Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #4

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was struck by a video of Paterno out in front of his house, sometime shortly after when he was fired. The supportive crowd was there praising Paterno and his wife.

One of Paterno's statements to the crowd was to "pray for the victims." To me this is a very interesting admission that he knew of, was sure of, the fact that there were multiple victims. Why else would he say something like that?

While there are still Penn State freakazoids who imply that the evidence against Sandusky is fabricated, Paterno himself is willing to characterize Sandusky as guilty? This means that the slime lawyer whiney-boys who paint Sandusksy as a victim (Cohen & Gershman) would have to attack Paterno for biasing the public. And Paterno's voice biases the public on a par with big-time news organizations.

Paterno and his wife, standing outside their house and confirming definitely that there were multiple victims, means that somehow they have been fully informed and believe in the verity of the case against Sandusky. The burden then, seems like it is on Paterno to say when in his own mind Sandusky was confirmed to be a child abuser. But wait, I get the slight intuition that it will be a job for his PR firm.
 
I was struck by a video of Paterno out in front of his house, sometime shortly after when he was fired. The supportive crowd was there praising Paterno and his wife.

One of Paterno's statements to the crowd was to "pray for the victims." To me this is a very interesting admission that he knew of, was sure of, the fact that there were multiple victims. Why else would he say something like that?

While there are still Penn State freakazoids who imply that the evidence against Sandusky is fabricated, Paterno himself is willing to characterize Sandusky as guilty? This means that the slime lawyer whiney-boys who paint Sandusksy as a victim (Cohen & Gershman) would have to attack Paterno for biasing the public. And Paterno's voice biases the public on a par with big-time news organizations.

Paterno and his wife, standing outside their house and confirming definitely that there were multiple victims, means that somehow they have been fully informed and believe in the verity of the case against Sandusky. The burden then, seems like it is on Paterno to say when in his own mind Sandusky was confirmed to be a child abuser. But wait, I get the slight intuition that it will be a job for his PR firm.

That could have been based on the presentment.
 
I was struck by a video of Paterno out in front of his house, sometime shortly after when he was fired. The supportive crowd was there praising Paterno and his wife.

One of Paterno's statements to the crowd was to "pray for the victims." To me this is a very interesting admission that he knew of, was sure of, the fact that there were multiple victims. Why else would he say something like that?

While there are still Penn State freakazoids who imply that the evidence against Sandusky is fabricated, Paterno himself is willing to characterize Sandusky as guilty? This means that the slime lawyer whiney-boys who paint Sandusksy as a victim (Cohen & Gershman) would have to attack Paterno for biasing the public. And Paterno's voice biases the public on a par with big-time news organizations.

Paterno and his wife, standing outside their house and confirming definitely that there were multiple victims, means that somehow they have been fully informed and believe in the verity of the case against Sandusky. The burden then, seems like it is on Paterno to say when in his own mind Sandusky was confirmed to be a child abuser. But wait, I get the slight intuition that it will be a job for his PR firm.
The grand jury report came out with info on the victims on November 7th. The video of Joe Paterno in front of his house occurred on November 10th.

Where are you reading Penn State fans posting that the evidence is fabricated? Just curious...I haven't seen this.
 
That could have been based on the presentment.

Hmmmm, you're right, I didn't think of that.

However, maybe I haven't followed closely enough, but I have not seen any display of dismay / surprise from Paterno at the gravity of the situation. This reticence on his part implies he was not surprised at all - that he was prepared legally by lawyers. Wouldn't you, in his situation, express some anger at betrayal of an old colleague if you were genuinely surprised?
 
The grand jury report came out with info on the victims on November 7th. The video of Joe Paterno in front of his house occurred on November 10th.

Where are you reading Penn State fans posting that the evidence is fabricated? Just curious...I haven't seen this.

There are many comments in various forums, for example in the link I gave previously where lawyers characterized Sandusky as a victim:

"But Sandusky was not charged in 1998 even after admitting he showered with her son and making the statement that he "wished he were dead."

