Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[Troy Loney]

So you are judging the behavior of people who are reacting to information you have been purposefully ignorant to over the last 3 years? What's more likely--Penn State is a cult, or you are making incorrect assumptions about people who's motives you are unaware of?

While Penn St is obviously not a cult, there is a devotion to the school held by people that outsiders are unable to comprehend. While this is not an apples to apples comparison, I think the perception of the steelers' organization and how that perception has changed can provide some insight.

The Steelers' used to be viewed as the pinnacle for how a team should be run. They "did things the right way" by employing virtuous players and avoiding the guys with baggage on and off the field. Steelers' nation felt justified in their over the top love for the team and it's organization. This notion was dispelled when some prominent player's conduct was brought into the public light and the response to it by the front office was simply consistent with the rest of the league, ditch the replacement level guys and make token displays of disappointment and reprimand for the stars.

The myth of the steelers' way has accordingly evaporated. The focus is solely on football.

When the Penn St scandal broke, my reaction was, well at least we can get off of this notion of the "Penn St way". I think what Shyster was alluding to in his posts was the denial to move beyond that perception and myth of the Penn St way. I think the response outsiders would understand would be collective disappointment and to move on from this debacle and just be football fans.

[Factorial]

So you are judging the behavior of people who are reacting to information you have been purposefully ignorant to over the last 3 years? What's more likely--Penn State is a cult, or you are making incorrect assumptions about people who's motives you are unaware of?

As a PSU grad, football fandom there is very much like a cult but I'm guessing at other schools (UGA for one) it's similar. The difference with PSU is the utter arrogance of the cult members.

[Pitt87]

Shyster, have you actually looked beyond the Freeh report and Grand jury report though? When you do, you realize that both greatly exaggerate what the actual facts are, and the story is a lot more gray about what really happened. You have no connection to the university so of course you only see Paterno as a millionaire football coach, but based on his record of ethical conduct, it puts this supposed action of protecting the football team at the benefit of a pedophile totally at odds with everything he did previously. So of course people are going to stand up and fight when they see a perceived injustice.

So your position is that Joe is an ethical person, so not going to the police to report the rape of a child in the Lash building reported by a GA was an ethical thing to do, and you think the injustice that people are right to fight for is the loss of a football record.

Not a Penn Stater, but married to one (and her PSU family), and spend a great deal of time in State College. I'll say the same thing here as I do to her and her family; the best way to honor Joe is to stand up for victims of sexual abuse. That's who you should be thinking about before you defend Joe Paterno.

If Joe was told he saw a rape, then he initially should have done more, but according to testimony by McQuery in the preliminary hearings of the Curley, Schultz, Spanier trial he never was that graphic when describing what he saw to Paterno.

The fight isn't about a football record, it's about the truth and putting the focus of the story on the failures of government agencies and experts not on untrained college administrators. The state needs to fix the agencies that are supposed to prevent from allowing a pedophile to run a child based charity and adopt and foster children.

Citing a legal defense isn't morally defensible. When it came to running a football program, he was the best there ever was. If he was more than 'just a millionaire football coach', he would not have been concerned with the consequences or what is legally defensible; he would have recognized that his word was enough to investigate what TIm Curly and Graham Spanier knew, and he would have done the morally right thing. If it was about the truth, there would be people outside the community agreeing with you. The rest of the world can see it, but some Penn Staters can't.

[Pitt87]

So you are judging the behavior of people who are reacting to information you have been purposefully ignorant to over the last 3 years? What's more likely--Penn State is a cult, or you are making incorrect assumptions about people who's motives you are unaware of?

As a PSU grad, football fandom there is very much like a cult but I'm guessing at other schools (UGA for one) it's similar. The difference with PSU is the utter arrogance of the cult members.

My mother in law (State College Native & 2nd Generation PSU Grad, 2 children PSU grads) says its like finding out your father's dark secrets. Even when confronted with facts, you just don't want to believe it, and can't help but defend it. I suspect, over time, people will begin to see the facts for what they are.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

I felt like this might have gotten buried in the "political thread" so I am re-posting it here as well:

State officials and possibly Sandusky investigators sent child porn emails

http://6abc.com/politics/ag-emails-in-p ... ce/401826/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of the pornographic emails that were exchanged among state government officials in a scandal that has claimed some of their jobs involved children and violent sexual acts against women, the state attorney general said Tuesday.

