Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[MWB]

Sally Jenkins, who had the last interview with Paterno, on the report:

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/rss.js ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rylan]

Sally seems to be angry.

[DudeMan2766]

I understand the Paterno family having a very difficult time dealing with this and obviously not going to come out and place blame on Joe, on your family legacy, but thats why you dont say anything at all. Saying this entire investigation is "just opinion" is way worse than not saying anything at all. Keep it a family issue. He didnt have to come out and say that. Just made everything look worse

[DudeMan2766]

No way Jay Paterno can possible believe a single word that came out of his mouth on ESPN.

Idk has to be a pretty rough time for all of them. Going from being the golden family / so respected and privileged just because of that name to now the exact opposite, associated with this just because of their name

Great time to put yourself on tv, when you aren't thinking straight...

Hmm...I suspect that he said exactly what he thinks/feels.

Hmmm most likely he did. But that doesn't mean his line of thinking isnt obviously wrong/skewed. You of all people is the last I'd think would stick up for a Paterno in any instance, considering your earlier take that NOONE should rest until EVERYONE admits that Joe isnt the saint we thought he was.

[columbia]

I'm not defending him.

I'm questioning the idea that his statements were a product of his current mindset; he'll say the same thing 40 years from now, I suspect.

[malkinshair]

Did he just say those were opinions and not proven facts?

There are a lot of facts in the report, but there is also opinion based on assumption and conjecture...the most 'uncomfortable' IMO being the '3 others decided to go to the police in 2001, but after a meeting with Joe changed their mind...so Joe must've said 'don't go to the police' and the others followed'. There's no 'fact' there...and even Freeh admitted that in his presser.

For the record, because of the fact that JS was violating these boys, they are all despicable for their inaction (in hindsight)...including the State College police and the DA for sweeping '98 under the rug...but is there anyone out there that can look back at what these men knew at the time and realize that they may have not even believed that it was true? These emails and conversations seem to be about what an allegation would do to PSU's image...isn't it possible that they didn't believe that it was actually happening? Wouldn't that explain their 'callous inaction' as much as a conspiracy to protect the PSU football image?

[MWB]

What would have had to happen for them to believe that something was happening?

Or, if your considered a leader, why not make sure you know what's happening and things come to light instead of making sure things don't come to light?

[malkinshair]

What would have had to happen for them to believe that something was happening?

Or, if your considered a leader, why not make sure you know what's happening and things come to light instead of making sure things don't come to light?

That's my point. Joe followed '98 closely, according to Freeh. To him, these allegations of inappropriate behavior were proven 'false' by the inaction of the DA to prosecute the case. It was still enough for him/them to force JS into retirement...and what more could they have done in '98? The police and DA had been involved. 2001 is damning to all involved because is shows a pattern, but why is it immediately assumed that they believed and knew that JS was raping boys, and chose to cover that up? Joe's own words say that he wish he would've done more...given the benefit of hindsight.

There is a general assumption of 'evil' towards Joe and the other 3, but what about ignorance? We know the facts now, but they didn't know them then.

I don't know...it's easy to criticize the government for not doing more before 9-11-01, or the parents of Dylan and Eric for not stopping the Columbine tragedy, but the real world doesn't work that way IMO. The light of hindsight removes all shadows, exposing all dark corners that existed then. For me, it's unfair to ignore that there were dark corners then.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

This article gives some insight on why PA DA's may be reluctant to bring sexual predators to trial.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... abuse.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For years, Pennsylvania gave up federal money because it was the only state not in compliance with federal child abuse laws.

It remains the only state that doesn’t allow experts to testify at trial about the behavior of child victims, such as why they might wait years before coming forward to police, continue a relationship with the abuser, or why they might not immediately tell police about all of the abuse.

...all 49 other states, the District of Columbia, the federal government and the military allow experts to testify at trial about the behaviors of abuse victims.

Pennsylvania does not. And it causes prosecutors to lose cases, said Greg Rowe, the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association’s legislative liaison.

“We need to be able to respond in kind that there is a reason for this,” Rowe said. “It’s not the victim’s fault. We can bring an expert to say why this sort of thing happens, why it does not mean that the evidence is less strong as a result.”

Another gem from the article:

There also is no state training for mandatory reporters in Pennsylvania.

Edit: This article was from Feb 2012 and I found that laws have since been passed or are inthe process of being passed that allow for experts to be called by the prosecution and defense, and that training will be required for mandatory reporters.