That statement is not an admission of guilt. It could just be the lament of an innocent man being unfairly harassed by police and an irate mother in 1998.

PA child abuse laws are apparently weak or vague. A naked adult bear-hugging a boy in the showers was not considered child abuse in 1998 by the DA and the PA Dept.of Public Welfare, the state agency that investigates child abuse.

Did the laws change since then? Usually the law at the time of the "crime"must be applied."
 
Hmmmm, you're right, I didn't think of that.

However, maybe I haven't followed closely enough, but I have not seen any display of dismay / surprise from Paterno at the gravity of the situation. This reticence on his part implies he was not surprised at all - that he was prepared legally by lawyers. Wouldn't you, in his situation, express some anger at betrayal of an old colleague if you were genuinely surprised?
Joe Paterno is an 84-year-old terminally ill man. His mental acuity and word recall were slipping years ago before being diagnosed with cancer. Maybe he is greatly dismayed? We don't know.
[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1137447702280413132"]Joe Paterno Bloopers Penn State[/ame]
 
Joe Paterno is an 84-year-old terminally ill man. His mental acuity and word recall was slipping years ago before being diagnosed with cancer. Maybe he is greatly dismayed? We don't know.
Joe Paterno Bloopers Penn State

IMO, Joe Paterno didn't express any surprise because he hasn't been surprised about this issue for many years. Article after article containing statements from people who were a part of the PSU football program and/or community have described Joe's all encompassing style of administration and his absolute knowledge of all things within his organization.

I take no pleasure in what has happened to a legend in college football. I'm, personally, content with the price he has already paid for his coverup. He has lost his reputation and what appears to be his driving force in life by failing to take action to protect these children.

Oddly enough, I believe it's not entirely too late for Joe Paterno to do the right thing. IMO, JoePa could regain a measure of his dignity by assisting the prosecution. There is no doubt in my mind that he possesses more than enough information to put this monster away for the rest of his natural life.

I hope to see him do what he can to help find justice for these children, and be able to live out the remainder of his life with the dignity that can only come from doing the right thing.
 
Costas / Sandusky interview

Something on the "full" interview of Sandusky by Costas I hadn't heard of before.[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xy0L8MUsOE"]YouTube[/ame]

Sandusky's lawyer said that he knew the identity of the boy who McQuery allegedly witnessed being raped by Sandusky. Here is a quote from an article Idaho Statesman article corraborating the lawyer's assertion:

"This guy voluntarily came in to see me and was eager to testify that no sexual activity had occurred," Amendola said. "Now, he's running scared."

Whoooaaaa, those are pretty strong words from Mr. Rip--- Mr. Amendola
 
There are many comments in various forums, for example in the link I gave previously where lawyers characterized Sandusky as a victim:

"But Sandusky was not charged in 1998 even after admitting he showered with her son and making the statement that he "wished he were dead."

That statement is not an admission of guilt. It could just be the lament of an innocent man being unfairly harassed by police and an irate mother in 1998.

Actually, it is an admission of action.

The 1998 act is said to violate this statute, a felony:

§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
within this Commonwealth:
(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31
(relating to sexual offenses).
(2) Open lewdness as defined in section 5901 (relating
to open lewdness).

(3) Prostitution as defined in section 5902 (relating to
prostitution and related offenses).
(4) Obscene and other sexual materials and performances
as defined in section 5903 (relating to obscene and other
sexual materials and performances).
(5) Sexual abuse of children as defined in section 6312
(relating to sexual abuse of children).
(6) Sexual exploitation of children as defined in
section 6320 (relating to sexual exploitation of children).


http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html

Note the bolded line: Open Lewdness. That is defined as:

§ 5901. Open lewdness.
A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he does
any lewd act which he knows is likely to be observed by others
who would be affronted or alarmed.


http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.059.001.000.html

Mr. Sandusky admitted to showering with, washing the back and hair of, and bear hugging Victim 6 while both were naked in front of the victim's mother, two police officers, and a welfare worker. As I said on another thread:

I could make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to would not constitute "open lewdness." Some might disagree with that argument.

