordance with section 6313 (relating to reporting procedure) when the person has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of medical, professional or other training and experience, that a child under the care, supervision, guidance or training of that person or of an agency, institution, organization or other entity with which that person is affiliated is a victim of child abuse, including child abuse by an individual who is not a perpetrator.

Second Mile anyone?

Bolded and snipped by me.

I'm sorry, but I take offense to the insinuation in the section I bolded. If we take only the facts of this case, it is clear that, as was shown, Paterno met the legal requirements of the CPS law at that time, which was agreed upon by Noonan and Kelly. That is why nobody has to go to any lengths to exonerate him from "what the law says he should and could have done."

Further, as has been discussed numerous times, Paterno reported what was told to him to his direct superior and the information was also given to the administrator overseeing the police with jurisdiction. While many people wish Paterno had done more, it is clearly unfair to say that he didn't report the matter. If he were interested in a coverup, he would have told McQueary, "Thanks for telling me; I will take care of it," and the matter would have ended there. He reported up the chain of command to the people he thought would handle it.

Curley, Schultz and Spanier had the information from Paterno and McQueary, and made the conscious choice to do nothing more with it. That is where my anger lies. There and with the alleged pedophile that created this situation. While I may wish that Paterno, Mike McQueary, John McQueary, or Dr. Dranov had called CYS or the police directly, I cannot find their lack of follow-up as egregious as the administrators that deliberately dropped the ball and , in doing so, allowed Sandusky to continue.

And as to your point about The Second Mile, they share a great deal of the culpability if they were notified by Curley with any detail at all. Jack Raykovitz is a practicing psychologist who knows all too well the signs and symptoms of child abuse, and the fact remains that it was his agency that put this predator with these children. Penn State should have conducted an investigation, Second Mile should have conducted an investigation, and both should have pursued the allegation with law enforcement.

In my opinion, both of these entities are far more responsible for what continued than the head football coach who reported the incident, although it is obviously not as attractive of a story for the media.

 

[Tipstaff]

Right, but the quote I replied to was discussing possible charges against Paterno. The debate about his moral obligation is definitely a different matter.

And I also don't think it is accurate to describe Sandusky as involved with the program for another decade. He maintained his privileges to use the facilities in the retirement settlement agreed to by PSU administration, not by Paterno. He was no longer coaching, and from all of the articles I have read, even those pre-dating the scandal becoming known, Sandusky and Paterno were not close - almost as if there was some distance between them.

There was some distance between them because Paterno told Sandusky he would no longer be coaching nor would he become the head coach.

The relationship between Sandusky and Paterno isn't my issue - what Sandusky continued to do for over a decade with the keys to the buildings at Penn State is.

 

[Reader]

Bolded and snipped by me.

I'm sorry, but I take offense to the insinuation in the section I bolded. If we take only the facts of this case, it is clear that, as was shown, Paterno met the legal requirements of the CPS law at that time, which was agreed upon by Noonan and Kelly. That is why nobody has to go to any lengths to exonerate him from "what the law says he should and could have done."

Further, as has been discussed numerous times, Paterno reported what was told to him to his direct superior and the information was also given to the administrator overseeing the police with jurisdiction. While many people wish Paterno had done more, it is clearly unfair to say that he didn't report the matter. If he were interested in a coverup, he would have told McQueary, "Thanks for telling me; I will take care of it," and the matter would have ended there. He reported up the chain of command to the people he thought would handle it.

Curley, Schultz and Spanier had the information from Paterno and McQueary, and made the conscious choice to do nothing more with it. That is where my anger lies. There and with the alleged pedophile that created this situation. While I may wish that Paterno, Mike McQueary, John McQueary, or Dr. Dranov had called CYS or the police directly, I cannot find their lack of follow-up as egregious as the administrators that deliberately dropped the ball and , in doing so, allowed Sandusky to continue.

And as to your point about The Second Mile, they share a great deal of the culpability if they were notified by Curley with any detail at all. Jack Raykovitz is a practicing psychologist who knows all too well the signs and symptoms of child abuse, and the fact remains that it was his agency that put this predator with these children. Penn State should have conducted an investigation, Second Mile should have conducted an investigation, and both should have pursued the allegation with law enforcement.

In my opinion, both of these entities are far more responsible for what continued than the head football coach who reported the incident, although it is obviously not as attractive of a story for the media.

BBM

What offends me is people who don't do ALL they can to protect children from abuse of any kind.

