Penn State Sandusky scandal

Parent Cafe
4261

<p>Why would Sandusky plead guilty?</p>

<p>The prosecution would have to offer him a heck of a deal to plead guilty. Given his age, and the nature of his offenses, almost any conceivable sentence is a life sentence. I can’t imagine the prosecutors going short enough to make a real difference to Sandusky, or agreeing not to label him as a sex offender.</p>

<p>On top of that, I’m sure the prosecution doesn’t really want Sandusky’s plea. They have Sandusky bagged and tagged already; I’m sure they are very confident they will get a conviction here. The real game is Curley and Schultz – and there it helps the prosecution immensely if the jury hears from the victims, something that would never happen if Curley and Schultz alone were on trial.</p>

4262

<p>Gary Schultz was responsible for the University Police. Paterno went right to the head of the police organziation at PSU. It was and is absolutely not the place of ANYONE tor presume guilt in a case like this. What the heck is anyone to do when presented with a situation like this? Immediately presume guilt when it is possibly not true, or turn it over to those in charge of such things. The emails will hopeful show who did not take the steps the should have been taken in the report. But Paterno did as he should have done. Absolutely he should not have used his influence to ruin someone until the facts were proven. He did take measures to keep Sandusky away from his facility. </p>

<p>What would YOU do if given a story like that? You do realize that sometimes it is not true. Yes, you can ruin someone unjustly.</p>

<p>I am writing all of this even as I feel that the preponderance of evidence is such that I personally believe Sandusky was a pervert. My personal belief, nor anyones’ should be entering into this case, however. The prosecutor who delibertaely let the grand jury records leak should be prosecuted for what she did, as was the person (and was convicted) who leaked information on the Bonds case. There is a lot wrong here on how this case has been handled on both sides.</p>

4263

<p>Applauding cptofthehouse … well said! Paterno knew Schultz for years. If Schultz said he was taking care of it, why wouldn’t Paterno believe him? There had already been the 1998 case that wasn’t pursued for lack of evidence. Maybe he thought the same thing happened here? I’d like to know if that were true.</p>

4264

<p>I would really like to see some formal procedure that has to be followed in accordance to the law, with fairness to the accused (who IS innocent until found guilty in a court of law) and still protects potential victims when a case like this arises.</p>

<p>You are a very busy, top level employee in what you do. You are told that someone in your “world” has done something that may fall in the category of inappropriateness and even outright abuse. What do you do to preserve the rights of the accused because maybe it 's not true, and yet make sure that others are kept safe? Not such an easy answer. Who do you tell of the allegations, rumors, stories, what you have been directly told? How much to believe? What if this person is a colleague for many years? </p>

<p>In the Penn State case, someone close to Sandusky should have kicked his ssa hard for showering with a kid. For ANY of the stuff he did for a kid. If I saw my kid or anyone I have responsibility for or care about even appearing in the least like it could be interpreted as inappropriate, these days you had better believe I would kick ssa in no uncertain terms. Especially with all that has been reported . I’d be doing the person a favor even if s/he is innocent. You just cannot even appear to be inappropriate these days. </p>

<p>Paterno was going on what someone told him and by that person’s own words–I read the testimony directly, he did not make it clear, used vague terms in what he saw. It would have been outrageously improper for him to do more than to report it to someone whose job it is to deal with these things and a misuse of power for him to eke out major consequences.</p>

<p>However, methinks that there was more than a whisper and murmur about Sandusky’s interest in those kids, touching and other things, and Paterno knew it. Which is why he said he should have done more. Yes, he should have personally kicked Sandusky’s ssa, and maybe he did so privately in some way. Sandusky had been censured and had privileges rescinded and other issues arise for years because of his inappropriate behavior. Somewhere a long the line someone had to blow the whistle, but was this the right way to do it? </p>

<p>This could be happening right now with your kids, both as victims and as perpetrators, and also possibly someone falsely accused. A young man who went to school with one of my kids just went through a 2 year ordeal from an accusation. As more of these stories come public, and it becomes “the thing” to come forth, there may be many more accusations. You brush a kid the wrong way, touch someone wrong, say the wrong thing. This can be a very dangerous precedent.</p>

4265

<p>I think Paterno knew as early as 1998 (and maybe earlier - I don’t believe for a minute that this started abruptly in 1998), and got him out of the program, and perhaps some kind of deal was cut. (I’d love to examine everyone’s finances!) I also think P. had incipient dementia by 2001, and was a less-than-responsible actor.</p>

