Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Bear" Bryant died 4 weeks and 1 day after he coached his last game at Alabama. He was only 69.

It's still hard to believe Penn State had an 84-year-old head coach. I doubt there is another major university with a head football coach over 70.
 
I am glad someone else brought this up. Try to find anything or any photo on Sarge. Although there were dozens of fundraisers for Second Mile and party pics galore on the fundraiser sites, there is only ONE photo of Sarge. Where was she while all the Second Mile fundraisers and golf tournaments were occurring? Was she “the martyr” and ashamed of her husband’s behavior, so she put herself into isolation or drank heavily to “isolate” herself? Was she the rescuer who covered up his crimes, but then she refused to attend the fundraisers for the charity that he started because of anger and resentment?

Nah, it's more likely she is a cheerful, glass-half-full sort of person who sees the bright side in everything and everyone. Someone who will believe whatever is told to her. I bet she thinks her husband is just a big kid and a victim of a witch hunt.
 
Nah, it's more likely she is a cheerful, glass-half-full sort of person who sees the bright side in everything and everyone. Someone who will believe whatever is told to her. I bet she thinks her husband is just a big kid and a victim of a witch hunt.

People can make a myriad of excuses if they don't want to face reality, but there has to be a point where it becomes obvious. I think she had to have passed that point long before this came out.
 
There will be a class action lawsuit and then a settlement for all the victims where Penn State and Second Mile will both be found guilty. Both institutions will have liability insurance for negligent actions, but I don’t know if it will cover this because it might fall under criminal acts. The administrators/directors/board members at Penn State and Second Mile have director’s liability insurance, so these people won’t pay anything "out of pocket." The university and Second Mile are the “deep pockets” anyway.

SBM

Penn State says no tax money will be used to cover liability from Sandusky

http://articles.philly.com/2011-12-06/news/30482005_1_liability-penn-state-jerry-sandusky

December 06, 2011|By Frank Fitzpatrick, Inquirer Staff Writer

Pennsylvania State University president Rodney Erickson said Monday that no taxpayer funds would be used to pay any cash settlements or jury awards related to the child sex-abuse scandal at the school.

"It is the expectation of the university administration that our liability insurance will cover any obligation arising from civil lawsuits," Erickson wrote in a letter to State Sen. Mike Stack (D., Phila.), which was obtained by The Inquirer.
------

The new president, who replaced the fired Graham Spanier last month, also indicated that he has scheduled a meeting with other state legislators to discuss the school's financial liability.
 
People can make a myriad of excuses if they don't want to face reality, but there has to be a point where it becomes obvious. I think she had to have passed that point long before this came out.

I agree...and now there have to be some financial worries also...
 
<<<SNIP>>>

I don't know about the gifts, but I'm thinking there was no showering with Dottie... :innocent:

me neither. :waitasec:

None of my business, but makes me wonder why they didn't have any bio kids. IYKWIM :innocent:
 
Here's a USA Today story about the reaction to Sandusky's arrest in his hometown:

"You saw him giving so much of himself to others,'' he says. "He was a great role model for me. I watched how he reached out to his players and other youth — especially disadvantaged kids from broken homes. He reached out to kids who needed a father-figure. His dad was like that. Jerry always had a special affinity for reaching out to those who needed mentoring the most.''

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2011-12-07/jerry-sandusky-penn-state-hometown-scandal/51722854/1
 
Well.....Jerry needs a quarter of a million dollars to get out of jail right now. Who do you suppose has that kind of cash available AND is willing to seriously risk losing it???

If I'm not mistaken, a cash bond can be refunded regardless of whether the defendant is found guilty or innocent as long as conditions of the bond have been met. However, if defendant is found guilty of the charges the court can, at it's choosing, deduct imposed fines from the cash bond. If Sandusky is found guilty on most of the charges against him, the fines will likely eat up all of that $250,000 bond and then some.

Here's a list of the charges and associated fines for the first 40 charges:

  • Seven counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, all first-degree felonies which are each punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $25,000 fine.
  • One count of aggravated indecent assault, a second-degree felony punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $25,000 fine.
  • Four counts of unlawful contact with a minor, all first-degree felonies which are each punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $25,000 fine.
  • Four counts of unlawful contact with a minor, all third-degree felonies which are each punishable by up to seven years in prison and a $15,000 fine.
  • Four counts of endangering the welfare of a child, all third-degree felonies which are each punishable by up to seven years in prison and a $15,000 fine.
  • Four counts of endangering the welfare of a child, all first-degree misdemeanors which are each punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
  • Eight counts of corruption of minors, all first-degree misdemeanors which are each punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
  • One count of indecent assault, a third-degree felony punishable by up to seven years in prison and a $15,000 fine.
  • Four counts of indecent assault, all second-degree misdemeanors which are each punishable by up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
  • Two counts of indecent assault, all first-degree misdemeanors which are each punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
  • One count of attempt to commit indecent assault, a second-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
And this is the list for the 12 charges filed today:

  • Sandusky is charged with four counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and two counts of unlawful contact with a minor, all first-degree felonies which are each punishable by up to 20 years in prison and $25,000 fines.
  • Additionally, he is charged with one count of indecent assault and two counts of endangering the welfare of children, all third-degree felonies which are each punishable by up to seven years in prison and $15,000 fines.
  • Sandusky is also charged with one count of indecent assault and two counts of corruption of minors, all first-degree misdemeanors each punishable by up to five years in prison and $10,000 fines.
 
