Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[ulf]

So essentially the Grand Jury testimony by Paterno is questioned because he was manipulated and a potential stenographer error based on context.

It is at least understandable that a reasonable person would disagree with those, right?

Well troy, you should take a look at the PSU message board. I gave PSU fans the benefit of the doubt thinking that every fan base has a few exceptions.. But I'm not sure anymore that there are many that would fit your last sentence after reading some threads there.

[Orlando Penguin]

I don't think this has been posted anywhere on the last few pages but if it's been addressed somewhere else, I apologize. Just another interesting twist to this whole situation. At this link https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/file ... ention.pdf is the NCAA's policy for handling reports of abuse. I highlight the main points made on the opening page of the document. This was passed on August 6, 2014. Enjoy.

• Comply with campus authorities and ensure that all athletics staff, coaches, administrators and student-athletes maintain a hostile-free environment for all student-athletes regardless of gender or sexual orientation; know and follow campus protocol for reporting incidents of sexual violence; report immediately any suspected sexual violence to appropriate campus offices for investigation and adjudication;

• Educate all student-athletes, coaches and staff about sexual violence prevention, intervention and response;

• Assure compliance with all federal and applicable state regulations related to sexual violence prevention and response; and

• Cooperate with but not manage, direct, control or interfere with college or university investigations into allegations of sexual violence ensuring that investigations involving student-athletes and athletics department staff are managed in the same manner as all other students and staff on campus.

So basically the new NCAA rules for handling accusations of sexual misconduct, rules which have been informed by the Sandusky case, are to basically do what Paterno did.

DING DING DING DING....Johnny, tell him what he's won!!!

[Pitt87]

He was just a football coach..

No. He. Wasn't. I don't even have to leave this thread to prove that wrong.

Everything I ever heard about Penn State growing up was how right down to the uniform choices went thru Joe. PSU people almost wore it as a badge of honor, it was a bragging right how much control Joe Paterno had in Happy Valley. All of the sudden, he's just a simple small town football coach, who grew old and got confused, and targeted as an easy scape goat. Give me a break.

That's exactly my point... when it suited him and the University legally in this particular case, all of a sudden he was an employee that did things by the book, even though in every other aspect he went way above the call of his official title, even sometimes flying in the face of guys like Graham Spanier. Just doesn't add up.

[Pitt87]

I don't think this has been posted anywhere on the last few pages but if it's been addressed somewhere else, I apologize. Just another interesting twist to this whole situation. At this link https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/file ... ention.pdf is the NCAA's policy for handling reports of abuse. I highlight the main points made on the opening page of the document. This was passed on August 6, 2014. Enjoy.

• Comply with campus authorities and ensure that all athletics staff, coaches, administrators and student-athletes maintain a hostile-free environment for all student-athletes regardless of gender or sexual orientation; know and follow campus protocol for reporting incidents of sexual violence; report immediately any suspected sexual violence to appropriate campus offices for investigation and adjudication;

• Educate all student-athletes, coaches and staff about sexual violence prevention, intervention and response;

• Assure compliance with all federal and applicable state regulations related to sexual violence prevention and response; and

• Cooperate with but not manage, direct, control or interfere with college or university investigations into allegations of sexual violence ensuring that investigations involving student-athletes and athletics department staff are managed in the same manner as all other students and staff on campus.

So basically the new NCAA rules for handling accusations of sexual misconduct, rules which have been informed by the Sandusky case, are to basically do what Paterno did.

These guidelines are in regard to schools responsibility to help prevent sexual assault on campus by students, not handling a former coach raping a child in a University building. There are a few items in the document indicating that coaches need to be present in athletics facilities to supervise activities.

To relate it back to your comment, if you go find the rulebook to figure out how to better understand your rights and responsibilities in handling a coach or former coach raping children, you're going to end up with a far worse situation. Just call the police. It's that simple.

[slappybrown]

Re: the State Police, I am not aware of any transcripts or reports of what he told them. Feel free to share.[\quote]

Re: the stenographer issue, if Paterno did not intend to state it was sexual in nature, what is the behavior he described to Baldwin as "inappropriate" in a shower with a child? I suppose eating a cheeseburger would be "inappropriate" in a shower too, but I find it hard to believe that a reasonable view of "inappropriate" in a shower with a child is anything other than "sexually inappropriate."[\quote]

Sandusky being alone with a child in a shower would be enough to report, but without any other information might not merit breaking the reporting protocol.

