4 Grand Jury Investigations?
by PsuSam on Jan 20, 2012 1:05 AM EST
Email
PrintAww, look at you. You created a Fanpost! Any content from a premium site that requires a subscription will be deleted once we catch wind of it. If you simply want to share a link, quote, or video, please consider using Fanshots instead. Thanks.
177 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Link
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/19/3058390/psu-trustees-sandusky-investigated.html
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it’s difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine"
- Abraham Lincoln
BOT told about the GJ Investigations
Again not much detail but you can’t make this stuff up. Was Corbett hell bent on bringing down PSU?
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/20/3059397/trustees-warned-of-prior-probes.html
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it’s difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine"
- Abraham Lincoln
Things get more bizarre and strange
I guess the idea that an investigation in 2002 would have gone for naught is not too far-fetched after all is it?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Right, this proves that they were correct not to investigate a credible report of a kid being (at best) fondled in a shower.
They did investigate and better than that
reported it to Sandusky’s employer and the place where his kids came from to the Dr of Psychology who was responsible for the well being of those kids and who had the means, responsibility, need, records, contacts, and resources to do what should have been done to protect their organization and the kids who were involved from it.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
According the the testimony, they did not investigate
Curley and Schultz met with MM, then they talked to Sandusky. That was the extent of their investigation. I have to agree with 1L on this one. Whether or not there was evidence is debatable. However, they should have at least made an effort to look for some.
Where else could they investigate besides calling Sandusky
and asking for his side of the story
and what else would police have done?
Look we know there is no identified victim 2 and we know the defense says they have heard from him and his mother and he was not molested that night
It’s pretty simple really
and despite of the attempts to confuse the issue the elements are clear.
We have a definitive 3 slapping sounds that become "rhythmic and sexual" in the mind of MM – and once a decent defense lawyer gets into him will never stand up as either rhythmic or sexual
We have 2 1 or 2 second glances of Sandusky’s back with no view of hands or privates. – and once a decent defense lawyer goes to cross he will tear him up on his suspicions based on that.
We have little or no movement
We have NO PAIN
We have "not 100% certain
We have no action to interfere and we have him not bothering to ask the boy if he needs help or coming back to check on him
all of that is a defense attorney’s wet dream.
and he can suspect all he wants or talk about ’extremely sexual" all he wants but suspicions don’t mean a thing
and we have not even gotten into his variety of statements to his Father, Dr Dranov, Paterno and Curley & Schultz
so their investigation may have included Dr Dranov
we have what was said to Paterno and they did talk to him
and they have what MM told them which they say was not graphic or sexual
So what else is to be investigated
They kicked this over to Second Mile and that’s where Raykovitz should have investigated.
He should have tried to locate Second Mile kids who were hanging out with Sandusky
It was a Second Mile employee and Second Mile kids not a PSU problem a Second Mile problem
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Well, for starts they could have asked the kid if anything went on
According to Curley’s testimony they didn’t make any attempt to identify the kid. I’m not saying the Second Mile should be let off the hook at all. I agree, they should have looked into it themselves.
But, even if MM wasn’t graphic or descriptive, Schultz had knowledge of the 1998 incident. I would think having that knowledge would warrant getting police involved.
Agree – except they should have reported it to CYA, who have experience investigating such matters.
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 20, 2012 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
Multiple GJ Investigations
If accurate…I guess the first three are sealed, nothing comes-up in a google search. We need to find the timeline for the four AG investigations and the reasons why indictments weren’t filed on the first three.
Corbett was the AG from 1/18/05 – 1/18/11.
IMPEACH CORBETT!!!
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it’s difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine"
- Abraham Lincoln
by PsuSam on Jan 20, 2012 3:35 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
No wonder this has been kept quiet by the AGs
both Corbett and Kelly – and this lends incredible credence to conspiracy two expressed in The Rabbit Hole fanpost If these people had three chances prior to 2011 to bring down Sandusky it makes the defamation of PSU and Paterno a clear distraction from their ineptitude.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
'You got that right'
as in “…incredible credence…”
" When you cross that Blue Line, you are mine...Across the Blue Line, it's all football. " " And what you need to do in your life is paint Blue Lines everywhere. " - Joe Paterno 2009
by BlueWhiteLife on Jan 20, 2012 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
This is unreal. The fact that they KNOW there are four AG investigations isnt enough
to get Jerry Sandusky the F word off of any Penn State campus? I still wonder how Sandusky is supposedly at the Illinois game and working out on campus the day before the guy is arrested.
I mean… seriously?
Seriously.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
BUT JOEPA SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE!!!!!!
/Gets out beating stick. Waits.
I, for one, plan to continue my life long contempt for the powers that be and I fully expect to be disappointed with whatever choice is made. ~PSUgirl
Or the AG couldn't find a Grand Jury of 12 who would vote yes
on the language the AG tried to use in the “Finding of Fact” so it took Kelly and Corbett 4 tries to get 12 yes votes on statements like “The GA saw anal intercourse and informed the authorities at PSU” because they knew it was not true. Just maybe some of the rest of the “Finding of Fact” is not fact at all.
Kinda makes one wonder if the victims statements are not as strong as they are purported to be. Why wouldn’t the AG be leading the headlines with those statements instead of a false statement about PSU and the unidentified victim 2? It makes no sense to me.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
You've seen how easy is to indict someone.
If in 3 previous attempts the prosecution wasn’t able to secure an indictment, with all the freedom they have to distort facts and remove contradicting information, I think it speaks more to Sandusky being the target of a witch hunt more than anything else (this statement is not taking into account the accusations within the latest grand jury presentment).
Plus, we can’t jump to the conclusion that people at Penn State were aware of these investigations. If the victims were not associated with Penn State, it’s not definitive that the investigations made it to Penn State’s shores before they were terminated. Let’s not rule out political motive on the part of Corbett to squelch these investigations before they could pick up significant momentum. Remember, the only reason Paterno, Curley & Schultz were included in the most recent investigation is to corroborate MM’s testimony.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 9:30 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
We are 100 percent certain that the board knew of the 4 GJs in May.
Whether Sandusy was the target of a witch hunt or not at that point, I think SOMEONE on the board would have the common sense to say “Lets tell the guy not to come on campus until this is straightened out.”
The vague information about the allegations that they knew about are serious enough to not want the guy on campus.
Thats all I’m saying. Sandusky shouldnt be seen working out on Penn State facilities the day before the shit hits the fan. And how is there not ONE follow up question from the board after being briefed on this?