[viva la ben]

Pages 62-64 of the report are the findings about what happened after the 2001 incedent witnessed by McQueary. I wonder if anyone from Second Mile is going down over this.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 73344.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The max punishment that Curley, Schultz, and Spanier (if charged) could face if convicted of failing to report sexual abuse:

The "failing to report" charge carries a maximum of 90 days in jail and a $200 fine.

Pretty much a slap on the wrist. There are bills in the PA legislature that will increase the amount of jail time and fines, and also increase the statute of limitations to prosecute someone for failure to report a crime. I was unable to find information on what the current statute is.

Edit:

Based on this article the statute is 2 years, so it appears that the three stooges may get away with failure to report, and only Curley and Schultz could face jail time for perjury charges.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 80366.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MWB]

What would have had to happen for them to believe that something was happening?

Or, if your considered a leader, why not make sure you know what's happening and things come to light instead of making sure things don't come to light?

That's my point. Joe followed '98 closely, according to Freeh. To him, these allegations of inappropriate behavior were proven 'false' by the inaction of the DA to prosecute the case. It was still enough for him/them to force JS into retirement...and what more could they have done in '98? The police and DA had been involved. 2001 is damning to all involved because is shows a pattern, but why is it immediately assumed that they believed and knew that JS was raping boys, and chose to cover that up? Joe's own words say that he wish he would've done more...given the benefit of hindsight.

There is a general assumption of 'evil' towards Joe and the other 3, but what about ignorance? We know the facts now, but they didn't know them then.

I don't know...it's easy to criticize the government for not doing more before 9-11-01, or the parents of Dylan and Eric for not stopping the Columbine tragedy, but the real world doesn't work that way IMO. The light of hindsight removes all shadows, exposing all dark corners that existed then. For me, it's unfair to ignore that there were dark corners then.

My point is they should have stepped up and made sure it wasn't true, actually been leaders. As you say, the damning part is 2001 which shows a pattern of some sort. At that point I think that "ignorance" as an excuse goes out the window. At that point, as institutional leaders, as community leaders, as leaders of young men and women, you make sure that everything is okay; that nothing like this is going on. You do everything in your power to make sure that kids really aren't being molested.

[tifosi77]

Joe's own words say that he wish he would've done more...given the benefit of hindsight.

The problem I'm having an increasingly difficult time with, however, is the nature of that hindsight. Is he lamenting his inaction because the fears of 1998 and 2001 were born out? Or because everything that was not done at that time is now public knowledge?

Seriously, I don't know what to think about the guy anymore. He no longer merits the benefit of the doubt.

[Rocco]

What would have had to happen for them to believe that something was happening?

Or, if your considered a leader, why not make sure you know what's happening and things come to light instead of making sure things don't come to light?

That's my point. Joe followed '98 closely, according to Freeh. To him, these allegations of inappropriate behavior were proven 'false' by the inaction of the DA to prosecute the case. It was still enough for him/them to force JS into retirement...and what more could they have done in '98? The police and DA had been involved. 2001 is damning to all involved because is shows a pattern, but why is it immediately assumed that they believed and knew that JS was raping boys, and chose to cover that up? Joe's own words say that he wish he would've done more...given the benefit of hindsight.

There is a general assumption of 'evil' towards Joe and the other 3, but what about ignorance? We know the facts now, but they didn't know them then.

I don't know...it's easy to criticize the government for not doing more before 9-11-01, or the parents of Dylan and Eric for not stopping the Columbine tragedy, but the real world doesn't work that way IMO. The light of hindsight removes all shadows, exposing all dark corners that existed then. For me, it's unfair to ignore that there were dark corners then.

My point is they should have stepped up and made sure it wasn't true, actually been leaders. As you say, the damning part is 2001 which shows a pattern of some sort. At that point I think that "ignorance" as an excuse goes out the window. At that point, as institutional leaders, as community leaders, as leaders of young men and women, you make sure that everything is okay; that nothing like this is going on. You do everything in your power to make sure that kids really aren't being molested.

If multiple police agencies investigated something in 1998 and decided not to file charges, what was Paterno supposed to do to make sure nothing else criminal happened? Use telepathic powers?

[DudeMan2766]

Stuff starts adding up over that many years. I agree that once police dont investigate that first time, the average person really can't do much more. But then you have to "fire" the guy. Tell him he's not allowed to bring kids around anymore. They had to start putting 2 and 2 together even tho they themselves didnt personally witness any acts. NO WAY none of this ever occured to those guys. The time to imply JoePa did what he could or anyone "higher up" than him is to blame is gone. So stop it.