Additionally, if Paterno was posing a question -- which he does not at any other point, and which witnesses in grand jury proceedings do not do as a matter of course since they are in there on their own, answering questions about potential criminal behavior -- as to whether the conduct could be described as "sexual", then when he saw the transcript of his testimony, I am sure he and his counsel would have completed an errata sheet correcting the error in transcription. Again, if your position is that the stenographer screwed up and transposed a word, creating a declarative statement where there was a question, and that neither Paterno nor his counsel corrected that error (which error is highly unlikely to occur in the first instance and because it was assuredly videotaped), then again, you're really stretching any reasonable limits of credulity. [\quote]

Would Paterno's counsel have been able to do this since Paterno was never charged with any crimes?

I can't see that image unfortunately. Is it the same as the transcript I posted?

Re: the report, see his statements in my post above.

Re: the errata sheet, yes.

So I was able to see this image now, and yes, I see where that line is in there. Its written by a third person rather than coming from Paterno's own testimony under oath and/or to an agent of the PA AG's office, but we can leave that aside for the moment.

It says, right before the underline:

...telling [Paterno] he saw Sandusky in the locker room doing something inappropriate with a young boy

What on Earth could it possibly be? The same phrase of "inappropriate" is used throughout the police narrative: Paterno did "not hear any rumors about Sandusy and inappropriate acts"; did not ever witness Sandusky "do anything inappropriate with kids"; went to fundraisers for the Second Mile but did not "witness anything inappropriate." Is your conclusion that the word "inappropriate" in this narrative refers to anything other than Sandusky engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with minors?

In any event, that police narrative is still consistent with Paterno's own words to the AG's office and to the Grand Jury. Its genuinely puzzling to me how you or rel can honestly tell me you don't think that Paterno was told and understood that Sandusky was doing this when McQueary meets with him. You seem to want to believe (and not only believe, but construe in a very specific, unreasonable way) what third parties like Baldwin and the police wrote, but ignore what the guy actually says under oath and to the Attorney General. Isn't that backward?

[Orlando Penguin]

I don't think this has been posted anywhere on the last few pages but if it's been addressed somewhere else, I apologize. Just another interesting twist to this whole situation. At this link https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/file ... ention.pdf is the NCAA's policy for handling reports of abuse. I highlight the main points made on the opening page of the document. This was passed on August 6, 2014. Enjoy.

• Comply with campus authorities and ensure that all athletics staff, coaches, administrators and student-athletes maintain a hostile-free environment for all student-athletes regardless of gender or sexual orientation; know and follow campus protocol for reporting incidents of sexual violence; report immediately any suspected sexual violence to appropriate campus offices for investigation and adjudication;

• Educate all student-athletes, coaches and staff about sexual violence prevention, intervention and response;

• Assure compliance with all federal and applicable state regulations related to sexual violence prevention and response; and

• Cooperate with but not manage, direct, control or interfere with college or university investigations into allegations of sexual violence ensuring that investigations involving student-athletes and athletics department staff are managed in the same manner as all other students and staff on campus.

So basically the new NCAA rules for handling accusations of sexual misconduct, rules which have been informed by the Sandusky case, are to basically do what Paterno did.

These guidelines are in regard to schools responsibility to help prevent sexual assault on campus by students, not handling a former coach raping a child in a University building. There are a few items in the document indicating that coaches need to be present in athletics facilities to supervise activities.

To relate it back to your comment, if you go find the rulebook to figure out how to better understand your rights and responsibilities in handling a coach or former coach raping children, you're going to end up with a far worse situation. Just call the police. It's that simple.

Did you stop reading before the part where it says 'ensuring that investigations involving student-athletes and ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT STAFF'?? And before you say that Sandusky was not a coach, you'd be right. But he was granted 'emeritus' status as a term of his retirement package by none other than Rodney Erickson (http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/sports/ ... ent_r.html). And while he's not 'active' staff and/or on the payroll, that emeritus label could be construed as technically still staff.

You are correct with your final statement, though. And that's the part that will continue to boggle many minds. But as has been said earlier in this thread, McQueary gets too much of a free pass (though one could argue not being able to find a job and having his personal life turned upside down as not a free pass at all) because he was too 'traumatized' by what he supposedly saw. It was a colossal failure by so many involved probably because they had worked with him (Joe), played for him, grew up around him and his family (Jay & McQ) that they'd think, 'nah, not possible'. I believe the Clemente Report covered some of this thinking. This is why we need Curley/Spanier/Schultz to get to trial so people who were in position to put a stop to this can put on public record what they knew and why they didn't do anything about it when Joe brought it to their attention (secondhanded).