I could make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and washing back and hair his would not constitute "open lewdness." Many might disagree with argument.

I could not make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and bear hugging him would not constitute "open lewdness."

Anyone want to make that argument that a naked 55 year old man taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and bear hugging him would not constitute "open lewdness?" I'm open to listening.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
 
Hmmmm, you're right, I didn't think of that.

However, maybe I haven't followed closely enough, but I have not seen any display of dismay / surprise from Paterno at the gravity of the situation. This reticence on his part implies he was not surprised at all - that he was prepared legally by lawyers. Wouldn't you, in his situation, express some anger at betrayal of an old colleague if you were genuinely surprised?

Shock, and a stunned old man who just saw his world collapsing around him.
 
I just read the new article in the latest Enquirer about Sandusky. This whole thing was even worse than I imagined. Very detailed interview with the mother of Matt Sandusky, the boy he 'befriended' at 10, and ended up 'adopting.' :mad:
 
Sandusky had authorized periods of partial custody of his grandchildren (2 granddaughters ages 6 and 7 and one grandson age 3) before the restraining order.

Sandusky’s adopted son’s “difficulties” are described in detail in this article.

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/ab...sky-s-second-mile-son-1.1233652#ixzz1en0IUzst

Thanks for the link, Pensfan...

It sounds like Matt has a great deal of pent up rage, and since much of it appears to be channeled towards women, I have to wonder if it's really misplaced anger toward his mother for not "saving" him from Sandusky.

I shudder to think what JS may have done to those grandchildren. :furious:
 
Joe Paterno is an 84-year-old terminally ill man. His mental acuity and word recall were slipping years ago before being diagnosed with cancer. Maybe he is greatly dismayed? We don't know.
Joe Paterno Bloopers Penn State

How do you know he's terminal (other than the fact he's 84 years old)? The cancer has been called treatable and that they are hopeful for a full recovery. Not every lung cancer is terminal.
 
Again, you have to wonder at what "level" Dorothy was operating at. What were her roles in this adoptive family? Who cared for the adopted childrens' everyday needs, such as cooking, cleaning, washing clothes, sending them to school, etc.? Did Dorothy have a job, or p.t. job? This seems like a very large group of children to care for.

I can only imagine the trauma, if she was clueless all of this time. How could she be clueless though?

And what of Susan Paterno? Was she told by Joe that something weird was going on, but he was handling it?

Wives bear a lot of the burden of sustaining a family.

Not that I doubt the "clueless" part. I've met many, many people who insist they are clueless, that they don't want to get upset by bad things in the news, for example, so they just force it out of their consciousness, and say the "authorities" will handle any problems.

That ain't working anymore though, because the problem is, the "authorities" might be the criminals, or the ones covering up.
 
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/18/4064338/penn-state-ignored-abuse-allegations.html

Penn State ignored abuse allegations, Ariz. man claims

A Phoenix, Ariz., man is alleging that he tried, without success, in 2001 and 2002 to reach someone at Penn State who would act on his claims he had been sexually abused as a child by a Penn State professor.

Paul McLaughlin, 45, of Phoenix, Ariz., alleged in a news release issued by the National Center for Victims of Crime that he was 11 years old in 1977 when he began to be abused by Penn State professor John T. Neisworth and two other men. He said the abuse occurred over a period of four years in several states, including at Neisworth’s home in Julian and at his Penn State office, McLaughlin said.
----------
According an interview with McLaughlin in the (Harrisburg) Patriot News, McLaughlin went to Penn State’s dean of education, David Monk, and eventually had a phone conversation with university President Graham Spanier in early 2002. Both brushed him off, he said, despite his offer to share a tape recording he made of Neisworth admitting to performing oral sex on him.
---------

McLaughlin filed a civil suit against Neisworth and a California man named Karl Goeke in New Jersey in 2001. McLaughlin agreed to an out-of-court cash settlement, which included a nondisclosure agreement, in 2002, according to the Centre Daily Times archives.
---------

[He then filed charges in 2005 which were dismissed due to lack of evidence; Neisworth then sued him and he counter-sued, results unknown.]
---------

“Last week’s arrest of Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky for the same kind of abuse suggests that little has changed (at the university),” he said. “At Penn State and other institutions, witnesses can just ignore abusers, leaving them free to abuse children again and again.”

