Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[tifosi77]

Makes you wonder about how great the federal clearance process is.

There are over 4 million people in the U.S. - military and civilian - with security clearances.

[MRandall25]

From his letter:

As my attorneys have pointed out, another investigation of my conduct, an investigation by federal officials responsible for my national top secret security clearance, was carried out simultaneously with the Freeh investigation. This clearance required a re-review when the Sandusky matter surfaced in November. Federal investigators then conducted a four-month investigation of their own in which they interviewed many of the same individuals the Freeh Group interviewed and other relevant individuals Freeh did not interview. The investigation was significantly focused on any possible role I might have played in the Sandusky matter.

At the conclusion of the investigation, my top secret clearance was reaffirmed. Although I told Mr. Freeh directly about the federal investigation and its result, there is no mention of it anywhere in his report.

Makes you wonder about how great the federal clearance process is.

...or how trustworthy the Freeh report is?

[AlexPKeaton]

Normally those security clearance investigations tend to focus on if you are a spy or not.

[CBear3]

I'll be blatantly honest, has anything Spanier wrote about in his letter been deemed inaccurate? I don't think it has.

That's my whole problem with PSU and the NCAA's handling of this. What has been proven is Jerry Sandusky was a child molester. Anything more than that is connecting the dots...dots that the media and the public connected long before any investigation started. The conclusion was already reached before the investigation.

I'm not saying nobody else knew, but that there are two very important perjury cases upcoming. I wish they would have waited until then, to see what other evidence might have come to light.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Puttingon my rose colored glasses, you've got a State investigation into Sandusky in 98, where he was not charged with any wrong doing. Three years later, and a graduate assistant says he heard something fishy going on. Isn't there a hint of, "oh we've been down that dead-end before, lets just go talk to Jerry let him explain his side before bothering the police again."

The fact that they vacated wins back to 98 makes me laugh. The guy was cleared of any wrongdoing by the DA back then but you're going to hold everybody accountable for a failed police investigation.

Sure, I personally think they're all crooked, but there's a lot of conjecture and assumption in that. To lay out penalties based on it though makes the whole episode look like grandstanding.

In the end the grandstanding is what really gets in my craw.

[Factorial]

Anyone blaming the media for anything remotely related to any of this fiasco probably whines about the "lamestream" media in general.

Spanier will get his and be destroyed financially and professionally.

[tifosi77]

Normally those security clearance investigations tend to focus on if you are a spy or not.

They are actually more concerned with whether you pose the risk of becoming a spy after getting the clearance. (Chances are if you don't have the clearance, you'd make a pretty useless spy.) So they'll be looking into your background to find vulnerabilities that could be exploited by a bad guy agency to blackmail the individual. Things like excessive debt, 'habits', unsavory associates, etc can all be used against someone to get them to give up secret information.

[viva la ben]

Yup, there are people still that dont believe there was a coverup.

[MWB]

Was Sandusky "cleared of wrongdoing" in 1998?

[AlexPKeaton]

Normally those security clearance investigations tend to focus on if you are a spy or not.

They are actually more concerned with whether you pose the risk of becoming a spy after getting the clearance. (Chances are if you don't have the clearance, you'd make a pretty useless spy.) So they'll be looking into your background to find vulnerabilities that could be exploited by a bad guy agency to blackmail the individual. Things like excessive debt, 'habits', unsavory associates, etc can all be used against someone to get them to give up secret information.

Yeah but you can be a pretty "bad" person and still get a high level security clearance, because the focus is not on whether you are good or bad.

[MRandall25]

Yup, there are people still that dont believe there was a coverup.

Michael Robinson, also on OTL, spewed the "Freeh Report is opinion" crap as well...

I don't get it.

[CBear3]

Yup, there are people still that dont believe there was a coverup.

Michael Robinson, also on OTL, spewed the "Freeh Report is opinion" crap as well...

I don't get it.

It is. Granted, its a highly respected investigators opinion, but its an opinion.