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
Yes – but if he couldn’t even be indicted, shouldn’t there have been a presumption of innocence?
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 20, 2012 9:57 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with the presumption of innocence.
I also agree with the Heel that they should have done something. I don’t think they should have banned him, but I think they should have started their own investigation. Having information ready to use is never a bad thing. If it produces nothing, at least then they have something to discredit accusations or to show how the speculation is unfounded. If it produces something, then you’ve helped stop a child molester.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
No.
When a grand jury is investigating you for child abuse, and you are aware of at least one, and possibly three instances of abuse that occurred on campus. No. You tell him he can be barred privately, or publicly, and that it’s his choice, but he’s going to be barred.
I don’t even see how that’s debatable.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 20, 2012 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
So the members of Duke lacrosse should've been banned from Duke?
Without the actual trial where the victim was discredited, they’d still be banned. It’s unfair to administer punishment without a trial. Had someone from PSU investigated it and produced evidence to support these allegations, then there’s reason to act. The bottom line is taking ignorant action is wrong EVERY TIME, regardless if the action taken turns out to be correct.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's not really the same thing.
We’re talking about three alleged incidents of child sexual abuse on Penn State property, and a pending Grand Jury investigation of child sexual abuse. You ban that guy from campus.
I didn’t say you put up posters of the guy that say “BANNED FOR DIDDLING KIDS” all over campus. You tell him, stay off campus until this is put to bed, or I’m going to put up posters of you that say “BANNED FOR DIDDLING KIDS” all over campus. And then he stays away.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 20, 2012 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And that's not ignorant action
It’s a reasonable preventive measure.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
If you have information to support the allegations, it's not ignorant.
If the only reason you’re taking action is because of accusations you’re hearing about, it’s ignorant. Again, I think you seek to gather information before taking action. And who’s to say when sufficient time has passed to allow him back on campus?
I think we’re ignoring the reality of this situation. While again, I think there is a lot of credibility to the claims against Sandusky, the reality is he was a high profile figure with a lot of money. You don’t think it’s possible that on more than one occassion, a child’s parent(s) had the child make a claim of molestation in an attempt to settle out of court for a large sum of money?
Let’s not forget that Sandusky was already told he wasn’t allowed to bring children on campus. I think that was a fair measure taken until the allegations could be further supported or refuted. It’s only with all the additional information we know now that it seems logical to ban him, but that is not always the case, as with Duke lacrosse.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There wasn't really no information though, right?
Penn State police were aware of an investigation into Sandusky in 1998. Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary and Graham Spanier were all aware of an incident in 2002. Somebody had to know about the Janitor’s accusation in 2000. There was lot’s of information, it was imperfect, and not all in one spot, but it was there.
So you have that information, plus now you know of a Grand Jury investigation into similar acts? You either act then or get risk looking like an idiot for not acting later.
And honestly, they could have “banned” him from campus, and nobody would have needed to know anything about it. Jerry would not have made them “prove” any of this, if he were told to stay away completely, he would have.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 20, 2012 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Why wasn't not allowing him on campus with kids enough?
That ban removes the opportunity for future crimes. The action you’re taking is not a punishment, it is a prevention. If you’re banning him from campus for the sake of punishing him, then I disagree with the action and the motives. If you’re banning him from campus for the sake of preventing future abuse, I agree with the motive but not the action.
It’s easy to say now that where there was smoke there was fire, and that should have been evident. However if there were 3 GJ investigations that couldn’t produce enough to bring charges, I think that negates it. And on top of those investigations, no actions were taken by Child Protective Services, the Second Mile, or any other agency. Penn State was the only organization that has been found to take any actions against Sandusky at all.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Everybody keeps mentioning everybody elses failures,
and wonders why were not talking about them. Because it’s not Second Mile Diaries, that’s why. Somebody else being more to blame doesn’t mean Penn State’s not to blame.
An allegation of child abuse is sufficient to prompt action.
3 GJ investigations that couldn’t produce enough to bring charges, I think that negates it
I’ll reconsider my opinion if I see any evidence that Penn State made an affirmative decision not to do anything further about Sandusky because there were three GJ investigations that produced no results.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 20, 2012 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Hi, Jesse. I am not sure if that is the point. If the Commonwealth with all of the resources at its disposal could not produce enough evidence for an indictment until the fourth GJ, maybe the evidence would have been too weak to warrant additional action from the BOT or the administration against Sandusky.
This is not applying a legal standard (to M1EK’s point above), but it is saying that absent significant evidence, it would not have been clear that Sandusky needed to be banned.
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 20, 2012 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Smoke is fire
in this case. Because Penn State’s image was at risk of being on fire – so you don’t fuck around; you keep him the hell off campus, period.
Thank you for your civil reply. Are you implying that the administration and BOT were fucking around?
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 20, 2012 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
Yes.
Worrying about due process in this situation is fucking around. Again, we’re not talking about throwing Sandusky in jail without a trial; we’re talking about keeping him off campus.
I'm not implying it.
I’m flat out fucking saying it.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 20, 2012 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 5 recs
10000 recs if I could.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
Based on the fact that they're revising the investigator's report twice,
I’d say they’re trying to make a mockery out of this.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Jessie. - You actually helped shape my opinion on this (and I am still open to understanding better and changing opinions). I believe that you previously pointed out that Penn State is not an institution that usually came into contact with underage children, and the policies in place were not adequate to address this type of a situation.
I don’t think the BOT, administration, or coaching staff were f-ing around. I think that they had a situation that they did not know how to address, and that the evidence available to them at the time may not have been strong enough to put this on their radar.
With the benefit of hindsight, I wish everyone would have acted differently (beginning with the decision not to pursue charges in 1998, to McQueary not calling the police in 2002, and Paterno, Curley, and Schultz not calling CYA, to the BOT not asking follow-up questions when told about the GJ in March).
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 20, 2012 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well
The SOP chain of command was clearly insufficient in this situation. It was designed to deal with run of the mill “university” crap, like the “LGBT kids want to have a sex fair, and we’re afraid of LGBT kids. And sex”. 99% of “problems” that occur at Penn State aren’t what people in the real world consider problems, and are best talked about until everybody gets bored than forgotten about. And I say that with a great deal of love, respect and admiration.
This is one of the 1% of problems that actually required action, and a prompt resolution. There probably is some truth to the fact that these people didn’t know how to deal with it, but these are some smart people. They should have either figured it out better or asked for help. Or both.