~Respectfully Shortened For Comment~

However, if defendant is found guilty of the charges the court can, at it's choosing, deduct imposed fines from the cash bond. If Sandusky is found guilty on most of the charges against him, the fines will likely eat up all of that $250,000 bond and then some.

I'm not sure about PA, but I believe the scenario you're describing could only occur if a defendant posts a cash bond themself. If a second party posts the bond, full refund is typically made when all conditions of the bond have been met, being primarily court appearances.
 
Amendola, who learned of the new charges from a CNN producer in his office, said he was unhappy prosecutors did not make sure he was aware of the arrest before the media.

"I had a few words with the prosecutor," Amendola told CNN's Kathleen Johnston. "What I told them essentially is, if we are going to play hardball, both sides can play and I was a pretty good pitcher in my day."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/07/justice/penn-state-scandal/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

After all the song and dance I've seen this guy toss around, somehow I don't think the prosecutor's are too worried about his pitch.
 
From Sara Ganim's Nov. 11 article (pennlive.com linked upthread)
about Missed Chances re Sandusky's behavior.

"According to the grand jury, then, here is how McQueary&#8217;s eyewitness account became watered down at each stage:

"McQueary: anal rape.
Paterno: something of a sexual nature.
Schultz: inappropriately grabbing of the young boy&#8217;s genitals.
Curley: inappropriate conduct or horsing around.
Spanier: conduct that made someone uncomfortable.
Raykovitz: a ban on bringing kids to the locker room."
....
"Spanier signed off on their decision to ban Sandusky from bringing children from his charity,
The Second Mile, into the Penn State football building."

"The ban, Curley admitted, was unenforceable."
...
"Neither man [Curley & Schultz] called the police. [nor did Raykovitz]

.
..............................................................................................................................................

Am I understanding the sequence correctly, re what the named ppl below told Gr. Jury (2010-11?) about
what McQueary saw in Penn St. football facility shower, in 2002, involving Sandusky & boy who appeared to be ~10 y/o ----


McQueary [Asst coach-eyewitness, told JoePa]: anal rape.

Paterno [Head coach, told GJ, I was told it was]: something of a sexual nature.

Schultz [VP-U police, w. Curley, I was told it was.]: inappropriately grabbing of the young boy&#8217;s genitals.

Curley [Athletic director w. Schultz, I was told it was]: inappropriate conduct or horsing around.

Spanier: [U. Pres., who did not ask to speak to McQ, I was told it was] conduct that made someone uncomfortable.

Raykovitz: [Pres., The Second Mile, I was told in 2002, about "incident," that there was] a ban on [JS] bringing kids to the locker room.



Wow. :waitasec: If there had been one more link in the U. chain of command to further dilute the story,
the last version might have bn, "The employee saw JS and the boy shake hands."

Maybe I did not keep all this straight and need correction or clarification.

Anybody?
 
From the Sara Ganim article (Nov 11, pennlive.com linked upthread)

"Spanier [U Pres.] testified that he was only told there was &#8220;horsing around&#8221; in the shower &#8212; between Sandusky and a boy. And that had made a member of Curley&#8217;s [Ath. Dir.] staff &#8220;uncomfortable.&#8221; Spanier told the grand jury he didn&#8217;t hear that the incident was sexual."

"Spanier signed off on their decision to ban Sandusky from bringing children from his charity, The Second Mile, into the Penn State football building."
......................................................................................................

If these events occurred as the article describes, presumably accurate per GJ report,

FIRST, assuming nothing in writing initially, when -
---employee (McCreary) reported an event up the chain, and
--- his mgr. (Joe Pa) reported up chain, and
--- his mgr (Curley) reported up the chain, & ~laterally (Schultz, VP-U Police) whispered directly in U. Pres' ear,

is it believable that report = JS & boy were horsing-around (but-nothing sexual mentioned) in football bldg shower, so I/we thought you s/be notified?

Believable to me?
Up one notch on chain of command?................Absolutely.
Up two notches? .........................................Possible.
Up two notches plus a lateral? .......................Doubtful.
Up three notches (but short of Bd/Tt'ees)? .....C'mon, GMAB.