And in the end, anybody who expected an email to be found that flat out says, "Crap, telling the police would hurt recruiting and cost us a lot of money. Let's just not bother with it," is kidding themselves. Just like Curley and Shultz aren't going to take the stand and admit they covered anything up. You won't find a smoking gun thats any better than, "after talking to Joe, lets just confront the guy personally first." And that frankly leaves a lot of wiggle room.

The perjury cases address whether there was a cover-up (not the Sandusky trial). Prudent measures would have been to wait until after they were completed.

[llipgh2]

Yup, there are people still that dont believe there was a coverup.

I find the whole "Freeh Report is a fraud" mindset interesting. He wasn't an investigator assigned by an outside entity. He was hand picked by Penn State to conduct this investigation.

If anything, that would lead one to think the report would end up being favorable. And people are ticked it wasn't.

[mac5155]

Spanier now saying he was abused as a child.

[MWB]

Yup, there are people still that dont believe there was a coverup.

Michael Robinson, also on OTL, spewed the "Freeh Report is opinion" crap as well...

I don't get it.

It is. Granted, its a highly respected investigators opinion, but its an opinion.

And in the end, anybody who expected an email to be found that flat out says, "Crap, telling the police would hurt recruiting and cost us a lot of money. Let's just not bother with it," is kidding themselves. Just like Curley and Shultz aren't going to take the stand and admit they covered anything up. You won't find a smoking gun thats any better than, "after talking to Joe, lets just confront the guy personally first." And that frankly leaves a lot of wiggle room.

The perjury cases address whether there was a cover-up (not the Sandusky trial). Prudent measures would have been to wait until after they were completed.

To be fair, it's also just opinion that Sandusky is a child rapist. He didn't admit to it and it's really just the opinion of 12 jurors that got him convicted.

[bhaw]

I think the issue is "opinion" is the wrong word. It's his version of what happened based on the evidence he found. He was not bound by a court of law to have to have everything black and white. He was allowed to make logical jumps like: I had an ice cube and now I have a puddle... it's reasonable to assume the ice was out in warm air without having a thermometer to prove the air temp. That is obviously a simplistic example, but that's what he was doing.

Opinion makes it sound like he was some dude on Bleacher Report writing about what happened. It's probably intentionally be used that way, but that's the problem I have with people saying opinion. They are his conclusions (that he was asked and hired to make).

[Factorial]

Spanier now saying he was abused as a child.

That makes his reaction even worse IMO.

[CBear3]

I think the issue is "opinion" is the wrong word. It's his version of what happened based on the evidence he found. He was not bound by a court of law to have to have everything black and white. He was allowed to make logical jumps like: I had an ice cube and now I have a puddle... it's reasonable to assume the ice was out in warm air without having a thermometer to prove the air temp. That is obviously a simplistic example, but that's what he was doing.

Opinion makes it sound like he was some dude on Bleacher Report writing about what happened. It's probably intentionally be used that way, but that's the problem I have with people saying opinion. They are his conclusions (that he was asked and hired to make).

True. I'm not sure whether it'd hold up to beyond a reasonable doubt, depends on the 12 people you ask. Kind of like what MWB points out.

[viva la ben]

I think the issue is "opinion" is the wrong word. It's his version of what happened based on the evidence he found. He was not bound by a court of law to have to have everything black and white. He was allowed to make logical jumps like: I had an ice cube and now I have a puddle... it's reasonable to assume the ice was out in warm air without having a thermometer to prove the air temp. That is obviously a simplistic example, but that's what he was doing.

Opinion makes it sound like he was some dude on Bleacher Report writing about what happened. It's probably intentionally be used that way, but that's the problem I have with people saying opinion. They are his conclusions (that he was asked and hired to make).

True. I'm not sure whether it'd hold up to beyond a reasonable doubt, depends on the 12 people you ask. Kind of like what MWB points out.

[bhaw]

I think the issue is "opinion" is the wrong word. It's his version of what happened based on the evidence he found. He was not bound by a court of law to have to have everything black and white. He was allowed to make logical jumps like: I had an ice cube and now I have a puddle... it's reasonable to assume the ice was out in warm air without having a thermometer to prove the air temp. That is obviously a simplistic example, but that's what he was doing.