<p>S.'s wife also knew, and probably for decades.</p>

4266

<p>Mini, privately I agree with you. Why someone who was close to Sandusky did not kick his SSA hard, is beyond me. That it had to come to this! I don’t think any kind of monetary deal was cut. This sort of thing is such that no one wants to touch it, and it would be enough to get the stinking problem out of there. I don’t know if I would have the nerve to launch an attack without proof positive against someone. I don’t think I would. Nor should anyone because it is just too serious of a situation. Really, what should one do?</p>

<p>But as cowardly as I am, and yes, I am, if I thought for an instant that someone was being raped in a shower like McQueary says he thought, I would not just peek my head in and leave. I would have screamed bloody murder and insisted that the kid get dressed, leave the shower and the police be called. That was waaaay over the line. ANd for all of my kids faults, which are many, not one of mine would have done any different even if it were the POA in there. Where the hesitation would come is if it were Dad, or son or other true loved one. And in that case it would be straight to the psych hospital, do not pass GO. So what would you do if you suspected your husband, father, son to be the perpatrator in something like this?</p>

4267

<p>“That it had to come to this! I don’t think any kind of monetary deal was cut.”</p>

<p>Oh, I think it may have cut the opposite way of what you are thinking, especially if P and others knew for a long time. </p>

<p>I personally have dealt firsthand (and at McQ’s age) with a person threatening a woman with knife (it turned out to be a DV situation) on the street. So I think I know what I would do, but of course one doesn’t ever really know until actually confronted with the situation. Of course, McQ will live with that one forever. I expect he really thought that (other than interrupting the situation) he had dealt with things well. What P thought is anyone’s guess (and, again, I don’t think he was in a position to think clearly any more.)</p>

4268

<p>In many programs, communities, there are those who are suspected of being a little too “touchy”, a bit “queer” (and I am using the word to mean any possibility", a bit off, and downright predatory. This has been the case with girls for years, and it has pretty much been a given that we take certain steps to keep males away from females under certain circumstances. It’s a propriettary thing. But women with girls and men with boys, have been something ignored and not considered a threatening situation. Not so any more. Everyone should be looking at these cases like the Penn State one and the story at Horace Mann with an eye to the present, and really on themselves and their children. Not only does one have to be careful to protect others from predators, but be aware that there will be fall out from these high profile cases. Can I sleep with my sweet nephew who at age 6 loves to cuddle? How about my sons< can they cuddle with their nephew? With cousins? How careful are we going to have to be? </p>

<p>As I mentioned, a young man i knew as a child had charged levied against him for improprieties. I don’t know if he did the things of which he was accused or not. But some of the things that were thrown in the case were truly preposterous. Things that anyone does but cast in a terrible light. A reason, the only reason is what a friend told me, that the young man is not in jail is because his father is an attorney and put every iota of his time, focus,money and power in getting his son out from the mess, and he only partly succeeded. From what I have read and heard, there was absolutely no direct evidence, just word against word. And some grudges in there as well. That’s what’s so scary here. </p>

<p>These days it is easy to get into trouble for abusing your own child, you know. If you are referred to DCP, even by anonymous message, you have to undergo a process. Your kid has a mark and says he was hit by a parent, and it can really be a problem. My friend’s husband got into all kinds of trouble which cost the family thousands and nearly had him put in jail when he forced his 14 into the car after she refused to get into it and come home one evening. She swore he hit her and her friend backed her up. That part untrue. But sexually assaulting children brings on a whole other cloud that can truly ruin someone, and as unbelievable as it may seem that someone is lying about such a thing, to me it’s even more unbelievable someone is doing. Both are possible.</p>

4269

<p>I went back to some press releases from the time the new broke, and truly, it seems to me that Paterno was fired to take some heat off the university, to show that it took the case that seriously, and because of the directed attention Paterno was getting from the news. By doing that it really diffused the situation somewhat since it divorced a high profile person from the case.</p>

<p>I’m not a football fan, Penn State fan, Paterno advocate. I could not care less who Paterno was. I am just looking at the case as it unfolded. Though he likely had slowed down mentally, and seemed to be physically ailing as well, having died shortly after this all came to light, I don’t think dementia was the issue here. I think those at Penn States were and are cowards the way this was handled and though I hope Sandusky is put somewhere that he can never molest another child, I also hope the university officials who let this case go the way they did all get their heads handed to them as well. Cowards, every single one of them and then sanctimonious as could be when it reached this point.</p>

4270

<p>cpt, I know someone who was in almost an identical situation. Except I know he didn’t do it, and he did get acquitted. The defense attorney repeatedly lied in court and tried to insinuate that there were others in addition to the one accuser in court. But there was not. She called every minor he ever knew and not only did they deny he ever touched them, but many also offered to come testify on his behalf. Each person she called, she would tell that others were coming forward to accuse the defendant. A total lie. </p>

<p>The accuser told the defendant that he was going to get revenge because the defendant didn’t lend him money. The accuser and his mother were overheard saying they didn’t care if the defendant went to jail because what they really wanted was his money. But none of that was admissible in court. The defendant spent a huge chunk of his retirement money on his defense. And he could have lost. The prosecutor wanted a win. She wanted to brag that she had put a “child molester” in jail. She didn’t care whether he really was a child molestor; he was just a notch on her belt. </p>

<p>And she was shooting for life in prison. And she was willing to lie to get it.</p>

<p>I do think Sandusky is guilty. There are too many victims, witnesses, etc. But he deserves his day in court like anyone else.</p>

4271

<p>I agree with JHS. Paterno was fired quickly after the public statement he made. He was trying to call the shots and the Trustees were not having it. If he had kept his mouth shut they may not have canned him. But, I think he should have been fired either way.</p>

4272

<p>I’ve thought about the chain of command in reporting suspected abuse. As a teacher - many years past - we talked to either the school nurse or administration. They handled reporting the suspected abuse - usually through CPS. We - teachers - did not always have access to details after that point. It never occurred to me to think that the process would stop at the administrative level - I trusted that everyone would do their job. Often nothing happened … and occasionally we would find out the frustrating reasons behind why - and that’s without a nefarious cover-up. Sad and heartbreaking.</p>

<p>I heard another NFL player (college - Penn State) on some sports show last spring. When asked what he would have done in McQ’s situation, he said that he would like to think he would have stopped Sandusky. Then he added that in all honesty he didn’t know that he wouldn’t have done just as McQ did and regretted it ever afterwards. He pointed out that it was something you never expected to see. Sandusky was a superior, a mentor, a father figure to McQ. Sandusky was friends with McQ’s father. McQ had grown up with Sandusky’s kids and considered them friends. Add in Saint Sandusky’s sterling reputation in the community. This other NFL player pointed out that’s a lot to wrap your mind around in an instant. In hindsight, McQ should have definitively stopped it … but he was at Paterno’s house the next morning (Sunday) and then talked with the men Paterno reported it to … one being head of campus police. It’s always easy to think you’ll react quickly and just as you should at the moment. I think McQ will always live with that regret. I hate to think that he’d ever regret his next steps of reporting what he saw - and certainly his life changed with that step.</p>

<p>Yeah … I think McQ saw what he says he saw. I’m less concerned about him changing the date. Personally we experienced major home damage and loss of all contents in a freak flood. Yesterday I told someone it happened in 2001 only to realize later it happened three years earlier 1998. I can tell you details about that flood that will never leave my mind … close my eyes and see the water. Evidently the date is not as indelibly etched in there.</p>

4273

<p>Sans, that is what worries me. In this case, it seems clear that he has/had a problem and that a lot of people knew but probably not the extent, and looked the other way. Wouldn’t go there. Thought maybe it was itchy fingers and that’s it. </p>

<p>But some of the things that have happened in this case is truly a problem for our justtice sytem and we all should be concerned about this because it can hurt us and others. Grand jury testimony was illegally released. That should never have been done and the person who did it should be prosecuted and has not been. A grand jury case is when the prosecutors throw it all on the table and no defense is permitted. To have that released in the press that way is a travesty of justice. This sort of thing should never be permitted and the precedent is dangerous. The prosecutors here are illegally building a case. If they can’t win this one on its own merits they should not be in office. THis guy appears to have been a serial molester. To judge him by public opinion is plain wrong, wrong wrong. The same with a number of cases, including the Casey Anthony case. And yes, I think it is a travesty that she walked away on that one, but it served the DA right as well as those in the press who were mud slinging without regard to the justice system. I think Nancy Grace should have been sued for her comments. And I would be all for locking up Anthony and throwing away the key.</p>