And make no mistake about it, these people being afraid to talk about sex played a role in this.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 20, 2012 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I rec'd you throughtout this part of the thread
jtothetweet
They don't even bind feet in China anymore, mostly.
So you think this is just the BOT trying to throw Cynthia Baldwin under the bus?
"We were told in May 2011 … by Cynthia Baldwin this was the fourth grand jury that was convened. The prior three led to no charges," Dambly said.
He added the trustees were further told something like " ‘We don’t think there’s anything that’s going to come of this.’ "
Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/20/3059397/trustees-warned-of-prior-probes.html#storylink=cpy
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 20, 2012 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
Well it most certainly is not
them taking responsibility for anything.
I think letting her go was reasonable
She was the “legal authority” at Penn State. If the sheep at the BOT had been warned by their “legal authority” to take worst case scenario action, maybe we wouldn’t be here right now.
If I did my job the way she did her job, I wouldn’t have one.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
I don't think she was let go
she was still at the BOT meeting yesterday. She’s just retiring, as her initial hiring was to be temporary anyway.
Fire Dan Snyder
I think you give Jerry way too much credit.
Maybe his wearing a PSU track suit when he was arrested was an intentional ploy to smear the University, but I’d sooner believe that in his mind he’s still a part of the community – I’d bet that in his mind he’s inextricably linked to Penn State, and not even being told to stay away by the president himself is going to change that.
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 20, 2012 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t believe that is true. I simply think he loved Penn State, and a significant portion of his wardrobe is Penn State appairal (as was mine). When he got warning that he was going to be arrested on the first occasion, he was wearing a suit.
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 20, 2012 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
We have every reason to believe he moved his “fun times” out of the locker room to other venues after 2002. I think it is very reasonable to think he would have stayed off campus if asked/threatened.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
I am not sure Jerry would have stayed away just because he was told to.
I agree the administration should have taken more thorough efforts to remove him from the campus, but in all honesty I think he would have been trying to find a way in all the time, through a security guard or friend who hadn’t heard about any charges or reason for him being banned. I just think that is the type of guy he was.
Assuming he's a child molester?
They don’t like to draw too much attention to themselves. He’d have stayed away to avoid the negative attention. Obviously, JMO.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Aren’t there reports of Sandusky bringing kids on campus even after that ban? Just not sure if I am remembering that correctly.
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 20, 2012 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
Schultz testified that the ban was "unenforcable"
But I do not believe there were any reports of him having defied the ban.
I believe this is false.
There are many reports of him being on campus, but I have not seen any evidence that the “no kids” ban wasn’t respected.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Yes, assuming he is a child molester.
And an assumed serial one at that, who continued to do it after multiple “close calls”. That didn’t stop him.
Well to be fair
there is no information that the 2000 janitor incident was known outside of a few janitors who were there that night.
At this point it’s difficult to know what to think
Given the way the Attorney General ginned up the McQueary testimony language makes everything in the presentment subject to question. If 3 slaps and a couple of glances can become “he saw anal intercourse and told everyone” who knows what the victims testimony actually was.
It’s just a thought. We have no idea exactly what they said from that “Finding of Fact” do we?
And there’s this
It Was A Witch Hunt at Penn State –
This is particularly interesting now we are questioning the actions of former Attorney General now Governor Tom Corbett
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, we learned, was pushing for the trustees to clean house. Why? Because Corbett does not like now-former Penn State President Graham Spanier (who also lost his job). Corbett did not like to do battle with Spanier, who has backed Paterno through the years, over appropriations for the state-related university. Bingo, here’s a perfect opportunity for the governor to get rid of his problem and his underlings.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
You are just a giant load of nonsense
The grand jury which indicated Schultz and Curley for perjury did not see the presentment. They got the testimony from those two, Paterno, and McQueary.
Ever since then, for who knows what reason, you’ve been conflating what the GJ heard with what we heard as a summary of what they heard and concluding that the charges were bogus – even going so far as to predict the charges would be thrown out in the preliminary hearing, and making ridiculous claims based on locker-room drawings that were shown to be completely false once we got more testimony from MM in open court.
IE, it’s been shown to be true now that some details left out of the presentment actually disproved claims you made rather than the contrary.
I wish you’d stop this – you’re encouraging people who don’t know any better to buy into unsupported conspiracy theories that are making our fanbase look horrible.
by M1EK on Jan 20, 2012 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Stock Homerphobic reply
No reservation
No contemplation
No equivocation
M1EK believes in JoePa’s guilt because the campus police are not cops and the bogus claim in the Presentment that MM saw anal intercourse and told JoePa about it
This serves as my constant reply to every M1EK post:
As the collective “we” that you accuse of collaboration agrees –
1) We remain unconvinced by what little we know.
2) We choose to wait and see
3) We choose to NOT rush to judgment
4) We choose to consider Joe Paterno innocent of any wrongdoing or potential moral failure until we know the full facts.
5) We choose to hope that he is vindicated and this stain on PSU is erased when it is revealed that Victim 2 was perhaps not sexually assaulted and the charges attributed to that incident are dropped.
6) We hope for the best for Penn State and the honorable coach who did so much good because that would be a good thing
and
7) We dislike and disassociate ourselves with your celebratory glee and rush to judge and post the slightest crap that might possibly undermine that hope that PSU and JoePa did indeed do the right thing.
That seems to be what you are up against here M1EK
Your hope that PSU and JoePa are guilty against our hope that they are not. WE REMAIN UNCONVINCED OF THEIR GUILT and it is abundantly clear that you disagree with US.
MIEKopathy includes a constant refusal to understand the difference between speculation prior to knowing the facts and appraisal after the facts are known. He repeats his silly and stupid claims as if he cannot grasp the difference as if he were mentally challenged.
The Reason Penn State and Paterno are in this mess is the misleading wording of the Grand Jury Presentment. Not some failure on the part of anyone connected with Penn State.
He refuses to acknowlege the ABSOLUTE FACT spelled out in the testimony of MM in the Perjury Hearing transcript and his dedicated ignorance is on display with every post.
The perjury charges will never go to trial is my guess as always but the Attorney General could be dumber than I think. The Perjury case is no more winnable than the Victim 2 counts without a victim 2.
Stock MIEK reply – number 344
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 20, 2012 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
How is being told you're a "giant load of nonsense" not the same as the things M1EK claims to be a victim of every day?
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This is completely different than Duke Lacrosse
And remember I’m still talking about May of 11 here when this goes by the board.
They banned him from bringing kids in 2002.
You dont ban a guy like Sandusky (Runs a charity for kids, adopted 6 of them) for no reason.