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

What on Earth could it possibly be? The same phrase of "inappropriate" is used throughout the police narrative: Paterno did "not hear any rumors about Sandusy and inappropriate acts"; did not ever witness Sandusky "do anything inappropriate with kids"; went to fundraisers for the Second Mile but did not "witness anything inappropriate." Is your conclusion that the word "inappropriate" in this narrative refers to anything other than Sandusky engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with minors.

In any event, that police narrative is still consistent with Paterno's own words to the AG's office and to the Grand Jury. Its genuinely puzzling to me how you or rel can honestly tell me you don't think that Paterno was told and understood that Sandusky was doing this when McQueary meets with him. You seem to want to believe (and not only believe, but construe in a very specific, unreasonable way) what third parties like Baldwin and the police wrote, but ignore what the guy actually says under oath and to the Attorney General. Isn't that backward?

I am not ignoring what he is saying. I am trying to reconcile how prior to the Grand Jury testimony, Scott Paterno has stated that Joe never said that McQuery referred to the events as sexual. And then how Curley and Schultz testified that it was only "horse play which is consistent with Baldwin's notes. What I've stated is one possible way even though I realize it is not most straightforward possibility.

In retrospect, even if McQuery didn't use sexual terms (as he says) than Paterno probably should have recognized that it was sexual, even though being "in the locker room doing something inappropriate" doesn't necessarily mean something sexual is taking place. I realize that many would call the police or at least convince McQuery to call the police with just those details and I know I certainly would especially knowing what we know today about Sandusky and how pedophiles operate.

No one can say for sure why Paterno didn't call the police. Maybe it was because McQuery hadn't called the police himself and still hadn't done it after talking with his Dad and his Dad's boss. Maybe it was because McQuery seemed to be unsure about what he actually saw and had trouble explaining what he saw to Paterno. Maybe it was because even though he didn't like Sandusky and always thought him to be odd, he never thought that he would sexually assault a child especially since all other times he saw him with children he was doing things to help them including devoting most of his time running a charity to assist them. And nevermind that Sandusky had been approved by the State's child care experts to foster and adopt children numerous times. Maybe it was because he was unaware of any other inappropriate conduct taking place (as he also testified that day but I guess because of a couple emails that he never sent or received and the fact that he was the God of State College, he was lying during this part of his testimony) and he didn't actually witness the incident himself.

I think we can agree to disagree at this point. I realize that everyone has made their mind up at this point and there really isn't anything that will change people's minds. I'll forever be a PSU cultist and Paterno will forever have an asterisk next to his name. I think I am fine with that at this point as I am really tired of spending time worrying about it. Feel free to respond, but I won't argue this point any longer. I won't be done posting the occasional link to an article about a key finding or event related to the upcoming Paterno vs NCAA trial and the C/S/S trial, but I think it is best if I move on although I am sure I'll be roped back into this nonsense at some point.

So for my last opinion based article, here is one from Mike Missanelli that shares pretty much the same views as me regarding this:

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/01/2 ... relevance/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[shmenguin]

Missanelli is generally a total dope about this stuff.

But even he hasn't completely abandoned all reason regarding what paterno was told. You and relantel are alone here. And outside of here you are with the "cultists". And that's not a good thing.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

PSU president 'not a fan' of Freeh report into Sandusky, criticizes NCAA penalties

http://www.usnews.com/news/sports/artic ... -penalties" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is important as this is the first time anyone in PSU's administration has publicly criticized the Freeh report outside of the alumni-elected trustees.

Eric Barron told The Associated Press that the report by former FBI director Louis Freeh took a prosecutorial approach and created an "absurd" and "unwarranted" picture of students, faculty and others associated with the university.

"There's no doubt in my mind, Freeh steered everything as if he were a prosecutor trying to convince a court to take the case."

The Freeh team's report, he said, "very clearly paints a picture about every student, every faculty member, every staff member and every alum. And it's absurd. It's unwarranted. So from my viewpoint the Freeh report is not useful to make decisions."

"Unfortunately, there are a lot of shoes that have to drop. You could argue that public opinion has found us guilty before the criminal trials," Barron said. "There's no doubt in my mind what was completely and totally wrong was the notion that this entire alumni base, our students, our faculty, our staff, got the blame for what occurred."