On the BBM, I can't agree since Paterno and MM both knew there had been no real action taken and if they had followed up and made their own reports directly to the state police, AG or CPS, which they both had every right and means to do, these children could have been saved years ahead of what has happened. And that realization and his firing for that reason is what brought the media's attention to him so much...since everybody recognized him as the 'power person' in the equation and expected him to do the right thing and were disappointed to find out he had not.

No argument on what Second Mile should have done and the other investigations that should have been done by the school and the SM, with results turned over to the proper authorities.

Let's just agree to disagree on the Paterno question...we are looking from different viewpoints, plus it's past time to worry about it anymore since he is gone now.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Be that as it may in 2002, there was nothing stopping him or others either. The Pa. CPS Act has this section also:

http://www.yccys.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=C9WJxFpbw40=&tabid=494

§ 6312. Persons permitted to report suspected child abuse.
In addition to those persons and officials required to report suspected child abuse, any person may make such a report if that person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is an abused child.

Since Paterno and others continued to observe Sandusky at campus facilities and activities with minor children, and were affiliated with him through the Second Mile, knowing what they knew, how could they NOT make that call?

Reader, respectfully, I think there is a problem with this. Paterno properly reported the incident. He didn't, and bluntly shouldn't, know what that ongoing investigation finds, unless it produces charges.

For all he knew, Curley and Schultz properly reported the incident, and the investigation produced no charges. LE had a 1998 investigation, where the evidence was much stronger (though the crime was arguably less serious), and there was no decision to prosecute. In 2002, it was the of one (then) low status witness with no physical evidence, no corroborating witnesses and no victim.

I'm very critical of DA Gricar for not prosecuting in 1998. I'm also very critical of Lauro at CYS for closing his investigation. If the 1998 incidents hadn't taken place or been reported and they were involved in 2002, I wouldn't be critical.

The whole case in 2002 depends on if they, and a jury, believe McQueary beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point, McQueary was not established, but just a teaching assistant. I could easily understand why they could look at the 2002 incident and say, "It's too weak."

All that said, it would have been appropriate for Paterno to have done a followup with Curley or Schultz and basically ask, "Did you follow up on that issue involving Jerry?"

Frankly, after reading Schultz's testimony that was presented at the preliminary hearing, I doubt if Paterno would have gotten an honest answer.

Also, if Schultz and Curley had done what they were legally required to do in 2002, we wouldn't be talking about Paterno at all.

 

[Rlaub44]

Reader, respectfully, I think there is a problem with this. Paterno properly reported the incident. He didn't, and bluntly shouldn't, know what that ongoing investigation finds, unless it produces charges.

For all he knew, Curley and Schultz properly reported the incident, and the investigation produced no charges. LE had a 1998 investigation, where the evidence was much stronger (though the crime was arguably less serious), and there was no decision to prosecute. In 2002, it was the of one (then) low status witness with no physical evidence, no corroborating witnesses and no victim.

I'm very critical of DA Gricar for not prosecuting in 1998. I'm also very critical of Lauro at CYS for closing his investigation. If the 1998 incidents hadn't taken place or been reported and they were involved in 2002, I wouldn't be critical.

The whole case in 2002 depends on if they, and a jury, believe McQueary beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point, McQueary was not established, but just a teaching assistant. I could easily understand why they could look at the 2002 incident and say, "It's too weak."

All that said, it would have been appropriate for Paterno to have done a followup with Curley or Schultz and basically ask, "Did you follow up on that issue involving Jerry?"

Frankly, after reading Schultz's testimony that was presented at the preliminary hearing, I doubt if Paterno would have gotten an honest answer.

Also, if Schultz and Curley had done what they were legally required to do in 2002, we wouldn't be talking about Paterno at all.

BBM:

Exactly. And if Paterno had asked Schultz and Curley, I'm sure he (was? would have been?) told, oh yes, we've started an internal investigation and spoken to Graham about it, and are following up with him. I am certain that would have satisfied Paterno.

And without the benefit of hindsight, I am convinced most of us in that situation would have trusted those men to do the right thing as well. All of the teachers who ever reported possible abuse to me never called CYS or the police on their own, because they trusted me to do what I was supposed to.

Your last line sums up my feelings and anger about the situation all too well.

 

[BigCat]

BBM:

Exactly. And if Paterno had asked Schultz and Curley, I'm sure he (was? would have been?) told, oh yes, we've started an internal investigation and spoken to Graham about it, and are following up with him. I am certain that would have satisfied Paterno.

