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

[Tipstaff]

Sandusky update


Tuesday February 7, 2012 Updated: 2:28 p.m.Search post-gazette.com:



Attorney: Sandusky accusers may have conspired against him
Tuesday, February 07, 2012

By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Attorneys for Jerry Sandusky said this morning that the accusers in the sexual abuse case against him may have "collaborated" to bring charges against him.

In a motion filed in Centre County Common Pleas Court, attorney Joe Amendola asked the court to compel the state attorney general's office to provide him with a variety of outstanding discovery materials, including the phone numbers of the 10 alleged victims in the case.

"The defendant believes the accusers may have collaborated with each other in making these false accusations," Mr. Amendola wrote.

Without obtaining phone numbers, the defense will be unable to get necessary phone records to determine if the witnesses had contact with each other "at critical times during the commonwealth's investigation and prosecution in his cases."

The defense started receiving evidence, called discovery, in the case on Jan. 17, and received names of eight of 10 accusers on Feb. 3. However, Mr. Amendola claims that much of the materials, including investigative reports, include redactions, "ranging from single entries through to and including full pages."

Senior Judge John M. Cleland, who is presiding over the case, has scheduled the matter to be argued on Friday, along with previously filed motions by the government asking for a jury from outside Centre County to be brought in to hear the case, and a motion by Mr. Sandusky asking that his bail be modified so that he may visit with his grandchildren.

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


Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/12038/1208667-100.stm#ixzz1lj71rOsN

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

I don't think the legal argument is "semantic." That was determined by the AG. There was no legal violation and there is a fairly clear line between what you have to do to comply.

The moral argument does not have a clear line, but a grey area. I've heard some suggestions that Paterno should have called the press. That, by my standard, would be immoral. It is wrong to accuse someone publicly with no evidence. He didn't have the details, according to McQuerry, and he didn't witness the act. Some people here, however, have insisted that was the "moral" thing to do.

I would argue that, administratively, he had an interest in protecting the program, and in making efforts to make sure that improper activity was not occurring. That involved following up with his superiors, and that didn't happen. And yes, it have made no difference.

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.

I don't agree. His "good name" is no longer "Perfection" or "St. Joseph," but it never should have been. He didn't end his career on its high point, but it was not too far off that pinnacle. Paterno wasn't perfect, but he wasn't bad either.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Sandusky update


Tuesday February 7, 2012 Updated: 2:28 p.m.Search post-gazette.com:



Attorney: Sandusky accusers may have conspired against him
Tuesday, February 07, 2012

By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Attorneys for Jerry Sandusky said this morning that the accusers in the sexual abuse case against him may have "collaborated" to bring charges against him.

I think this why 2007 and 1998 are so very important; there are independent witnesses to some of Sandusky's actions and comments.

If the victim in 2002 is found, it would become important.

 

[ThoughtFox]

I would argue that, administratively, he had an interest in protecting the program, and in making efforts to make sure that improper activity was not occurring. That involved following up with his superiors, and that didn't happen. And yes, it have made no difference.

Yes, he and the others tried to make it an "administrative" problem when really it was a human problem. Therein lies Paterno's problem - this was about kids in pain, not paperwork.

I don't agree. His "good name" is no longer "Perfection" or "St. Joseph," but it never should have been. He didn't end his career on its high point, but it was not too far off that pinnacle. Paterno wasn't perfect, but he wasn't bad either.

No he wasn't perfect. Was he bad? I don't know - I was talking about public perception.

Look at his very name: Paterno. It's from the Latin for "father."

His public persona was "JoPa" - the paternal father-figure. Surely he was aware of that. Surely he knew what he meant to the fans. Of course he did - he counted on that, and so did Penn State. That was JoPa's "brand."

Heck, he was so much of a father-figure to McQueary that he couldn't even explain what he saw in the locker-room for fear of offending the ears of the saintly old man.

But when push came to shove, did he act like a kindly father-figure? No.

Well, people say, he was a coach - he was tough - he wasn't supposed to be nice all the time.

That's true - we expect our coaches to be crusty and tough.

But there's a contradiction there - was he tough on Sandusky? Did he crack down on him, or did he just go with the flow? Yep - he took the path of least resistance - the administrative path, you might say.

I bet he never told his players to do that. He taught them to be active, not passive. He held them to a higher standard than he held himself. And that's a problem in how he will be remembered, whatever the legal standard was.

Most people don't look at this logically through legal glasses. They look at Paterno emotionally, and now they have mixed feelings about him. This great man turned out to be just another bureaucrat who did just enough to get by legally, and to hell with what happened to the victims. That's why Penn State may move on recover, but except for some hardcore fans, most people are completely unimpressed, and his brand isn't worth much now.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes, he and the others tried to make it an "administrative" problem when really it was a human problem. Therein lies Paterno's problem - this was about kids in pain, not paperwork.