[DudeMan2766]

PSU guy doesn't like freeh report or NCAA penalties??? Ya don't say

[Factorial]

Eric Barron told The Associated Press that the report by former FBI director Louis Freeh took a prosecutorial approach and created an "absurd" and "unwarranted" picture of students, faculty and others associated with the university.

As a PSU grad, I never felt besmirched by any of this.

[tifosi77]

Eric Barron told The Associated Press that the report by former FBI director Louis Freeh took a prosecutorial approach and created an "absurd" and "unwarranted" picture of students, faculty and others associated with the university.

As a PSU grad, I never felt besmirched by any of this.

I don't, either. But it's pretty clear - just read this thread - that there are a lot of people who think you/we should be.

Mentioned a while ago that I still occasionally get side-eyed when I'm out if I wear a PSU shirt or hat.

[count2infinity]

Eric Barron told The Associated Press that the report by former FBI director Louis Freeh took a prosecutorial approach and created an "absurd" and "unwarranted" picture of students, faculty and others associated with the university.

As a PSU grad, I never felt besmirched by any of this.

I don't, either. But it's pretty clear - just read this thread - that there are a lot of people who think you/we should be.

Mentioned a while ago that I still occasionally get side-eyed when I'm out if I wear a PSU shirt or hat.

to be fair, i do the same thing when I see someone with Flyers gear on...

[tifosi77]

Well...... yeeeaaah.

[Factorial]

Eric Barron told The Associated Press that the report by former FBI director Louis Freeh took a prosecutorial approach and created an "absurd" and "unwarranted" picture of students, faculty and others associated with the university.

As a PSU grad, I never felt besmirched by any of this.

I don't, either. But it's pretty clear - just read this thread - that there are a lot of people who think you/we should be.

Mentioned a while ago that I still occasionally get side-eyed when I'm out if I wear a PSU shirt or hat.

I've never owned an article of PSU clothing or any other PSU paraphernalia so I haven't seen that. It was college to me, not something to be "rah rah, up and down" about.

[Shyster]

I don't, either. But it's pretty clear - just read this thread - that there are a lot of people who think you/we should be.

And there's at least one person who is surprised that any would be to begin with.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Put Paterno's statue back up, Pennsylvanians say

Of the 1,023 Pennsylvania residents polled, 59 percent said the statue of Paterno with his finger in the air in victory should be restored to a prominent place on Pennsylvania State University’s campus, according to results released Wednesday morning. A quarter of those polled said it should not be restored.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/camp ... qGoTvOL.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Corman urges probes into NCAA role in Penn State case

Claiming "a rush to judgment" in the investigation of Pennsylvania State University, a top Senate leader on Wednesday called on Congress and the NCAA to investigate its members' role in handling the fallout of the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse scandal.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150 ... AYspBPs.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Crankshaft]

Put Paterno's statue back up, Pennsylvanians say

Of the 1,023 Pennsylvania residents polled, 59 percent said the statue of Paterno with his finger in the air in victory should be restored to a prominent place on Pennsylvania State University’s campus, according to results released Wednesday morning. A quarter of those polled said it should not be restored.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/camp ... qGoTvOL.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are almost 13 million people in Pennsylvania. Of those 13 million, only 1,023 were polled and only a bit more than half of them said to put the statue back.

Headline: PENNSYLVANIANS SAY PUT THE PATERNO STATUE BACK!

I understand how online polling works but it's just such a dumb headline.

[tifosi77]

To me, this is sort of like the hall of fame debates over steroid users or other known cheaters. For example, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where Barry Bonds is in Cooperstown and visitors go see his stuff and the first thought that hits their mind is something other than 'juicer'. Do you really want that in the HOF?

Similarly, I don't think there's any way the Paterno statue can go back up; it won't be a marker of coaching excellence, it will be a constant reminder of scandal. Never mind the abuse and vandalism it would no doubt invite.

[relantel]

I never really liked that statue. It's kind of like the Mario statue to me. Bad luck. Take them both down. (Ok, so don't put the other one back up).

But it is long past time for the University to honor Paterno in some way, which they have not done yet after 61 years of service. They slapped Rodney Erickson's name on the Food Sciences building for far less a contribution... (Though to be fair, it is no contest that Erickson spent more PSU $$ than Paterno)

[count2infinity]

they still have the paterno library....

[relantel]

they still have the paterno library....

That's as a result of their financial generosity for that purpose. As is the catholic center. Completely different than what we're talking about here.

[count2infinity]

That's typically how most buildings get named on most universities.

[Factorial]

they still have the paterno library....

Is that the same as Patee Library or a newer one?