And without the benefit of hindsight, I am convinced most of us in that situation would have trusted those men to do the right thing as well. All of the teachers who ever reported possible abuse to me never called CYS or the police on their own, because they trusted me to do what I was supposed to.

Your last line sums up my feelings and anger about the situation all too well.

Paterno's chief lieutenant for 30 years used his position of influence in the Penn State football program to molest children. The only thing Paterno did to stop him was notify the AD, a flunky Paterno hand picked for the job himself, who, at best, botched the investigation, or, at worst, covered it up. So my anger extends beyond the administration to include Paterno and the entire Penn State family, who are collectively in denial. I don't blame prosecutors for requesting a change of venue because it wouldn't surprise me for a Centre county jury to acquit Sandusky in hopes of vindicating Paterno.

Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge, or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

A: I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it. You did mention -- I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor.

IMO, Paterno was in denial. He knew. He had to have known. ("Having been in this profession a long time and knowing how close coaching staffs are, I knew that this was a secret that was kept secret. Everyone on that staff had to have known, the ones that had been around a long time." -- Barry Switzer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/joe-paterno-fired-barry-switzer_n_1087599.html).

Joe Paterno did a lot of great things as both a football coach and as a man. He also enabled a pedophile. I have no problem seeing both the positive and the negative in the man. I believe many Penn Staters are miminizing Paterno's culpability because, otherwise, they would have to acknowledge and deal with negative emotions toward a father figure, JoePa. Just my opinion, of course. I've always been more interested in this case from a psychological perspective than a legal one, so I admit my bias. I'm not particulary interested in the legal technicalities of whether Paterno met his legal obligations or not. And considering that Paterno was never charged with a crime, it's not really an issue.

 

[Tipstaff]

Paterno's chief lieutenant for 30 years used his position of influence in the Penn State football program to molest children. The only thing Paterno did to stop him was notify the AD, a flunky Paterno hand picked for the job himself, who, at best, botched the investigation, or, at worst, covered it up. So my anger extends beyond the administration to include Paterno and the entire Penn State family, who are collectively in denial. I don't blame prosecutors for requesting a change of venue because it wouldn't surprise me for a Centre county jury to acquit Sandusky in hopes of vindicating Paterno.



IMO, Paterno was in denial. He knew. He had to have known. ("Having been in this profession a long time and knowing how close coaching staffs are, I knew that this was a secret that was kept secret. Everyone on that staff had to have known, the ones that had been around a long time." -- Barry Switzer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/joe-paterno-fired-barry-switzer_n_1087599.html).

Joe Paterno did a lot of great things as both a football coach and as a man. He also enabled a pedophile. I have no problem seeing both the positive and the negative in the man. I believe many Penn Staters are miminizing Paterno's culpability because, otherwise, they would have to acknowledge and deal with negative emotions toward a father figure, JoePa. Just my opinion, of course. I've always been more interested in this case from a psychological perspective than a legal one, so I admit my bias. I'm not particulary interested in the legal technicalities of whether Paterno met his legal obligations or not. And considering that Paterno was never charged with a crime, it's not really an issue.

:tyou: and Bravo Big Cat!

 

[Quiche]

Here's a current take on the Paterno question: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micha...il-knight-did-not_b_1256716.html?ref=homepage


I think, really, all one has to do is stand back, take a deep breath, and realize that the Penn State machine will roll on. Paterno's reputation is an essential cog to restore its future efficacy, and so propaganda will ensue (oh, excuse me: taking charge of the discourse will ensue).

Personally, I'm ready to ignore all things Penn State and focus on those boys, the men they've become, and THEIR futures... I want to know, from them, what they'd like to see happen to the powers that failed them. If they want to hold Penn State accountable, I will be right there with them, just like I'll be there when they hold Sandusky's feet to the fire. Same with TSM and the school districts that pandered to the rapist.

moo

 

[Belinda]

Here's a current take on the Paterno question: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micha...il-knight-did-not_b_1256716.html?ref=homepage


I think, really, all one has to do is stand back, take a deep breath, and realize that the Penn State machine will roll on. Paterno's reputation is an essential cog to restore its future efficacy, and so propaganda will ensue (oh, excuse me: taking charge of the discourse will ensue).