If you’re Spanier, you know at least vaguely about 1998.
Now in MAY you KNOW FOR A FACT that after the first two incidents, they are actively going after him AGAIN.
This is bad news.
This is very easily “Jerry… We’re sorry, but we dont want you on campus right now. Any campus.”
Three swings. Four GJs. Two prior “incidents”. Get him the F off of our campus.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
by The Heel on Jan 20, 2012 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
See, this is where I don't feel an action is the first step.
Getting information is the first step. Action is the 2nd. I get that all of these allegations should have raised concern. But that concern should spur an attempt at getting information, not immediate action. The fact of the matter is he was banned from bringing kids, so he can not continue molesting children on Penn State property. What does banning him from Penn State now serve other than trying to say “we heard he was a bad guy, so we stopped associating with him”"? Is that action preventing him from molesting children? Only on Penn State property. It still leaves Penn State susceptible to the claims that they should have done more.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If nothing else... this saves us the clip that ran on ESPN
9 bazillion times of Sandusky working out the day before he’s arrested on campus.
We take away Penn State it means that we are not actively supporting a man who has been accused multiple times of child molestation.
I dont know if PSU has to start its own investigation at this point for a retired football coach who has access to our campus. I just think we need to get him out of there. I think if anything PSU contacts Sandusky’s charity and finds out what they know and if we dont like the answers we back off any support for Second Mile as well.
If something smells bad over and over again… you gotta seperate yourself from it at some point.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
Banning Sandusky from campus
would have done nothing to protect future victims from abuse. In fact, it would have only done what Penn State has been accused of . . . covering up Sandusky’s action to protect the university.
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring". ~Rogers Hornsby
by nps on Jan 20, 2012 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This is why gathering information is so important.
If they gather information and it supports claims that he was molesting children, then you can aid the authorities in stopping him. If you gather information and it doesn’t show evidence of him molesting children, then you can act accordingly. If having multiple incidents warrants a permanent ban, then fine. And then when asked later by the media why you covered it up, you can state that you did in fact investigate it and found no evidence. Either way you put yourself in a much better situation than they are in now.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
They are on their fourth GJ by this time.
How much information do you need to gather to figure out this guy is bad news?
You arent covering it up. He is being investigated by the AG at this point. Is the BOT supposed to go undercover and set up sting operations themselves?
No.
But they do have the responsibility to make sure that people that are even perceived as a possible child molester doesnt have full run of your campus to do it.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
Conversely, you can look at it like,
They’re on the fourth GJ, the others didn’t find anything, so this one probably will end the same way. This is just a vendetta/witch hunt by the AG. I can imagine with Sandusky’s standing in the community that many people may have thought this. Doesn’t mean it’s right.
"Paige your Auburn opinions dont count unless its with regard to making fun of Roof!" - skarocksoi
Follow @Paige2PSU
by Paige2PSU on Jan 20, 2012 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Either way, if you investigate, you cover your ass.
If we’re worried about the university’s image here, investigating helps immensely. If your hypothetical situation is correct, who knows what kind of legal action Sandusky could take against Penn State. If not legal, he could at least play the victim and hurt Penn State’s image, which is what we’re trying to protect.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
Given Corbett's desire to be rid of Spanier
and the ginned up language in the final presentment we know about with what McQueary actually saw and said vs what the summary "finding of fact’ made people believe – it is conceivable that they could not get a Grand Jury to vote for their presentment language 3 times because it did not fit the testimony they heard.
It’s almost impossible for me to believe they would have trumped up all of this testimony against Sandusky but we know for certain they did it with McQueary and they were hell bent on involving PSU.
I don’t know how you fight that kind of devious action by the chief law enforcement officers in the state.
It’s really hard to believe either way and no matter what the distortions in the presentment could cause big problems in a trial.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
No.
You are protecting your university.
And you are NOT actively seen supporting someone who’s name is continually being brought up for these allegations.
You’re not covering it up at this point, you are removing a person from your campus that can possibly destroy your university.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
You would end up at the same place we are now.
If you do not attempt to investigate the situation, you will be criticized for neglecting the victims for the sake of protecting Penn State.
You are protecting your university.
That is the same thing we are being accused of! Protecting the Penn State brand was more important than putting a child molester in jail. Banning him from campus does not change those assertions. Investigating the situation and having that investigation to validate or refute future allegations does.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
See reply below
He is already being investigated by the AG at this point.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
I don't agree with it because you're passing off the responsibility.
Saying “someone else is looking into it” seems to be what we’re being held accountable for now. When the people we trust fail, the responsibility falls back on us. I’m not trying to make this about Paterno, so please don’t think I’m going there.
The people we trusted to look into it in 1998 failed, and we’re on the hook for 2002. Had the 4th GJ investigation failed, we’d still be on the hook for whatever the 5th one produced. Banning him from campus after the 4th investigation prevents us from further problems, but it doesn’t protect us from any that happened prior to the ban.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Not true
Conflating the state AG with university personnel is wrong.
If the state AG investigates and finds nothing, I am comfortable saying “we did what we could to figure this out and nothing came from it”.
And you’re only ever on the hook for doing what you do once you know something. This isn’t retroactive.
Did people at Penn State know of previous incidents?
If so, then this argument is moot.
And saying the AG is qualified enough while other people are not is arbitrary and not worthy of debate. Ultimately, the BoT is responsible for what happens on campus, whether they are aware of it or not. If someone faces 4 grand jury investigations, you investigate yourself and find out what the hell is going on. By your own admission, you trust the AG. The AG didn’t press charges 3 times. If you trusted them at that point, a child predator may be free. If you trust them after the 4th time, you refute your trust during the first 3. You can not claim that you trust them and use the 4th time being the charm as assertion for trusting them the first 3 times they didn’t get it right (potentially).
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
I was trying to make a distinction between protecting the university and protecting the children.
Banning Sandusky would have definitely protected the university—and I’m fine with that.
But all the moral outrage toward PSU, Paterno, et.al was because they didn’t do more to protect the children. A ban would have done nothing for that.
Now, if PSU would have banned Sandusky while putting more pressure on the Second Mile . . .
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring". ~Rogers Hornsby
Stop conflating the legal system with...
everything else.
And this goes to everybody.
Sandusky had no legal right to use PSU facilities. He had a contractual right at most, and I bet there’s stuff in that contract which could have been used to bar him from campus without an actual conviction.