Opinion makes it sound like he was some dude on Bleacher Report writing about what happened. It's probably intentionally be used that way, but that's the problem I have with people saying opinion. They are his conclusions (that he was asked and hired to make).

True. I'm not sure whether it'd hold up to beyond a reasonable doubt, depends on the 12 people you ask. Kind of like what MWB points out.

It wasn't meant to. Life doesn't revolve around a court of law, just punishment. Just because someone is acquitted doesn't mean they weren't guilty... you just couldn't prove it. The Freeh report was created outside the bounds of a court document for this reason. PSU wanted the account of what happened allowing for someone to make those logical conclusions.

In my example: sure, someone COULD have taken the ice cube and poured water on the table. And maybe a jury sees that as a reasonable alternative. But in real life, you can confidently say the ice cube melted.

[CBear3]

Yup, there are people still that dont believe there was a coverup.

I find the whole "Freeh Report is a fraud" mindset interesting. He wasn't an investigator assigned by an outside entity. He was hand picked by Penn State to conduct this investigation.

If anything, that would lead one to think the report would end up being favorable. And people are ticked it wasn't.

Just my opinion, but I don't think anybody left on the BOT at PSU wanted that report to come back being favorable. I mean, do you really think they'd want to get in a galactic pissing match about just how much the big four really knew. Better to just say it was a massive failure of oversight, re-write policies and call it good as far as corrective measures go. No arguments, no mess, wipe your hands of it and move on.

It'd be a whole different ball game if tried to argue a court's pretty unanimous ruling that something took place.

[llipgh2]

Spanier now saying he was abused as a child.

Sexually? Physically? Verbally? All three? A combination of two? Just one?

Not to mock him, but I am wondering why this hasn't come out until now. Is he hoping for leniency, by being a victim himself? It just seems like dubious timing.

If this is true, I do feel sorry for him. This just makes everything so much worse.

[DudeMan2766]

like I said before, sounds like Jay Paterno has multiple screen names on this board.

[malkinshair]

Yup, there are people still that dont believe there was a coverup.

Michael Robinson, also on OTL, spewed the "Freeh Report is opinion" crap as well...

I don't get it.

Read it for yourself. Examine how he came to his conclusions, not just the conclusions themselves. Ask yourself how you'd feel being accused of something as serious as this with that many 'logically's' and 'most likely's' nailing your coffin shut.

[MWB]

The report has zero effect on the punishment of Any of the four most responsible. It was sanctioned by PSU and used to help punish PSU. No one needs to cry for individuals named in the report and the "logical" conclusions made. Those conclusions aren't being used to determine their jail sentence.

[Lt. Dish]

According to OTL, Spanier still says he didn't do anything wrong and the Freeh report was BS

I can't even begin to express my feelings about this man, who was a world-renowned researcher, administrator, and marriage and family therapist. I'll never understand his mindset in this; words like "ego," and "power" aren't enough for me. University Presidents are entrusted to make decisions in the here and now that affect the University going forward, and he couldn't see the long-term risk to the children Satansky (sorry) violated nor the reputation of the University? He defended Curley and Schultz with "unconditional support," yet he couldn't speak up to defend the academic position and reputation of the school? Even if he were only concerned for himself and his academic legacy, he couldn't analyze the data in front of him, assess and weigh alternatives, make a decision, and articulate likely short- and the long-term ramifications, while being mindful of all of his constituencies (which include at-risk children)? I mean, it's not like he hasn't addressed long-term plans for and challenges to PSU before.

Spanier, G. B. (1999). Enhancing the quality of life: A model for the 21st-century land-grant university. Applied Developmental Science, 3(4), 199-205.
From the abstract:
"The substantial challenges of children, youth, and families are one of the priorities of Penn State..."

(Ruining said land-grant university in the 21st century wasn't in his discussion.)

I do wish he were interviewed for the Freeh report. I really do.

OK, I'm done. Thank you once more for your time.

I see Spanier's talking now?