Kane, a Democrat, said a court order is preventing her from investigating them or explaining why. The court order stems from an investigation by a special prosecutor into whether Kane's office breached grand jury secrecy when it gave documents about a 2009 investigation to the Philadelphia Daily News.

What the article doesn't state is that Frank Fina, the lead prosecutor of the Sandusky case, has also been accused of being involved in the sending of the porn emails, but he was able to get a court order to prevent the OAG from releasing any of his emails and from openly using his name publicly.

http://articles.philly.com/2014-10-14/n ... -g-e-mails" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find this ironic, since no evidence of child porn was ever found on Sandusky's electronics within his home.

Emails might not have contained child porn now.

Kane spokeswoman: I 'misspoke' about porngate charges
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/polit ... SFVS07F.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Shyster]

So you are judging the behavior of people who are reacting to information you have been purposefully ignorant to over the last 3 years? What's more likely--Penn State is a cult, or you are making incorrect assumptions about people who's motives you are unaware of?

I am not ignorant of the information in question. I've read the Freeh Report, and I believe I skimmed the grand-jury stuff. I see no reason to doubt the veracity of either, and neither do I have the inclination to do so. I can understand objections to the NCAA's actions based on the argument that charitable money (i.e. money belonging to Penn State) would be leaving the state, but as to everything else—including the loss of wins of record—I see a private organization sanctioning a member entity.

When the Penn St scandal broke, my reaction was, well at least we can get off of this notion of the "Penn St way". I think what Shyster was alluding to in his posts was the denial to move beyond that perception and myth of the Penn St way. I think the response outsiders would understand would be collective disappointment and to move on from this debacle and just be football fans.

Thank you; that is much of what I'm saying. I am honestly surprised that people would buy into such a myth to begin with. I admit that as someone with strong libertarian leanings, I'm someone highly disinclined to engage in collective behavior or thinking, so it may be harder for me to understand something like the "Penn State Way" to begin with. I don't find it healthy for someone to form that strong of an attachment to what is essentially a business entity. I see more devotion to Penn State from some people than a lot of people devote to their expressed religion.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Louis Freeh Denied Protective Order in Paterno Lawsuit

http://onwardstate.com/2014/11/20/louis ... o-lawsuit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DontToewsMeBro]

I see no reason to doubt the veracity of either, and neither do I have the inclination to do so.

Ok so you are still in 2011, just wanted to make sure.

[columbia]

Given Shyster's openly expressed distrust of the police, prosecutors and The State - and being a lawyer himself - my guess is that if he says he doesn't have a reason to question either, he really means it.

[Shyster]

The Freeh report was commissioned by the Penn State Board of Trustees. It wasn't used to convict Jerry Sandusky, and it wouldn't be evidence in the trials of the others (if they ever take place). It's absolutely true that I don't like the police, prosecutors, or the state, but Freeh wasn't working for any of those when he did that report.

[relantel]

The Freeh report was commissioned by the Penn State Board of Trustees. It wasn't used to convict Jerry Sandusky, and it wouldn't be evidence in the trials of the others (if they ever take place). It's absolutely true that I don't like the police, prosecutors, or the state, but Freeh wasn't working for any of those when he did that report.

Just colluding with the OAG, the NCAA and the B1G in the process, which is so much better.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

The BoT fired Paterno and Spanier. They would've looked pretty bad if the investigation returned no evidence of wrong doing. Not saying any of the evidence was faked, but Freeh did have a strong opinion on evidence that most investigators would've determined to be inclusive.

[slappybrown]

The BoT fired Paterno and Spanier. They would've looked pretty bad if the investigation returned no evidence of wrong doing. Not saying any of the evidence was faked, but Freeh did have a strong opinion on evidence that most investigators would've determined to be inclusive.

What evidence that Freeh looked at would have been viewed as inconclusive by "most investigators" (leaving aside for the moment your ability to conclude what "most investigators" would conclude)?