[tifosi77]

If multiple police agencies investigated something in 1998 and decided not to file charges, what was Paterno supposed to do to make sure nothing else criminal happened? Use telepathic powers?

Define 'investigated', tho. Took statements from three or four University types (maybe or maybe no including Paterno) and determined discretion was the better part of valor? Cos I don't think it's fair to characterize what happened in 1998 (if not 2001) as an 'investigation'.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Opinion piece that I largely agree with:

http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_d ... torial=219" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rocco]

If multiple police agencies investigated something in 1998 and decided not to file charges, what was Paterno supposed to do to make sure nothing else criminal happened? Use telepathic powers?

Define 'investigated', tho. Took statements from three or four University types (maybe or maybe no including Paterno) and determined discretion was the better part of valor? Cos I don't think it's fair to characterize what happened in 1998 (if not 2001) as an 'investigation'.

Actual police were involved in 1998, IIRC.

[count2infinity]

University police, rocco.

[Factorial]

Would banning PSU football from TV and or bowl games for a year or two be part of a fair punishment?

[malkinshair]

Opinion piece that I largely agree with:

http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_d ... torial=219" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good editorial. It actually encapsulates why I'm so cynical toward the media in general. The story is always more important than the truth. This isn't a story unless Joe is heavily involved. No doubt he's part of the over-arching story, but to what extent has been constructed and distributed without concrete proof.

This editorial also supports the comments/reaction of Jay Paterno yesterday. Freeh's report is an opinion piece based on 2nd party interviews. There is virtually no burden of proof that he has to live up to. You'd hope he'd have to answer to the media, but see above.

There was some talk before this report came out that Freeh would go easy on PSU and Paterno because he was hired (for $7MM I believe) by the BOT to do this investigation. I've always thought the opposite. The worst thing he could've done for his reputation would have been to come out and say 'We looked at hundreds of thousands of documents, interviewed hundreds of people, poured countless man-hours into this, but can't really find anything concrete to report. Yeah, there's some suspicious emails etc. etc., but nothing I'd be comfortable going to trial with'. It would've also hurt PSU for a report like that to come out, as it would appear that they 'paid for' an inconclusive report.

[shafnutz05]

Would banning PSU football from TV and or bowl games for a year or two be part of a fair punishment?

Absolutely. Shutting down the program for a year would be disastrous not just to the football program, but to the educational mission of the school. There are a lot of people that just want the program shut down to kick Penn State in the teeth. Well, that's fine, but I need a better reason than that.

If I'm the NCAA, I reduce scholarships, and give some kind of TV and bowl ban. I guarantee that if the NCAA tries to venture into uncharted territory and shuts down the football program for this, the university will file a lawsuit almost immediately. And I think the university would win easily.

[JS©]

Did he just say those were opinions and not proven facts?

:face:

There are a lot of facts in the report, but there is also opinion based on assumption and conjecture...the most 'uncomfortable' IMO being the '3 others decided to go to the police in 2001, but after a meeting with Joe changed their mind...so Joe must've said 'don't go to the police' and the others followed'. There's no 'fact' there...and even Freeh admitted that in his presser.

For the record, because of the fact that JS was violating these boys, they are all despicable for their inaction (in hindsight)...including the State College police and the DA for sweeping '98 under the rug...but is there anyone out there that can look back at what these men knew at the time and realize that they may have not even believed that it was true? These emails and conversations seem to be about what an allegation would do to PSU's image...isn't it possible that they didn't believe that it was actually happening? Wouldn't that explain their 'callous inaction' as much as a conspiracy to protect the PSU football image?

Couldn't you have called him Jerry and not JS?

[MWB]

My point is they should have stepped up and made sure it wasn't true, actually been leaders. As you say, the damning part is 2001 which shows a pattern of some sort. At that point I think that "ignorance" as an excuse goes out the window. At that point, as institutional leaders, as community leaders, as leaders of young men and women, you make sure that everything is okay; that nothing like this is going on. You do everything in your power to make sure that kids really aren't being molested.

If multiple police agencies investigated something in 1998 and decided not to file charges, what was Paterno supposed to do to make sure nothing else criminal happened? Use telepathic powers?

See bold. I'm talking about 2001, when he found out another incident had taken place.

[columbia]

In some ways, I'm most shocked that a university president could have been involved in a cover up like this.
It makes me really question the value of athletics at institutions, that play a major role in creation and fostering of leaders and innovators in our society.

Where the hell were their priorities?

I went to a Division III school, so maybe I just don't "get it" when it comes to the role of college athletics.