Same thing with the people who insist on the legal standard of due process being applied before relieving Paterno of his coaching duties. These things you think apply everywhere really only apply in one venue – the legal system. Penn State is not the legal system; barring somebody from campus is not the same thing as putting them in jail.
My argument for their application is for morality.
It has nothing to do with actual laws. I find it morally correct to base your actions on fact instead of accusations. Isn’t that what most people on these boards are fighting for? The fact that most people have judged Penn State and Joe Paterno before any actual evidence was produced and it was all merely allegations and speculation.
As evidenced in the Duke lacrosse scandal, taking action can have unjust consequences. I agree that the appropriate action once these allegations are known is to not allow Sandusky on campus with children. That makes sense as it prevents him from continuing to molest children. However, that is being done for the sake of the children and not as a punishment for Sandusky. To ban him completely is an overly-dramatic action since his mere presence isn’t what is alleged as criminal and him being alone on campus doesn’t give him the opportunity to molest any additional children.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I find it morally correct to base your actions on fact instead of accusations. Isn’t that what most people on these boards are fighting for?
That’s all well and good. For you. But Penn State has an obligation to protect itself for the benefit of other people. Even if it is morally correct base all of your actions on facts (not to mention that the fact that he was accused of at least three, possibly four separate instances of child sexual abuse is a fact) sometimes you have to protect yourself. I have a four year old boy and an ex-wife, and it might be morally correct not to judge somebody for child abuse, but if somebody is accused of it, you better be damn sure they aren’t coming around my kid until the allegation is cleared up. I may not like, it may go against my morals, but I simply have no other choice.
Second, and I think this is important. Why does the morality matter? Penn State didn’t make a moral decision, or even an informed one. They were asleep at the switch. It’s not like the BOT sat down and had a four hour meeting with ethics professors at it and made a decision. At best they weren’t paying attention. At worst they didn’t want to deal with it because revoking tenure is a pain in the ass.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Regarding your first point, I believe you need to prevent the opportunity for the allegations to continue. Banning him from bringing children to campus prevents that opportunity. Banning him entirely doesn’t prevent it any more unless you think there’s a possibility he’s going to encounter a lone child somewhere on campus.
Regarding the second point, it’s not simply morality, it’s also responsibility. I think it’s a core responsibility to act in an informed manner.
Again, I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been banned. I’m saying that at some point the university should have made some attempt at getting actual information, and then acting on it. If all of these GJ investigations produced enough to warrant action, then use that information to take action. I’m not saying they had to definitively prove he was molesting kids. But get some sort of information to warrant taking that action.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:00 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think it’s a core responsibility to act in an informed manner.
It might be. Show me one instance of the BOT doing this. They’re inaction was not caused by them acting in an informed manner. It is, at best, a fortunate byproduct of not doing anything for other reasons.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
I agree. And I'm not saying that what they did was right.
And I’m not saying Sandusky shouldn’t have been banned. All I’m saying is in my opinion (so I’m not speaking for anyone else here), in order to act in a moral and responsible manner, you should act in accordance with the information you know. If you don’t have that information, then you should take the responsibility of getting it if you are ultimately responsible for the action.
Whether the BoT or Spanier was responsible for banning Sandusky, either one of them should have taken the responsibility to get information and then take action. All they would have needed was to say “we have repeated instances of inappropriate behavior” and there you go. Ban him, base it on that, no need to even bring up molestation or child abuse. Just say it was inappropriate and leave it at that.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe the problem was with the information
Being informed of an investigation seems to have happened since 1998 and that one cleared Sandusky
We don’t know when anyone was informed of the other investigations.
If all they had was the two ‘showering with kids’ allegations and Penn State thought that was effectively stopped then what would be appropriate?
For me it still comes down to The Second Mile and Raykovitz. This is still as Second Mile problem. That’s where the kids are from, they are the people responsible for the kids, and they are the organization that employs Sandusky as a consultant, has close contact with Sandusky – not just a guy who comes to a gym to work out, and has the expertise to interview the kids Sandusky befriended to find out if they needed help. Raykovitz has a PhD in psychology and is close to Sandusky.
I don’t see any liability for a guy that works out at a gym. Why is that a big deal at all? I don’t get the concern for something that innocuous and common. So he worked out in the gym – so what? He was not even charged with a crime. I would think that these investigations are supposed to be secret. Just because a guy is arrested a day after his last workout at PSU – what does that mean?
The thing that got PSU in the headlines was “He saw anal intercourse and told everyone about it” and that would have happened whether he worked out after 2002 or not.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 20, 2012 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
They didnt ask one God Damned follow up question.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
by The Heel on Jan 20, 2012 11:00 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Please, lets leave the Paterno stuff out of this right here.
There are too many accusations, GJs, priors that Spanier knows about in May 11.
Its enough to get him off the campus already.
This is like if the Duke kids were accused a second time two years later, and you hear there are 4 GJs that have been trying to charge them and they all have prior accusations of sexual assault against them.
Its just not the same.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
I've said this about the Duke kids before...
They might not have raped that woman, but they weren’t at the library studying that night either.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
No, they weren't,
but that doesn’t mean they should have had their lives torn apart because of false allegations.
"Paige your Auburn opinions dont count unless its with regard to making fun of Roof!" - skarocksoi
Follow @Paige2PSU
by Paige2PSU on Jan 20, 2012 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
No, they shouldn't have.
But sometimes there are unintended bad consequences to attending parties with strippers and blow. It looked real bad, and those kids were all representatives of that university.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Only sometimes, tho
There are plenty of parties with strippers and blow with zero unintended bad consequences.
jtothetweet
They don't even bind feet in China anymore, mostly.
Correct.
Often there are very much intended bad consequences.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 20, 2012 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I SIGNED UP FOR BAD CONSEQUENCES!
‘Destiny! Get over here, girl!’
jtothetweet
They don't even bind feet in China anymore, mostly.
by jtothep on Jan 20, 2012 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree the situations are different.
All I’m saying is that somewhere in those 4 GJs, previous incidents and who knows what else, find something to base that action off other than “there were 4 GJ investigations”. Claim you’ve had complaints on campus about him acting inappropriately.
We’re advocating for the same action. I’m just saying they should base it on things they do know, and not things they don’t.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
How about the fact that Spanier KNOWS about the 1998 and 2002 incidents?
Even vaguely?
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
That's fine.
And I agree with that. But I still think you gather the information and then take further actions. If there was more information available, then you help stop a child predator. If there wasn’t, then when you are accused of a cover up, you can point to the investigation to say “this is what we were aware of at the time”. Either way, it helps you in the end.