By handling it administratively, it would have had a better chance of protecting kids.

No he wasn't perfect. Was he bad? I don't know - I was talking about public perception.

Look at his very name: Paterno. It's from the Latin for "father."

His public persona was "JoPa" - the paternal father-figure. Surely he was aware of that. Surely he knew what he meant to the fans. Of course he did - he counted on that, and so did Penn State. That was JoPa's "brand."

I am fortunate (?) enough to have realized that my father own wasn't perfect. The pedestal of perfection was, and is, always too high

But when push came to shove, did he act like a kindly father-figure? No.

I would say "yes." He didn't look at McQueary and say, "You're nuts, kid." He treated it seriously and reported it.

But there's a contradiction there - was he tough on Sandusky? Did he crack down on him, or did he just go with the flow? Yep - he took the path of least resistance - the administrative path, you might say.

The problem with this that he could not crack down on Sandusky, not that chose not to. In 2002, he had no authority over Sandusky, even politically.

Again, you complain about Paterno being a father figure, but as a father figure he had no ability to spank Sandusky, send him to his room, take away the car (or office) keys, or ground him for two weeks.

You are elevating Paterno to that level of perfection, then wondering why he didn't live up to your standard.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

More on what Amendola wants, with a slight surprise:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/attorney_prosecutors_left_out.html

Found by a poster named quixote.

 

[Tipstaff]

More on what Amendola wants, with a slight surprise:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/attorney_prosecutors_left_out.html

Found by a poster named quixote.

Please point out what you feel is surprising as you have an in-depth knowledge of Gricar etc.

The entire list was pretty interesting and it is appears to be 'game on' by Sandusky and his lawyer.

The request for the entire Paterno interview makes me wonder where Sandusky and his lawyer are going especially since Paterno has passed.

The details of the disagreement with the assistant and Gricar may shed some light on Gricar's state of mind re Sandusky or do you already know the
details?

 

[Pensfan]

Sandusky is standing in his backyard "ogling" little boys at the elementary school near his some. Prosecutors want his bail conditions revised so he can't go outside and "ogle' children. Pffffffffft!
(There aren't children for him to "ogle" in jail. REVOKE HIS BOND! )
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/jerry_sandusky_accused_of_watc.html

 

[Tipstaff]

sandusky is standing in his backyard "ogling" little boys at the elementary school near his some. Prosecutors want his bail conditions revised so he can't go outside and "ogle' children. Pffffffffft!
(there aren't children for him to "ogle" in jail. Revoke his bond! )
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/jerry_sandusky_accused_of_watc.html

c r e e p y........................

 

[ThoughtFox]

Sandusky is standing in his backyard "ogling" little boys at the elementary school near his some. Prosecutors want his bail conditions revised so he can't go outside and "ogle' children. Pffffffffft!
(There aren't children for him to "ogle" in jail. REVOKE HIS BOND! )
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/jerry_sandusky_accused_of_watc.html

O. M. G. He has no shame at all. Those poor kids!

:thud:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Please point out what you feel is surprising as you have an in-depth knowledge of Gricar etc.

The idea that there were "extensive disagreements." Did JKA advise RFG that it was a strong case and they should prosecute or call a grand jury? Did she suggest they shouldn't prosecute? Is Amendola just blowing smoke?

Harmon was asked specifically if he talked to JKA, during the preliminary for Schultz and Curley," by the prosecutor.

There are links on the Gricar Thread #8 pages 29-30. Here is the link: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7572446&postcount=715"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #8[/ame]

I do not know the details, but it looks like there is something up.

 

[StellarsJay]

I don't think Paterno could have done much directly about Sandusky in 2002- as you say he wasn't a witness- but all it would have taken to satisfy me is for him to: determine that Schultz was stonewalling and tell him to move or Paterno would, and/or call up McQueary and find out if he was willing to make a direct call to campus police or real world police, with a guarantee from Paterno that he would fully back him or go with him if he made that choice. Only a few hours out of Paterno's life to get the situation directly into police hands..

Somewhere in late November/ early December, a news story described Paterno encountering Sandusky (not with a kid) and saying "Are you still here?" Can't find the story again and don't know what year it is supposed to have happened.

Trying to imagine how that parents and teachers at that school explain this to the kids.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't think Paterno could have done much directly about Sandusky in 2002- as you say he wasn't a witness- but all it would have taken to satisfy me is for him to: determine that Schultz was stonewalling and tell him to move or Paterno would, and/or call up McQueary and find out if he was willing to make a direct call to campus police or real world police, with a guarantee from Paterno that he would fully back him or go with him if he made that choice. Only a few hours out of Paterno's life to get the situation directly into police hands..