If there was nothing sexual, if it only made an employee 'uncomfortable,' why did this 'incident' get reported up 3 notches (if I understand the U. hierarchy correctly)?

Scratching my head.
 
From the Sara Ganim article (Nov 11, pennlive.com linked upthread)

"Spanier [U Pres.] testified that he was only told there was &#8220;horsing around&#8221; in the shower &#8212; between Sandusky and a boy. And that had made a member of Curley&#8217;s [Ath. Dir.] staff &#8220;uncomfortable.&#8221; Spanier told the grand jury he didn&#8217;t hear that the incident was sexual."

"Spanier signed off on their decision to ban Sandusky from bringing children from his charity, The Second Mile, into the Penn State football building."
......................................................................................................

If these events occurred as the article describes, presumably accurate per GJ report,

SECOND, who is the "they" in "their" decision?
---Curley & Schultz?
---Curley & Schultz & Spanier?
---Paterno & Spanier?
-- or ___?

When was decision made? (Pres. "signed off on their decision")
--- before Pres' meeting w. Curley & Schultz? (Pres & JoePa?)
---during Pres' meeting w. Curley & Schultz?
---after Pres' meeting w. Curley & Schultz? (did Pres consult someone else? In-house legal counsel? Outside legal counsel?)
 
me neither. :waitasec:

None of my business, but makes me wonder why they didn't have any bio kids. IYKWIM :innocent:

Thank you for pointing that out. I have been wanting to but was a big chicken.
 
*Respectfully shortened *

is it believable that report = JS & boy were horsing-around (but-nothing sexual mentioned) in football bldg shower, so I/we thought you s/be notified?

Believable to me?
Up one notch on chain of command?................Absolutely.
Up two notches? .........................................Possible.
Up two notches plus a lateral? .......................Doubtful.
Up three notches (but short of Bd/Tt'ees)? .....C'mon, GMAB.

If there was nothing sexual, if it only made an employee 'uncomfortable,' why did this 'incident' get reported up 3 notches (if I understand the U. hierarchy correctly)?

Scratching my head.

If we assume that Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier were all aware of the 1998 investigation into alleged incident of Sandusky and a minor in a unversity shower, then it would make sense another incident involving Sandusky and a child in a shower would make it all the way up the chain to the university president.

To me, the biggest question is why did Curley wait TEN DAYS to meet with MM after he learned of an incident in the shower? And what did MM tell Curley and Schultz at that meeting? Since Curley and Schultz are charged with perjury, I guess the grand jury found MM more credible.
 
From the Sara Gamlin article (Nov 11, pennlive.com linked upthread)

"Spanier signed off on their decision to ban Sandusky from bringing children from his charity, The Second Mile, into the Penn State football building."
......................................................................................................

If these events occurred as the article describes, presumably accurate per GJ report,

THIRD - How was "their decision" documented?
Did Spanier literally sign a ban-memo?
---'memo to file' only?
---memo to JS?
---memo to HumRes?
---___?

Whose name (& title & signature) was on the ban-memo?
---Pres?
---U Police?
---Ath Dir?
---JoePa?
---____

Seems to me, the Pres. was trying to walk a fine line ---
---taking approp. action when informed of (JS's) child abuse on campus
(i.e., banning JS from bringing Second Mile boys into football building) , but

---maintaining "deniablity" (at a future date, saying - I was not notified that JS had committed acts
constituting sexual abuse of a child, so I did not and U. did not take action to ban him from campus altogether and
I/Univ. did not report this to LE, and having his statement seem plausible).

I wd/be interested reviewing more info & actual doc's re this.
Again, I may not be clear on the facts and chronology.
Please, anyone...... clarify, as needed.
 
BigCat posted ~post 498:
To me, the biggest question is why did Curley wait TEN DAYS to meet with MM after he learned of an incident in the shower? And what did MM tell Curley and Schultz at that meeting? Since Curley and Schultz are charged with perjury, I guess the grand jury found MM more credible.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From Sara's Nov. 11 article about missed chances, McCreary said he witnessed the 2002 'incident' on the Friday night before spring break.
"It was about 9:30 at night on a Friday before spring break. McQueary testified that he came to the football building in order to drop off a pair of new sneakers and pick up recruiting tapes. Instead, he testified that he walked in on Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy, estimated to be about 10 years old, in the shower."

Was spring break was a school week long?
Did McCreary leave town during that week? Curley? Schultz?
Or JoePa, after McC talked to him, on the week-end IIRC.
Could be one or more of the people to be involved in the dialog or meeting was away from campus/traveling/out of touch for that week.

Possibly gone, wk-end plus spg-brk wk, plus wk-end 2 = 10-11 days.

That could explain a TEN DAY delay in meeting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
2,508
Total visitors
2,623

Forum statistics

Threads
590,015
Messages
17,929,011
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top