McLaughlin and the National Center for Victims of Crime are advocating for the elimination of the statute of limitations for criminal and civil cases alleging child sexual abuse.


I wonder how well known this abuse and lack of reporting was known at the time? Maybe one reason Sandusky felt there would be no action and one reason others felt no need to take action....The prosecutors need to get this guy's testimony, IMO.
 
The prosecution has got to love the brand of logic being put out by Sandusky's lawyer.

Amendola also offered what may be a preview of defense strategy. He argued Sandusky couldn’t have committed the charges of repeated sexual contact with his alleged victims at his home because his house was always packed with people.

“This house was like a hotel, particularly on football weekends,” Amendola says.

“But Joe, a lot of people have sex in hotels,” counters ABC’s Jim Avila.

“You’re right a lot of people have sex in hotels, but this was a house. And the house was filled with people. Amendola argues.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/11/22/lawyer-concerned-sandusky-might-get-jail

Okie Dokie, Joe. Too many people at his house, eh? Ole Jerry needs his privacy, eh?

Wonder how many people this guy thinks were in the Lasch Building when, on TWO different occasions, his client raped little boys without even bothering to close doors OR turn off lights?

Keep that shuck and jive rhetoric coming, mr. lawyer. You're doing just fine :floorlaugh:
 
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/18/4064338/penn-state-ignored-abuse-allegations.html

McLaughlin and the National Center for Victims of Crime are advocating for the elimination of the statute of limitations for criminal and civil cases alleging child sexual abuse.
--------------
Just read this a.m., regarding the "statute of limitations":

stalled_child_sex_abuse_bills_important_for_justice

http://www.snapnetwork.org/stalled_child_sex_abuse_bills_important_for_justice
 
http://www.adn.com/2011/11/19/2180155/sandusky-sex-abuse-scandal-emerged.html

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. - From Penn State University's athletic department to the halls of its Old Main administrative building, the university long has sought to control the public's access to information about its inner workings.

It received $270 million from state taxpayers this year, but is able to choose whether to make details of its budget public.

It's exempt from most requirements of the state Open Records Law. It needs only to disclose the salaries of its 25 highest-paid employees, the salaries of officers and directors, and the information filed in its federal non-profit form.

Even information about money raised by the student-run philanthropy affectionately known as "Thon" - an annual dance marathon that this year raised $9.6 million for children with cancer - is released at the whim of the university.
----------

This culture may not have caused the sex abuse scandal. But some, including Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, have suggested that it may have played a role in preventing suspicions about the former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, from coming to light.

"The question should be, what is the openness at Penn State?" Corbett said during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" last week. "And frankly, maybe at all major universities and even small universities, small colleges. ... We have lost the focus of what's in the best interests of the child when you see something like this."
---------

Spanier went before the state House Government Committee in August 2007 and said the school would lose millions of dollars if it was forced to abide by the proposed state open records law. Donors would stop giving money to the school if they knew their identities were going to be made public, he pleaded with state legislators.

Terry Mutchler, executive director of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, said she always found the president's vigorous fight to keep the records private odd. Now with the growing abuse scandal engulfing her alma mater, she said she can't help wondering whether Spanier's testimony was solely based on a desire to protect the school's integrity and donors.

"Or was it driven by the explosive investigation that's been lurking right behind the scenes here?" she asked.

And look how all this insularity backfired on them....the truth will out, thank goodness!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
100
Guests online
823
Total visitors
923

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,758
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top