The bottom line is it comes down to someone taking responsibility for the situation and taking action. It’s apparent that nobody was willing to do that, and that’s why we’re in the mess we are in.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
Not to be a broken record
but it seems to me the mess is due to the AG’s presentment not JS working out in the gym after being cleared in 98 and the 02 decision to kick it over to Jack Raykovitz and ban JS from bringing kids on campus.
Why isn’t that the case in your estimation?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
I think there are a lot of factors in this situation.
The presentment, the inconsistent testimonies, the lack of evidence, there’s a ton of things that I feel are at play.
What I’ve been trying to advocate here is that the BoT and Spanier should have taken responsibility when told of the 4 GJ investigations and tried to gather their own facts. I’m not saying they are entirely responsible, but I expect more from the leaders of a university than whether or not they are technically responsible for something. I expect them to conduct their own due diligence and not just make the right decision for Penn State, but the right decision in general.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
and I think the place where that should happen
is at The Second Mile where they had the means, resources, responsibility, contacts and records required to do their job and protect the kids that were served by their organization from a person who was being paid by that organization.
I not only think that is fair – I think it was imperative. This was their guy and their kids. Why should Penn State have to deal with their problem?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Nobody is refuting Penn State's responsibility.
What is being asserted is that almost all of the allegations (I actually believe it is all of them) involve the 2nd mile. Only 2 involve PSU, and as far as I know, no victims were produced. When placing blame, the 2nd mile had ample notification and ample opportunity to stop Sandusky and they failed. To place that burden on Penn State is failing to acknowledge the responsibility Penn State passed to the 2nd mile and to acknowledge that the 2nd mile had the most at stake and acted in the lowest capacity possible. Even less than PSU.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:38 PM EST up reply actions
This is ridiculous
The reason we apply that standard to the legal system is because the consequences of action there are very severe (depriving people of liberty or even life).
Depriving somebody of the privilege, even if contractual, of being able to work out for free on the Penn State campus is not the same thing in any reasonable universe.
by M1EK on Jan 20, 2012 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Holy Shit I agree with M1EK.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
I might agree with him, but I'll never know unless I can get the buzzing to stop.
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 20, 2012 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I still didnt rec it.
Though I thought about it for a minute second.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
Oh come on Heel
people at PSU were put on admin leave or removed from positions after a 23 page “finding of fact” that turned out to be full of distortions.
None of that happened or should have happened because of an inquiry into a claim. We don’t do that to people.
The thing that got PSU into trouble was not working out or being on campus it was a flat out lie in the Presentment – a malicious act of slander by the Attorney General’s staff and a press conference and release that made this all about PSU instead of what it’s really about.
Sandusky working out in a gym is the least of it and not worth fighting over. Nobody would care about his workouts without the Finding of Fact that the GA saw anal intercourse and told blah blah blah.
Why would anyone agree that any preemptive action to keep JS off campus would have stopped that from happening?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 20, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah.
Except for the fact that you’ve been dead wrong about previous “lie” claims.
And except for the fact that the actual GJ testimony (merely summarized in the presentment) resulted in the GJ finding reason to indict Curley and Schultz for perjury.
Except for that, you’re right.
Sorry, but the presentment is not a "mere summary"
It is the findings that the prosecutor asked for. It can and does contain many and large inferences, ones that are not even defensible.
Look, if you’re going to say that people can’t apply legal standards to all these decisions, then you have to cease and desist acting like a presentment and indictment are a conviction. They are a tool of the prosecution. It is a de minimis protection for the individual, and protects against prosecutors doing really egregious things like making up witnesses that don’t exist to bring charges against someone. But it is not nearly an even handed and fair process that prevents the prosecutor from squeezing out an indictment that probably shouldn’t be brought.
Leaders Co-Champions
by PSUinBOSSton on Jan 20, 2012 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
That's a good point.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Agreed.
I think this thread tangentalized due to the lack of true evidence. We are forced to pit our speculations against each other and there are no right answers to be had right now. I truly respect your opinions as well as everyone else involved I these threads. I think we can all agree that not enough was done, and the result is that we ended up where we are now. I believe that we need our leadership to start taking responsibility for things instead of continuing to pass the blame. Restore the honor and integrity to our leadership that is so prevalent in our students, alumni and faculty.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Irrelevant
Those findings are not what led to the charges. The GJ heard all the testimony that was summarized (however well you think it was, good or bad) in the presentment, and decided that Curley and Schultz were not credible.
This is what aurabass and his acolytes keep trying to conflate. The presentment affected the media coverage, sure. But I agree with the other poster who recently said that the entire grand jury testimony would still have resulted in media outrage and still resulted in Joe Paterno being fired – based on what we heard at the preliminary hearing anyways.
And it was still enough to indict Curley and Schultz for perjury.
Focusing on the supposed inaccuracies in the presentment (again, arguable; I find it a sufficiently accurate summary) is just a way to deflect blame which is still deeply deserved by the people who performed sins of commission and omission in this affair.
I agree with you that there is a big difference.
And I also agree that Sandusky should have been banned. I just believe that the justification for banning him should have been off of something Penn State was informed of and not merely allegations from outside entities.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Wait
I thought there was only 1 instance on PSU campus, the 2002 incident. Where are these other 2 you mention of jesse. comming from?
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Janis Joplin
I believe the 1998 that resulted in a police investigation and a subsequent incident that was allegedly witnessed by a Penn State janitor.
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 20, 2012 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
I thought the 98 was not on campus
I remember the janitor, but i was thinking that it wasn’t in the GJ report and was going on that.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Janis Joplin
T thought it had to be because UPPD were in on the sting.
But I could be wrong.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
I think the 1998 incident must have been on campus.
But the alleged event that the janitor saw was not reported any further than his direct supervisor, IIRC. There’s no reason that Schultz, Spanier or the BOT should have known about that one.
"Paige your Auburn opinions dont count unless its with regard to making fun of Roof!" - skarocksoi
Follow @Paige2PSU
That's what I understood too
but I might be forgetting something. I think somebody else had to hear about it to get it passed to the GJ.
I just don't remember exactly where 98 happened
I know the University police looked into it, and even listened in on the phone. I assume PSU knew since he was an employee there.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Janis Joplin
Picking on you Aries (not really)
If we can’t get the facts straight amongst ourselves, how do we ever expect anyone else to do so?
The only phone call involved in the 98 incident, was from the mother to JS, asking her to come to her house. The cops were waiting in ANOTHER ROOM in the house, no wiretap laws were broken to eavesdrop on the “I wish I was dead” conversation.
It takes courage to stand behind someone you believe in when it’s this bad outside. It takes courage to stand up for a man in peril, even if he stood up for you. - JoePo on JoePa
That was what I was thinking
But I never remember hearing where the initial incident with the child happened. I know there was the phone call with JS and the police listening on it. But I don’t remember hearing about where it happened.
Well to me, one thing that keeps screwing up my timeline in my head is the GJ report, versus things that are not in there but known, like the janitor’s incident, and such.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Janis Joplin
But Spanier knows about it.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
I thought the 1998 incident was on campus.
But the janitor was not that incident. That was a 2000 incident that the janitorial supervisor told the witness, you can report it up to the head of the department if you think it needs to be reported. And he never did.
Leaders Co-Champions
by PSUinBOSSton on Jan 20, 2012 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
The 98 incident was on campus.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
Right,
which would be three incidents on campus.
Leaders Co-Champions
by PSUinBOSSton on Jan 20, 2012 11:55 AM EST up reply actions
Three incidents and four GJs and the guy is doing cardio at PSU the day before he’s arrested, which is six months after this briefing.
I just dont understand that.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
Well you have to do cardio
if you want to stay in shape. At least 20 minutes three times a week. What’s so complicated about that?
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 20, 2012 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But you can't forget
About weight training, need that to keep the muscles working well after the workout is over.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Janis Joplin
by AriesGD on Jan 20, 2012 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You probably just work on your glamour muscles.
And totally ignore your core as well.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
I think we all need a refresher of the presentment. If we don’t know the story, how can we expect anyone else to?
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
I was getting to that point
Since there are things in the GJ report, and things that are not. It seems we need a nice neat timeline of events to reference.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Janis Joplin
Refresher timeline
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/penn-state-scandal-timeline-jerry-sandusky_n_1084204.html
And from the second GJP, Victim 10 contact started around 1997. Victim 9 contact started around 2005.
by skins4ever' on Jan 21, 2012 10:26 PM EST up reply actions
The more I read about the BOT
The more I think they have this mental image of themselves as Caeser riding a chariot through the streets of Rome back from the latest conquest, with the people lining the street chanting Caeser, Caeser, Caeser, and they are lapping it up. I probably shouldnt include the whole BOT in this statement, because I have a hunch there are probably some good people on it, however they probably feel powerless. Its the “select few”, the ones with the real power, the ones running to the NYTimes, are the ones I have these thoughts on.
I really wished that there was a substantial voice in the media to start getting the right story out instead of what we have gotten since November.
Did anybody else catch at the bottom of the first article that the BOT is meeting today and they are having a press conference afterwords with the media to tell their side of the story?
You can stream the meeting, I think from CDT’s website. The Athletics Department is on the schedule at 11am. I’d break the rules at work and stream it….
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
It must be Caracalla since he was decidedly deranged.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Maybe the 4 investigations show just how hard it is to get a conviction on child abuse. I also think this makes the AG and Corbett look really bad in light of how GJ#4 has exploded. How could this one have been so huge and the 3 previous where non-existent until today? It’s all so weird.
What is also weird that apparently no one knew about the three previous investigations? How is that possible? Or once again someone did know and were completely silent? Does anyone other than Corbett know the whole story? I mean, honestly, this makes Corbett look really suspicious.
AND HOW DOES THE SECOND MILE COME OFF COMPLETELY INNOCENT IN ALL THIS?!
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
With all the resources at the Commonwealth’s disposal, it took three years and four Grand Juries to indict Sandusky.
Yes, clearly Paterno should have done more, and the BOT took courageous actions in firing Paterno.
Someone will have to remind me how to use the sarcasm font.
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 20, 2012 9:28 AM EST reply actions
@before and after the text@
I, for one, plan to continue my life long contempt for the powers that be and I fully expect to be disappointed with whatever choice is made. ~PSUgirl
Just wanted to throw this link out there too (warning ESPN)
According to Penn State Faculty (via ESPN) the BoT will benefit from seeing 2 rough drafts of the investigation before it is released to the public.
But Freeh held a one-hour, closed-door meeting with Penn State’s Faculty Council on Jan. 10 and told faculty members that he intended to turn over his preliminary investigative report to the Special Committee of the Board of Trustees for their input, two attendees of the meeting told “Outside the Lines.” After making revisions to the report, Freeh told the Faculty Council that he would then provide a second draft report to the trustees’ special committee.
So much for transparency, and I no longer have any hope that this investigation will produce anything worthwhile.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 9:40 AM EST reply actions
Maybe they’re just checking his spelling…
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
And replacing any mention of BoT with Spanier when it assigns blame.
This is just another example of why the BoT needs to go. How the hell can they advocate transparency and then revise a document twice?
I seriously don’t know if they think nobody is smart enough to catch on to what they’re doing or if they just don’t care because they don’t think anything will happen even if we do find out.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 20, 2012 10:05 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t get it either. Erickson said we would not see the “sanitized version.” Could they simply be reviewing the components related to potential policy changes and not information Freeh has gathered? Just trying to come up with a reasonable answer…
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
Erickson is a puppet of the BOT
Just because he said that doesn’t make it true. I have no faith at all that any real findings will be made public.
arg
lame duck presidents are so worthless.
second point. would they really release any findings prior trial? That just doesn’t seem like a good idea
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
Good God.......
Just when you think that you have heard everything, this CRAP gets more convoluted….any sane person doesn’t know what to believe anymore and it is looking to be one of the grand cover-ups of all time….and we all know that they don’t work….someone will “talk” to stay out of jail time….I believe that all of the higher-ups are arrogant bastards and couldn’t care less what WE think.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
Question...
Were McQueary, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier only brought in to testify before the 4th GJ? I don’t remember when McQueary and the 2002 incident first popped up on the police’s radar.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
Could there have been a sneaky reason to delay charges?
The laws regarding the statute of limitations were changed in 2002, 2006 and maybe 2008? Could they have delayed charges until after the laws were changed? The changes are very confusing to me, hopefully one of our lawyers will no better. Does the first accusation in 98 then become chargeable due to the change in law?
Anytime I read more about all of IT
I just keep going back to Jack McCoy and Law and Order, where all of my legal knowledge comes from. I know in sevearl cases he did have a GJ look into things sevearl times to change some information until he gets a okay from them to proceed to trial. Usually he was hell bent on getting a conviction.