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Considering I am a certified fraud investigator, I can give an informed opinion on how an investigator should conclude. As for the evidence that was found, the emails, considering they were somewhat vague and weren't penned by Paterno, I personally wouldn't be comfortable reaching the same conclusions that Freeh did.

He opened himself up to the litigation he is currently involved in, and him and his firm will most likely have to pay up.

[slappybrown]

Damn son CFE

And I assumed it was the "Coach emails" but I was really really really hoping you wouldn't say it and had something else. We've been over those emails in this thread and you're in the distinct minority.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

I know. I guess I still don't see how you can confidently conclude that Paterno actively covered up the actions of a pedophile based on vague emails written by other people.

[Shyster]

He opened himself up to the litigation he is currently involved in, and him and his firm will most likely have to pay up.

I do not believe Freeh is a defendant in any of the litigation. Why would he have to pay anything?

[DontToewsMeBro]

He opened himself up to the litigation he is currently involved in, and him and his firm will most likely have to pay up.

I do not believe Freeh is a defendant in any of the litigation. Why would he have to pay anything?

You do know there has been a pending defamation lawsuit against Freeh since last year correct?

[Shyster]

Filed by Spanier, not Paterno. And all Spanier has done is file a writ of summons, which means bupkis. Anyone can file a writ. He hasn't even filed a complaint yet. And Freeh almost certainly has qualified immunity--if not absolute imminuty--for anything said in his report. He was commissioned to write that report by the Penn State BOT, and they can say whatever they want about matters related to the university and its former president.

[tifosi77]

As a contractor to a state government entity, qualified immunity would be the starting point. But my understanding - and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm always willing to learn - is that if they are able to demonstrate collusion between the parties with an interest in the outcome of the report and the entity charged with generating the report, then qualified immunity is not applicable. And just based on what is publicly available already, pre-discovery, I don't think that is going to be too hard to establish.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Freeh and his firm is also been fighting tooth and nail to prevent their workpapers and correspondence between them and the "university" to be available to the Paternos and to Jake Corman in his lawsuit against the NCAA.

And writing "whatever he wants" doesn't meet the ethical standards of an investigator especially if it can't be reasonably supported or was formed due to a lack of independence.

[columbia]

The Freeh report was commissioned by the Penn State Board of Trustees. It wasn't used to convict Jerry Sandusky, and it wouldn't be evidence in the trials of the others (if they ever take place). It's absolutely true that I don't like the police, prosecutors, or the state, but Freeh wasn't working for any of those when he did that report.

I was pointing out your inherent suspicion of "authority" and that a former FBI director would fall in to that category.

[Shyster]

As a contractor to a state government entity, qualified immunity would be the starting point. But my understanding - and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm always willing to learn - is that if they are able to demonstrate collusion between the parties with an interest in the outcome of the report and the entity charged with generating the report, then qualified immunity is not applicable. And just based on what is publicly available already, pre-discovery, I don't think that is going to be too hard to establish.

In Pennsylvania, there is a form of immunity available to government officials that specifically exempts them from being sued in tort for defamation. So long as government officials speak pursuant to their duties and address matters within their rough jurisdiction, they can say whatever they want. The member's of PSU's BOT are most likely clothed with this immunity. And because Freeh was specifically retained as counsel by the BOT to write the report, I think he would share in the immunity.

Also, Spanier would most likely be a public official under the Sullivan line of precedent, so he would have to prove that Freeh acted with actual malice in regard to the alleged defamation. That's a very high burden to meet. I see that Freeh has actually be trying to force Spanier to move forward with the suit, but Spanier is dragging his feet. I imagine Pepper thinks they could probably kick it as preliminary objections, or maybe judgment on the pleadings.

[Factorial]

What is the ultimate goal of this lawsuit? To keep the NCAA fine money in PA? To overturn the NCAA fine?

[Shyster]

Freeh and his firm is also been fighting tooth and nail to prevent their workpapers and correspondence between them and the "university" to be available to the Paternos and to Jake Corman in his lawsuit against the NCAA.

Yes, because those would be covered by the attorney–client and work-product privileges. Every law firm and lawyer would fight tooth and nail against the release of that sort of stuff, regardless of the case. We're ethically required to maintain the confidentiality of that material.