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

Discussion in 'Jerry Sandusky General Discussion threads' started by wfgodot, Nov 29, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pensfan

    Pensfan Former Member

    Messages:
    7,473
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes. Any form of psychological stress affects the immune system and this in turn affects the growth of some tumors.
     


  2. BigCat

    BigCat New Member

    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "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.
     
  3. twinkiesmom

    twinkiesmom New Member

    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Steely Dan

    Steely Dan Former Member

    Messages:
    30,559
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Reader

    Reader New Member

    Messages:
    7,020
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  6. Reader

    Reader New Member

    Messages:
    7,020
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree...and now there have to be some financial worries also...
     
  7. LNL

    LNL Member

    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    <<<SNIP>>>

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

    octobermoon Active Member

    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    me neither. :waitasec:

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

    HMSHood Admiral-Class Battlecruiser

    Messages:
    4,001
    Likes Received:
    857
    Trophy Points:
    113
  10. BigCat

    BigCat New Member

    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's a USA Today story about the reaction to Sandusky's arrest in his hometown:

     
  11. mahmoo

    mahmoo Active Member

    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  12. Concerned Papa

    Concerned Papa New Member

    Messages:
    2,708
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  13. Concerned Papa

    Concerned Papa New Member

    Messages:
    2,708
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  14. al66pine

    al66pine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,798
    Likes Received:
    20,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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?
     
  15. al66pine

    al66pine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,798
    Likes Received:
    20,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  16. al66pine

    al66pine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,798
    Likes Received:
    20,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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?)
     
  17. SuziQ

    SuziQ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    36,952
    Likes Received:
    28,304
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for pointing that out. I have been wanting to but was a big chicken.
     
  18. BigCat

    BigCat New Member

    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  19. al66pine

    al66pine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,798
    Likes Received:
    20,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  20. al66pine

    al66pine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,798
    Likes Received:
    20,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice