<p>Very well deserved for Ganim. She did an excellent job. I find it amusing and sad that this story became all about Paterno. If he truly didn’t know about 1998, which I am inclined to believe, then, while he may have made some mistakes, his culpability is still less than Sandusky’s, Schultz’s, Curley’s, McQueary’s, Spanier’s and a whole host of police and prosecution related figures, including Ray Gricar.</p>
<p>This is what is to be expected. It’ll be ugly.</p>
<p>[Pa</a>. school district wants Sandusky subpoena tossed | nj.com](<a href=“http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/pa-school-district-wants-sandusky-subpoena-tossed/61c824aa9ed34584a76650d3c9493cf2]Pa”>http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/pa-school-district-wants-sandusky-subpoena-tossed/61c824aa9ed34584a76650d3c9493cf2)</p>
<p>Sandusky’s lawyers sent a subpoena to the district superintendent seeking numerous school records about the man [Victim 1], including IQ test results, disciplinary records, grade reports, attendance records and certain investigative records, among other things.</p>
<p>I’m sure others agree this isn’t shocking, but it is very distressing…</p>
<p>NBC News reported this morning that investigators have uncovered “major new evidence” that could lead to new charges stemming from a possible cover-up of Sandusky’s alleged crimes. The evidence consists of emails exchanged in 2001 by former Penn State president Graham Spanier and school officials Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, who both face perjury charges. Spanier and Schultz said it would be “humane” to Sandusky to not get legal authorities involved, reports NBC News.</p>
<p>“In the course of former FBI Director Louis Freeh’s independent investigation, e-mails were discovered and immediately turned over to the State Attorney General,” Penn State spokesman David La Torre said in a statement Monday.</p>
<p>Reports are that Spanier may be indicted for his role in a cover-up. Also, a Pittsburgh television station is reporting that the state attorney general’s office has come into possession of a “secret file” on allegations against Sandusky that was created and maintained by Schultz, which the AG’s office says squarely contradicts numerous aspects of Schultz’s grand jury testimony.</p>
<p>I think Penn State is distancing itself from Schultz, Curley and Spanier, turning everything over to the AG and loudly announcing that it’s doing so, in an effort to show that it’s taking action and getting on the right side of this sordid mess. With the institutional machinery of Penn State hanging them out to dry, Schultz, Curley and Spanier could be in big trouble.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, it seems from the reports I read that Sandusky’s lawyer did a terrible job cross-examining the first witness (“Victim No. 4”), a now-28 year old man who was apparently quite convincing.</p>
<p>It’s a hell of a thing for a young man to stand up in public and talk about a man molesting him. I’m not surprised he was convincing. I start from a fairly strong presumption of truth when someone speaks out under these circumstances. </p>
<p>I’m interested in your take, DonnaL, but the way we see sexual victimization in our culture seems very gender-asymmetrical to me. Most women don’t want to tell their stories, but men REALLY don’t want to tell their stories. We have some cultural context nowadays for female survivors to fit into – we’ve been discussing it on campus and on TV for a few decades now. But men, especially straight men, just do not go on Oprah to talk about being raped. They’re out there alone.</p>
<p>thank goodness all of these young men are testifying, I hope each voice gives the next one of these victims/survivors a tiny measure of support and that together their voices are really heard. </p>
<p>I am sickened but not surprised by Spanier, Schultz and Curley. Shame on them for their actions and more importantly their arrogant inaction. It seemed obvious to me as this all unfolded that there were secret discussions and decisions. I hope they are charged. I also hope the guidance counselor who told victim 1 to not report this is charged for her NOT reporting it as is required in her position. We need for all to see that many enabled this abuse and predatory behavior to continue.</p>
<p>It appears the defense is going to rely on the old standby: try to claim a possible civil suit is motivation to lie. Any defendant is entitled to representation. I try to remember that.</p>
<p>yes, and also used a ridiculous claim that Sandusky is mentally ill, with histrionic personality disorder. </p>
<p>I think the new information about Spanier’s email stating “it’s humane to not report Sandusky to law enforcement” lends credence to the fact that McQueary did inform Spanier, Schultz and Curley of sexual assault/rape. They claimed they didn’t know it was assault/rape or even sexual at all, but this email demonstrates they clearly knew it was criminal behavior but chose to not report only out of a demented sense of supporting the criminal/predator.</p>
<p>McQuery reported the abuse in 2002. The emails according to your post were dated 2001. </p>
<p>Get your facts straight</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State Scandal Timeline: Key Dates In The Jerry Sandusky Sex Abuse Case](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, Amendola (Sandusky’ lawyer) is loudly yammering about all these young men being in it for the money in a civil suit, but according to press reports when he tried to press the point in cross-examination of the first witness it blew up on him. Asked why he was "lawyered up’ before he ever spoke to investigators, the young man calmly explained that the lawyer was hired by his father, not by him, that he had never spoken to the lawyer about a civil suit, and that the reason he finally spoke to investigators after remaining silent for many years was that he had tried to suppress all those memories by acting as if it had never happened, but that when the public story began to come out, he realized that by remaining silent he had done a terrible disservice to other boys who became Sandusky’s victims, and it was time for it all to end. Powerful stuff. Of course, it’s up to jury to decide whether they find the witness credible, but reporters in the courtroom seem to have concluded Amendola was soundly whipped in round one.</p>
<p>Basic trial law–NEVER ask a hostile witness a question at trial that you don’t know the answer to (preferably via a prior deposition). Good for the witness!</p>
<p>I read the e-mail exchange between Spanier and Schultz differently. Those weren’t the e-mails anyone would write if they thought Sandusky had been having anal sex with a young boy. I am not going to defend how they handled the situation anyway, especially in hindsight. And I will admit that I am mightily puzzled. But I believe they did not understand McQueary to have reported catching Sandusky in flagrante delicto.</p>
<p>Now, in many people’s minds that hardly matters. Sandusky was clearly crossing enough lines that forceful action should have been taken to stop him without regard to whether he was engaging in actual sex with the kids. Spanier etc. were wrong. But somehow I think it matters to exactly HOW wrong they were whether they thought Sandusky had been caught having sex or having creepy, questionable horseplay. They should have taken effective action to stop him no matter which, and maybe they had a duty to investigate just how far he had gone in that and other cases. But I, too, would hesitate to initiate sex-offender prosecution of someone I thought hadn’t committed some hard-core sex offenses.</p>
<p>sax: Everyone seems to agree now that McQueary’s report occurred in 2001, not 2002. The prosecutors amended the criminal charges a few weeks ago to reflect that. Obviously, the confusion on that issue isn’t great for the prosecution. But there’s no question at all that these e-mails are responding to whatever McQueary reported.</p>
<p>So far the victims have come across as very credible. Makes me so angry. They want the records to somehow discredit the witnesses, nrut that can backfire as they very likely reacts to his abuse</p>
<p>Jhs how hardcore would it have to be between an adult man and a child? Seriously? What would it take?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He is mentally ill. But that does not forgive his actions in this instance.</p>
<p>I not only regret that Sandusky wasn’t arrested years earlier so there would be fewer victims. I also regret that he wasn’t arrested years earlier so he could have spent many more years in a state prison. With the seriousness and number of charges, he should not be out on bail. He’s 68 - he’ll be lucky if he spends a couple years in a state-funded hospital ward before he goes to hell.</p>
<p>At the very very least, the Penn State officials should have done everything they could to keep Sandusky away from children. Instead, they simply told him that he could no longer bring the children into their shower room.</p>
<p>my apology</p>
<p>yes, that’s what I understood as well, that McQueary’s testimony was amended to 2001</p>
<p>Sax–appreciate your apology</p>
<p>It’s a black-eye to the school for sure - they knew about it on several levels, and just didn’t do the right thing. It’s a shame for all of those past and current students who had nothing to do with it, and the professors as well, but the admininstration has to take some of the blame. I won’t even comment on the actual abuse victims, but I also feel sorry for the students and faculty, it’s unfair to them. I know for a fact it’s hurt recruiting of future students, I know several who crossed them off their list after this.</p>
<p>And now it’s going to be in the news every day for as long as this trial goes on, complete with gruesome details, it certainly doesn’t help when you find out that victims and parents complained to the school for years and nothing was done.</p>