Personally, I'm ready to ignore all things Penn State and focus on those boys, the men they've become, and THEIR futures... I want to know, from them, what they'd like to see happen to the powers that failed them. If they want to hold Penn State accountable, I will be right there with them, just like I'll be there when they hold Sandusky's feet to the fire. Same with TSM and the school districts that pandered to the rapist.

moo

Great post! :rocker:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Paterno's chief lieutenant for 30 years used his position of influence in the Penn State football program to molest children. The only thing Paterno did to stop him was notify the AD, a flunky Paterno hand picked for the job himself, who, at best, botched the investigation, or, at worst, covered it up. So my anger extends beyond the administration to include Paterno and the entire Penn State family, who are collectively in denial. I don't blame prosecutors for requesting a change of venue because it wouldn't surprise me for a Centre county jury to acquit Sandusky in hopes of vindicating Paterno.

Well then, a Centre County jury should convict Schultz in hopes of vindicating Paterno, as well as in the interests of justice.

Why do think Paterno should be involved in investigating someone, going into the confidential files of a police department. Paterno was neither perfect nor a god (despite the halo). I don't him to be all-knowing. Any reports that I've heard indicated that Paterno and Sandusky had a professional relationship, but not a personal one.

IMO, Paterno was in denial. He knew. He had to have known. ("Having been in this profession a long time and knowing how close coaching staffs are, I knew that this was a secret that was kept secret. Everyone on that staff had to have known, the ones that had been around a long time." -- Barry Switzer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/joe-paterno-fired-barry-switzer_n_1087599.html).

I write primarily about the DA involved in this. He was with the office for 25 years. Most of his staff (with one exception) had virtually no knowledge of his private life. The president judge of the county at the time, who had offices in the same building and who probably argued hundreds of cases in front of called him, "A hard guy to know."

As for possible rumors, well they are just that. Half the Internet thought I was in LE, even though I specifically said I'm not and never was. Three weeks ago, somebody thought I was an FBI agent. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/10847837.html?page=10&c=y

Really, what is Paterno, or anyone, suppose to do? Call the cops and say, "Something may be happening with Sandusky someplace but I don't know what?"

Yes, even from an administrative standpoint, I think he should done some followup in 2002. On the scale of culpability here, that is very low.

 

[wfgodot]

Shopping ahead: unfortunate gift ideas for next holiday season (eBay)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Shopping ahead: unfortunate gift ideas for next holiday season (eBay)

It already has two bids and is at $102.00.

 

[Tipstaff]

Shopping ahead: unfortunate gift ideas for next holiday season (eBay)

Perhaps there will be no need to BUY this book as it maybe introduced as evidence with all the pertinent parts being highlighted by the prosecution if and when the author goes to trial.

It would pain me for anyone to contribute :twocents: to his defense fund. :s

 

[ThoughtFox]

We all go round and round with semantic arguments about whether Paterno met the legal qualifications or the moral obligation, both or neither, on and on.

But in terms of "branding" Paterno is tainted goods. Just as the Susan Komen foundation has insured it's own extinction due to self-destruction, so did he.
He will forever be associated with Sandusky in the minds of millions of people and blamed for his own inaction. Legal, moral, whatever - his "good name" is toast now. :twocents:

And we haven't even started a trial or finished the investigation into all the victims yet! What Paterno did or didn't do is going to be brought up again and again ad nauseum. And I would bet money as I write this that several journalists and victims etc. will be writing books that contain probably more shocking details, so there will never be a way to shine up Paterno's "legacy" and go back to the day before this happened. The world has changed and we can't go back. :cow:

So buckle your seatbelts it's going to be a bumpy couple of years.

 

[Tipstaff]

Just a reminder that Sandusky's modification of bail conditions hearing is Feb. 10th.


Per WPVI information follows


"Amendola has requested a "bill of particulars" document from prosecutors that would include names of purported victims along with the times, locations and other information to back up the 52 criminal counts against him. But the attorney general's office said in a separate document filed in Centre County court that the grand jury reports, charging documents and discovery materials lay out the facts sufficiently.

Sandusky "has at his disposal ample information to be apprised of the charges, avoid surprise, and intelligently raise any double jeopardy or statute of limitations challenges," prosecutors wrote, asking the judge to deny the request.

Judge John M. Cleland has scheduled a Feb. 10 hearing to resolve any remaining disputes concerning the defense request, and to consider Sandusky's attempt to modify bail conditions so he may have contact with his grandchildren.

Sandusky, currently under house arrest in State College, wants permission for his 11 grandchildren to visit his home, accompanied by a parent, as well as to be allowed to communicate with them by phone or computer."



(Copyright ©2012 WPVI-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved