It was always preceded by a drum cue and a "point, turn" from the dual lines of horns. We were in team aisle. The white helmets could be seen bobbing up and down at the tunnel entrance. The Nittany Lion was standing ready to raise the Penn State flags.

Rock & Roll--the "Hey Song"--began to blare across the stadium, while the student section did its best to wave the pom-poms on-beat. Then, after a few bars, we would reach what probably became one of my favorite moments on a Penn State football Saturday...

Until now.

The Penn State Blue Band has decided it's time to hang up Rock & Roll. Why? You will understand after reading this...

‘Rock and Roll’, also known as ‘The Hey Song’, was written by British glam rock artist Gary Glitter in 1972. Glitter is a registered sex offender, and was convicted of possession of child pornography in 1997. He was convicted again in 2005, for obscene acts with minors.

So, yeah. It was long overdue for the song to be retired. As Dr. Bundy went on in the article, the band will now play something in place of the Hey Song, a version of We Will Rock You by Queen that has similar cheers within the performance. But it probably won't be the same. Nothing will be the same. So let's just move on.

And hey, maybe now Penn State can get back to playing things like, oh, I don't know, more actual fight songs?

Note: Over at WFY, you'll see the updated version of the song. I'm not at all a fan, mostly because it still incorporates much of the old Hey Song. As William puts it, we've had enough half-hearted decisions of late. (the new song starts around 7:25, following the always-fantastic Testify...)

Be sure to become a fan of BSD on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

Court back in session at 1:45 p.m.

/stares at title of post, shakes head in shame.

The focus in the Penn State / Sandusky scandal moves to Harrisburg this morning and we've again assembled the best damned liveblog in the business to cover the preliminary hearing for Tim Curley and Gary Schultz's charges of perjury and failure to report child abuse. In many ways, it's a bigger event than the aborted Sandusky hearing earlier this week. The testimony will not be nearly as traumatic and riveting, but it's the alleged actions of Curley and Schultz (not to mention Graham Spanier and Joe Paterno) that made this entire ordeal a Penn State scandal, not a case about a lone predator abusing children.

This hearing is not expected to get waived by the defendants. As we've learned, preliminary hearings are a rather low bar for a prosecutor, but some legal experts think that an outright dismissal of the charges isn't entirely out of the question. Curley and Schultz have been pushing their case to the media through a joint website, SchultzCurleyInfo.com.

Mike McQueary is once again expected to take the witness stand -- he's obviously the key witness in the Commonwealth's case against Curley and Schultz. According to Sara Ganim of the Harrisburg Patriot-News, McQueary will be the only witness to testify this morning.

A source close to the case said Thursday that McQueary is expected to be the sole prosecution witness and that the defense isn’t planning to call anyone else to the stand. And even though credibility is the premise of a perjury charge, attorneys for Schultz and Curley will be limited in their defense today.

“It is true that a judge is not going to allow defense counsel to raise issues that would relate to the credibility of the witness — background, questions about past, etc.,” said Walter Cohen, a former state attorney general. “But the judge will have to make a decision as to whether the evidence presented before him is credible. He makes some judgment on the issue of credibility.”

So, questions about the potentially conflicting accounts could come into play.

“I would think they’re going to certainly try to ask questions about that,” said Arthur T. Donato, an attorney and Villanova University adjunct professor following the case. “And that’s where the discretions of a judge will come into play. ... The decision rises and falls on the testimony of one witness, many judges would give more latitude than they would otherwise give in a preliminary hearing.”

“I would think there is going to be some things that a judge in his discretion is going to allow them to ask,” he said.

Continue reading this post »

Following today's relatively surprising move by the defense, emotions were high for everyone involved. Victims want a voice, concerned citizens want answers, and the defense rhetoric seems split between "depressed" and vigorously fighting all charges.

Jerry Sandusky was in a Bellefonte courtroom in what many expected to be a lengthy preliminary hearing, but which turned out to be a legal tactic, with Sandusky waiving his right to the hearing.

Legally speaking, this hearing was supposed to be the part of the Pennsylvania criminal process where the prosecution attempts to show that they have sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. Given the fact that Sandusky is charged with numerous crimes, it was expected that the defense would challenge at least some of the prosecution's case. Attorney Joe Amendola had a different idea.

With the preliminary hearing out of the way, the next step in the process is formal arraignment. A formal plea of not guilty is entered, along with some other non-exciting legal formalities, and the case is assigned to a judge. Sandusky has already waived this arraignment, which means the case is headed for a court date to be named later. Unless, of course, Sandusky reaches a plea agreement with the district attorney.

In Pennsylvania, as is the case with presumably all states, any agreement reached between defendant and district attorney is still subject to approval by the presiding judge. Following today's proceedings, many legal guesses were tossed about, with anywhere from 10-20 years being the prevailing thought as to an appropriate plea.

Where is this case headed next? Well, all we know is that it is to be scheduled for open court, but not for at least another month. A plea agreement is a possibility, but Amendola has consistently promised to fight for his client's innocence. A plea deal would almost certainly result in mixed emotions for most involved: it would ensure the case is pushed out of the spotlight in the quickest way possible, but wouldn't allow the victims to be heard in open court against the man that allegedly victimized them for years. Legally more important, though, it would allow Mike McQueary the ability to escape putting testimony of record, for now anyway. McQueary has come under fire recently for stating different things to different people at different times regarding what he actually saw.

Stay tuned, as we'll have more as this saga unfolds.

[UPDATE: Yeah, not so much. Sandusky waived his preliminary hearing once everybody got to the courthouse this morning. Please continue to use the comment thread for Having A Real Good Time.]

The prosecution of Jerry Sandusky enters its opening phase today with an 8:30 a.m. preliminary hearing at the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. Among those expected to testify are most, if not all, of 10 alleged victims. Former Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary may take the stand as well.

An explanation of the preliminary hearing process here, courtesy of ESPN's Lester Munson. The Honorable Robert E. Scott from Westmoreland County has assigned to this case by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts upon the request of the Centre County Court of Common Pleas. Originally, reporters were barred from sending updates from within the courtroom. However, yesterday, Centre County Senior Judge John Cleland issued a revised order yesterday allowing reporters to tweet and text during the proceedings.

We're using Cover It Live for the proceedings, with Twitter feeds from some of the reporters on the scene. We've only included a few, in an attempt to avoid a thousand tweets on the same bits of testimony. If you see anyone out there who is doing especially good work, let us know in the comments and we'll consider adding them to the liveblog.

This hearing is almost certain to get pretty graphic and emotional. It's going to be a fascinatingly dark day and week around here, as the hearing will be subject to a renewed thermonuclear onslaught by every major news organization in the country.

Try to use the comments sparingly. As you know from the game threads during football season, these things reach a critical point around the 800-ish comment mark and the whole thread begins to slow down. For example, you don't need to repeat bits of testimony, because they'll be in the Cover It Live window.

Basically, this is going to get crazy. Let's all do our best to keep things under control in the comments from an emotional standpoint, please.

(Please.)

Be sure to become a fan of BSD on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

Just when you thought you had all the answers, they change the questions. In the early hours of Sunday morning, Sara Ganim, the Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter who has provided the most in-depth investigative coverage of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, reported that former Penn State assistant Mike McQueary's initial account of an alleged March 2002 sexual assault may have differed dramatically from both his grand jury testimony from earlier this year and a written statement he made to police last month.

In Sunday's article, Ganim recounts the grand jury testimony of Dr. Jonathan Dranov, identified as "a family friend and colleague of McQueary's father." Dranov was reportedly with the elder McQueary when the then-graduate assistant gave his first description of the events that transpired.

According to the source with knowledge of Dranov's testimony before the grand jury, it went like this:

McQueary heard "sex sounds" and the shower running, and a young boy stuck his head around the corner of the shower stall, peering at McQueary as an adult arm reached around his waist and pulled him back out of view.

Seconds later, Sandusky left the shower in a towel.

* * *

However, Dranov told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no, according to the source.

Because of that response, the source says, Dranov told McQueary that he should talk to his boss, head football coach Joe Paterno, rather than police.

As Ganim notes, Dranov's account is markedly different from the story told by the grand jury presentment, drafted by prosecutors in the Sandusky case. The 23-page presentment notes that McQueary "saw a naked boy . . . with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky." The story in the presentment matches the written statement that McQueary gave to police in mid-November, where he stated that "he witnessed a boy, about 10, being sodomized in a shower."

What does this all mean? Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were apparently adamant in the grand jury that McQueary only reported conduct that he felt was "inappropriate," and that they were never told of the graphic details of the grand jury presentment. Before his lawyer-recommended silence, Paterno maintained that he had never heard those explicit details either. Dranov's testimony lends real credence those versions of the story, and certainly should give pause to those condemning those three men.

Continue reading this post »

The Black Shoe Diaries community has been lucky to be involved in the #ProudPSUforRAINN campaign since its inception. Proud to Be a Penn Stater has raised a remarkable $489,848 for the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network since going live on November 10th. Now, with the initial $500,000 goal in sight, several college football legends have stepped in to help out the cause.

With the help of HuskerMax.com and the Johnny Rodgers Youth Foundation, RAINN is auctioning a full-size helmet signed by Penn State's Heisman Trophy winner, John Cappelletti, and Nebraska's Heisman trio of Johnny Rodgers, Mike Rozier, and Eric Crouch! All of the proceeds of this auction will be donated directly to RAINN's prevention and education initiatives and will provide support for victims of sexual violence and their loved ones through the National Sexual Assault Online Hotline. This is a fantastic opportunity to bid on an impressive piece of college football memorabilia and help out a worthy cause. So with that in mind . . .

Be sure to become a fan of BSD on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

An alleged victim of Jerry Sandusky, who was not one of the eight victims named in the Grand Jury Presentment, has filed suit against Sandusky, The Second Mile, and Penn State. The suit alleges that the victim met Sandusky in 1992 when he was 10 years old, and also alleges that Sandusky sexually abused the victim over 100 times. The acts are alleged to have occurred in multiple locations -- both inside and outside the state of Pennsylvania. The alleged locations include the Penn State football facilities, Sandusky's home, and at a Penn State bowl game (the specific bowl game is not named).

Additionally, the suit alleges that Sandusky threatened the victim and his family if he told anyone about the abuse. The plaintiff alleges negligence, civil conspiracy to endanger children, intentional misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, premises liability, negligent supervision, and vicarious liability on the part of Penn State and Second Mile.

You may view the filing here, courtesy of the Patriot-News. The alleged victim also released the following statement:

"I am the man in this lawsuit and I’m writing this statement and taking this action because I don’t want other kids to be hurt and abused by Jerry Sandusky or anybody like Penn State to allow people like him to do it—rape kids! I never told anybody what he did to me over 100 times at all kinds of places until the newspapers reported that he had abused other kids and the people at Penn State and Second Mile didn’t do the things they should have to protect me and the other kids. I am hurting and have been for a long time because of what happened but feel now even more tormented that I have learned of so many other kids were abused after me. Now that I have told and done something about it I am feeling better and going to get help and work with the police. I want other people who have been hurt to know they can come forward and get help and help protect others in the future."