<p>I hope these witnesses have not been tampered with in the Sandusky case. I think the prosecutors there are just to eager to win this win. I think the ones really belonging on the racks are the university officials who were more concerned about image than directly addrssing the problem. Sandusky should be put away in a mental institution for life, the Penn State duds should be the ones going to jail.</p>

4274

<p>What Penn State did was fire a long time beloved coach who was going a bit senile and was really at death’s door, so it could divert some of the publicity. There were any number of ways to have handled the situation. </p>

<p>I agree that the prosecution needs the Sandusky trial in order to get to those in the university who specifically stopped the chain of events here and did not investigate as they should have. Those are the true criminals to me.</p>

4275

<p>Absolutely agree with JHS. JoePa fired himself when he arrogantly announced that he was staying until the end of the season when he would retire, and publicly told the Board of Trustees, “Don’t worry your pretty little heads about me; I’ve already taken care of that, and you’ve got more important things to worry about.” Maybe that’s how things had always worked at Penn State, JoePa was the one really in charge. But for him to so flagrantly take that posture, placing himself above and beyond the reach of the Board of Trustees while probably the biggest crisis in the university’s history was swirling around his football program, was just a step too far. If they didn’t fire him at exactly that moment, they’d have confirmed that he really was out of control, bigger than the Trustees, bigger than the University itself, and that the Trustees who were supposed to be running the pace were ineffectual toads. It had nothing to do with what he did or did not do to follow up on what he had been told by McQueary or what he had learned from any other source of information; true, questions–in my opinion, legitimate questions–had been raised about those things, and that contributed to the crisis the University was facing. But it was JoePa’s rank insubordination in the midst of that crisis that got him fired. And for a darned good reason, too.</p>

4276

<p>No matter who Paterno relied on, there can be no excuse for continuing to associate personally and professionally and thus aligning all his prestige with Sandusky. None. </p>

<p>I’ve been looking at some of the reporting and I’m somewhat bothered by the defense’s approach in questioning. They are touching the line, crossing it at times, of badgering witnesses. Not only witnesses but ones abused as children. It pleased me to see it backfire when they pushed one victim to explain why he had more more detail now and he said it was because therapy helped. When I object to badgering, it’s because it doesn’t work when witnesses are sympathetic. You hurt your client by making the witness deserve sympathy even more. And you get revelations that absolutely kill you, like I mentioned. That kind of questioning is as dumb as the prosecution having OJ try on a glove that had been left in the rain and then kept in an evidence room for a long time. </p>

<p>When an abuse victim is on the stand, you want to get it over with as quickly as possible and as gently as possible. You want to make your points: credibility, financial interest and get them off. The very last thing you want is to come off as attacking a person who now sits in front of the world saying “I was raped as a child” and then, even worse, having that person say therapy is helping with details. That now automatically applies to every other victim who testifies. All because they pushed the witness. That is a sign of desperation by the defense. They may have deluded themselves into believing they had a shot but the parade of witnesses killed that.</p>

4277

<p>I don’t think the defense attorneys are very good either from what I have read. Just a feeling. I felt that the prosecutor of the Anthony trial was truly foolish.</p>

4278

<p>One of the reasons why Paterno was fired was because, even though he had a history of supporting Republican politicians, he refused to endorse Gov. Corbett. Corbett then got angry when he saw Paterno talking to his opponent for Governor during a game. I know it sounds too juvenile to be true, but read the Sports Illustrated article from earlier this year.</p>

<p>McQuery very clearly said yesterday on the stand that he did not give Paterno details of what he saw, out of the respect for the old man. He wanted Paterno to kick it upstairs, which he did. McQuery then gave the details to 2 top officials of the University, including the guy overseeing University Police. </p>

<p>The University Police have full legal jurisdiction over crimes on Penn State property - the local police said they would have referred any complaint to the Penn State Police.</p>

4279

<p>McQ was very clear on that point from the onset, that he was vague about what he saw to Paterno, other than it was inappropriate. </p>

<p>McQ has not been as clear or consistent on a number of other things, I am afraid. The mistake about the dates is the least of the problems with some of his testimony. If the defense attorneys were better, he would be in real trouble.</p>

4280

<p>“McQuery very clearly said yesterday on the stand that he did not give Paterno details of what he saw, out of the respect for the old man.”</p>

<p>But he also said clearly to Paterno that what he saw was sexually explicit. That part wasn’t vague at all.</p>

<p>"“I made sure he knew it was sexual and it was wrong,” he said.</p>