Paterno couldn't back McQueary, because he didn't see what McQueary saw. Schultz, hypothetically, tells Paterno that there wasn't anything to it, what is Paterno suppose to do?

Again, Paterno should have asked.

Somewhere in late November/ early December, a news story described Paterno encountering Sandusky (not with a kid) and saying "Are you still here?" Can't find the story again and don't know what year it is supposed to have happened.

I read it, but the remark could have been jocular. I got the same thing when I came back to the office after retiring.

 

[Tipstaff]

The idea that there were "extensive disagreements." Did JKA advise RFG that it was a strong case and they should prosecute or call a grand jury? Did she suggest they shouldn't prosecute? Is Amendola just blowing smoke?

Harmon was asked specifically if he talked to JKA, during the preliminary for Schultz and Curley," by the prosecutor.

There are links on the Gricar Thread #8 pages 29-30. Here is the link: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #8

I do not know the details, but it looks like there is something up.

Read through a few newspaper reports and it is interesting to see it being stated that a State Police report exists regarding KA having 'extensive disagreements' with Gricar in regard to the Sandusky investigation.

Amendola has made some pretty out there statements and just waiting to see if there really is a report and for it to be made public.

Both cases gets more curiouser and curiouser as the phrase goes.

Thanks for the link.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Read through a few newspaper reports and it is interesting to see it being stated that a State Police report exists regarding KA having 'extensive disagreements' with Gricar in regard to the Sandusky investigation.

Well, they know where she is.

I'm now wondering if the grand jury was investigating RFG's role in the 1998 case? Did they just decide to check with the person who handled the cases of this type and she told them?

JKA has indicated that she didn't have a big role in the case, which might not have been standard operational procedure.

Amendola has made some pretty out there statements and just waiting to see if there really is a report and for it to be made public.

Yes, but the question came from the prosecutor in the Schultz/Curley preliminary.

Both cases gets more curiouser and curiouser as the phrase goes.

Central Pennsylvania Gothic.

 

[pinktoes]

Amendola didn't just make up that business about K. Arnold disagreeing with Gricar about the 1998 case. It was in some of the discovery documents he got from the prosecution.

In his motion filed Feb 6, he asked for more complete info on many of the docs he got; that being one of them. Here's a link to the .pdf:

http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Sandusky_discovery_motion_2-6-12.pdf

 

[pinktoes]

Oh, there's another really interesting item in Amendola's request for more complete info.

"Page 163 of PSP Incident Report No. G07-1146135
describes a Grand Jury Subpoena No. 111 being issued for ALL child abuse case(s)
reported within certain areas served upon the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for
records of child abuse for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 for specific reporting districts
within the Commonwealth. The Defendant is asking the Court to enter an Order
directing the Commonwealth to provide Defendant's counsel with full, complete, and
non-redacted copies of these materials pursuant to his request contained in
Defendant's First Request for Pre-Trial Discovery material along with all supplemental
reports and attachments related thereto as well as any future identified information
resulting from the subpoena."

same link to the .pdf:
http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Sandusky_discovery_motion_2-6-12.pdf

Since according to one of the PSU Trustees, Cynthia Baldwin said there had been 3 previous grand juries investigating Sandusky, we don't really know which one Amendola's request above relates to. Just seems like it would be the latest G.J.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Amendola didn't just make up that business about K. Arnold disagreeing with Gricar about the 1998 case. It was in some of the discovery documents he got from the prosecution.

In his motion filed Feb 6, he asked for more complete info on many of the docs he got; that being one of them. Here's a link to the .pdf:

http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Sandusky_discovery_motion_2-6-12.pdf

AP picked up the story.

Okay, according to the prosecutors, if I understand, JKA disagreed with RFG over the handling of the 1998 incident; Gricar didn't prosecute.

I have a very bad feeling about this.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Since according to one of the PSU Trustees, Cynthia Baldwin said there had been 3 previous grand juries investigating Sandusky, we don't really know which one Amendola's request above relates to. Just seems like it would be the latest G.J.

The AG's Office said there was only one.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This might be the key to what Amendola is doing:

There was further reporting prepared on this incident that a
psychological evaluation was conducted and a report prepared by John P. Seasock, a
psychologist, of an unknown individual. The Attorney General's response to
Defendant's discovery request failed to provide this psychological evaluation report
prepared by Dr. Seasock and to identify the patient. The Defendant is asking the Court
to enter an Order directing the Commonwealth to provide Defendant's counsel with full,
complete, and non-redacted copies of these materials pursuant to his request
contained in Defendant's First Request for Pre-Trial Discovery material along with all
supplemental reports related thereto.