Moral of the story, you don’t mess with McCoy.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Janis Joplin
by AriesGD on Jan 20, 2012 11:54 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I can't trust him
Not after the way he abandoned Dith Pran in Cambodia.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
HA
It took me a minute to realize what your were referencing. That is great stuff.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Janis Joplin
Before somebody busts me.
I stole that from Bill Simmons.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
It's from before he went batshit.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
He's well past the days of his best contributions being his own writing anymore.
I still think he does great work, just in a managerial sense now. The 30 for 30s, the enxemble of writers over at Grantland etc.
Leaders Co-Champions
by PSUinBOSSton on Jan 20, 2012 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
The Red Sox winning the world series hurt him.
Boston going on a run winning a bunch of stuff ruined him. It killed his whole shtick.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Fair point.
Although I would argue what really hurt him on that was the increased national appeal of Boston sports and overexposure that brought him was more harmful.
That and insisting on only writing about the NBA. Yuck.
Leaders Co-Champions
by PSUinBOSSton on Jan 20, 2012 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
This
That and insisting on only writing about the NBA. Yuck.
I remember I used to pine, pine, pine for him to write about college football. Then he took that one summer flyer and wrote about….the Premier League.
I’ve read more David Jones since.
jtothetweet
They don't even bind feet in China anymore, mostly.
The NBA obsession loses me as well.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Keeping Sandusky off Camous
The best way to have kept Sandusky off campus was to file charges aginst him in 2007 or 2008 when victim 1’s mother went to the Clinton Cty police. What took so long?
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it’s difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine"
- Abraham Lincoln
Amen - why didn't Corbett file those charges?
unless the victim one testimony is not as graphic as the presentment would have us believe.
Maybe it took 4 grand juries to find one gullible enough to vote yes on a distorted presentment?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Does anyone know the timing of the prior Grand Juries?
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 20, 2012 2:26 PM EST reply actions
I am seriously beginning to wonder if the state has enough evidence to convict JS
When this first came out, I had no doubt that JS could be this monster, even though it was still shocking, I had no doubt. Now I’m not so sure. The fact that no charges were filed when the 08 incident was reported to the AG and now with the multiple GJ’s I am left wondering if JS is not this serial molester. If the language of the presentment is as different for the other victims that testified as it is for MM then we could really be looking at something will blow up in the state’s face. It also explains why no one ever suspected the guy of being this monster.
On a side, are all the GJ investigations related to child abuse or are they other investigations into wrongdoing. I have seen nothing that says they were all child abuse investigations.
I just read.
I have been worried about this form the begining.
I mean if he did anything he is charged with I want him in jail, and I worry that the AG might botch this. It really seems to me they were hoping for a lot more information to come out after the presentment.
Me too.
Whether your M1EK or aurabas, or somewhere in between, you have to admit that Mike McQuerey has told inconsistent versions of this story over the years. But he’s your most important (in their own words, highly credible) witness, and you don’t even have a victim to go along with what he says he saw?
Then three other grand juries fail to indict, I have to imagine that Mike and Paterno are the differences between three close but no cigars, and an indictment.
At the very least it’s an interesting question.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 20, 2012 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I thought that the MM might have been the difference, too
But I can remember at least 2 other incidents described in the GJ presentment that were every bit as bad, if not worse, than what MM says he saw. In one case it was the victim that testified (so no corroboration) and the other was the 2000 incident involving the janitors (and the actual eye witness could not testify, so that is third hand), but I would think at least one of those would be sufficient for an indictment. Maybe these incidents were played up a bit in the presentment (like MM’s testimony), or maybe previous GJ’s never heard those testimonies. But its not like the 2002 incident was the only one that allegedly went beyond inappropriate touching. But who knows. I find the entire thing very confusing.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Jan 20, 2012 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
Me too
I still very much believe there were (many?) other victims, and I’m hoping they come forward.
jtothetweet
They don't even bind feet in China anymore, mostly.
what bothers me is that they have not.
The two that have both got lawyers to sue before they went to the AG and neither called police to report what happened they did it with their attorney. How many victims does the case have out of the original 8. 2 of those have never been found or come forward. At least one is someone that just felt uncomfortable around JS and maybe more. I still think JS can be the monster that was described but is there enough to convict. How much more of the presentment is exageration or conjecture that will leave doubt. It seems the main difference between this and other presentments must have been the Vic 2 information and as far as we know there in no crime or victim because maybe they were just horsing around. It scares me because the AG and governor seem very imcompetent and Noonan seems worse. THis is a governor that had 14 investigators on one democrat’s possible compaign finance issue while having only one on the Central Mountain school/JS investigation.
I just read.
I'm thinking the same thing.
And I can’t even begin the imagine the shitstorm that will happen if he walks.
It’s actually possible (albeit a very very small possibility) that Sandusky really didn’t molest kids, and is just a Goofy old man with Boundary problems. In the unlikely event that that is the case, he still has some serious issues to work out, but man is that different from being a serial molester.
THREADJACK
The Steelers signed Derrick Williams! YIPPIE!
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 20, 2012 2:51 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
And Bruce Arians retired.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
And the PSU S&C Coach,
John Thomas, has not been retained after all.
"Paige your Auburn opinions dont count unless its with regard to making fun of Roof!" - skarocksoi
Follow @Paige2PSU
This is cool.
Now figure out how to use him, damnit.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
I've finally read through this thread,
and since the topic surfaces in several places, I’ll place this here.
Surely Penn State can ban someone from campus in the most arbitrary and capricious manner and for most anything they wish. LSU does this sort of thing with people they deem “suspicious.” and Louisiana State University is more clearly state/public property than is The Pennsylvania State University.
The problem is the emeritus status with full tenure, which is Sandusky’s position as I understand. Generally, there would be some need for them to demonstrate some cause for revoking any privilege. Almost any academic tenure agreement would include a “moral turpitude” clause — a charge which the alleged behavior obviously fits. But now you are opening up the possibility of a hearing and the chance that the allegation leaks into the public domain. If true, fuck him, who cares? But if not true, ugh.
There just was not a perfect answer shouting at these folks, situated as they were in that time and that place, as much as we would like for there to have been.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
It is the BoT's job to revoke emeritus status which would take an investigation on their part.
Schultz, who is also over HR should have at least told them about the chance of this.
I just read.
You would hope that someone might think it obvious to at least broach the subject.
Why is it then that I sadly suspect that nobody did?
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Maybe they just wrote it off as a 'football problem'?
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 21, 2012 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE BLACK SHOE DIARIES STORE
