<p>Here’s another twist, and another figure to add to the mix. Seems Penn State’s General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, has resigned in the wake of sharp criticism of her in the Freeh report, which said she concealed information from the Board of Trustees and seemed to be more interested in protecting Spanier, Curley, and Schultz from legal liability than in protecting the University’s interests.</p>
<p>But it gets more complicated. Apparently when Spanier, Curley, and Schultz appeared before the grand jury they were all asked if they were represented by legal counsel and they all said, “Yes, Cynthia Baldwin,” and Baldwin didn’t deny it. But Baldwin is now saying she was never their lawyer, she was representing Penn State. Except Penn State wasn’t a party to the grand jury proceedings which concerned possible criminal charges against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz as individuals, so if she was representing Penn State (and that was her job, after all), she shouldn’t have even been there. And it may have been a conflict of interest for her to represent these individuals at the same time she was representing Penn State, since their interests diverged. Now Spanier is publicly ripping Baldwin, saying she didn’t adequately prepare him for the grand jury appearance; through her own lawyer, she’s saying she was never Spanier’s lawyer.</p>
He probably declined to testify. That won’t help his civil claim.</p>
<p>I was thinking about Penn State’s lawyers. I have to wonder whether some of what the execs did was based on the advice of counsel–we’ll hear more about that, and we may end up seeing them sue their own lawyers.</p>
<p>Charges against Paterno won’t happen in a court of law. That one is in Penn State’s court as is often the case in transgressions that occur on or involving a school. But Curly and Schultz have trials coming, and Spanier should also be charged in addition to a number of others named in the Freehs report. Hopefully the DA’s office is working on warrents for a number of these people, and hopefully Penn State is carefully looking at how to handle all those that have been reported as complicit in the child trafficking and molestation, and hiding the signs that something was not right.</p>
<p>I imagine Victim 2 must have felt so torn and likely terrified to testify. And we never know where a victim’s life is, he may be a very troubled young man, (because of the abuse) and feared coming forward and having his own life ripped apart…</p>
<p>Is it too late for him to press criminal charges against Sandusky?</p>
<p>“having coaches from other schools openly call up your best players and recruit them to jump ship, right from under your nose. And there is nothing you can do about it.”</p>
<p>Welcome to the real world. Everything outside of athletic cartels works this way. All other bosses, teachers, and leaders deal with it. Star employees and star students get wooed away from institutions every day – including coaches! The guy who runs the choir at Penn State always has to worry about his best singers getting a transfer spot at Juilliard. Boo hoo for Lane Kiffin. He can walk away from his school to get a better deal, but he doesn’t like it when his players can do the same.</p>
<p>Because it’s very difficult to admit, especially publically, that you were the victim of sexual abuse. Sometimes even hard to admit to yourself (as seen with Sandusky’s adopted son).</p>
<p>There is also the possiblity that he is dead.</p>
<p>Report on Victim 2 on CNN just now, saying that he identified himself to Amendola in Nov 2011 and said he was not abused in the shower incident that McQuery saw. And that Amendola was planning to call him as a defense witness–until he got his own lawyer. </p>
<p>If that’s all true then it seems like it took Victim 2 some time to come to terms with what happened to him, especially with Sandusky still contacting him. Warning: CNN played one of the voicemails.</p>
<p>Samiany==One of the comments on the PennLive letter you posted a link to on the previous page, pointed out a number of the institutional, procedural failures at Penn State, which Spanier and the rest are ultimately responsible for:</p>
<p>I’ve been thinking about the sanctions, and as draconian as they sound, I’m wondering how much effect they will actually have on Penn State football. </p>
<p>Players still get to play.
Coaches still get to coach.
Cheerleaders still get to cheer.
Bands still get to march.
Fans still get to attend.
Alums still get to watch on TV.
Local merchants still get game-day business.
Alumni donations will pay the fine.
There is already talk of non-bowl post-season games.</p>
<p>For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I don’t see how the program is actually being hurt much. After the dust settles, I think it’s quite possible that the only long-term effects of the sanctions will be an intensified football culture, and a downward blip in the win-loss record.</p>
<p>I think it’s easy to understand how hard it is for these victims to come forward. Now everyone they know will look at them differently. Everyone they know will realize they are damaged goods. It’s easier to say, “No, I was never raped by Sandusky. I’m fine.”</p>
<p>The heartfelt blog posted by Greenbutton above (note that it does violate the TOS) talks about the commitment to rebuilding the Penn State football tradition. Sigh. That’s exactly what’s wrong, and why Penn State would be better off without playing for the next 5+ years. For over the next several years, we will have the picture of a hobbled football team, doing the best they can of course, against the backdrop of the ongoing criminal investigations and the civil suits. </p>
<p>It’s not even close to time to rebuild. The facts are very far from being completely accounted for, the prosecutors, no less the courts, haven’t yet had their say, the civil cases aren’t yet filed, and the victims and their families continue to brutalized by the sign on the library.</p>
<p>Exactly, goingmyway. It’s incredibly hard for women to talk about being raped, and there’s a whole additional level of shame and humiliation for male victims. This is a huge national news story, and even if the court doesn’t publish names, there’s a real risk that some web site will. Can you imagine your rapist coming up on every google search of your name for the rest of your life? Add in the fact that Sandusky chose victims who were already vulnerable, fatherless, poor, etc. Those young men are less likely to have the kind of unconditional family support network that most of us would need to lean on in a public crisis. In light of all that, I think it’s amazing that so many victims DID speak out publicly. It makes me think there are probably 10 silent survivors for every one who spoke up.</p>
<p>The entire Cynthia Baldwin issue may be another impropriety by Penn State. She is claiming she was not representing Curley/Schultz, but Penn State itself. Apparently she was in during their testimonies. But “failed” to tell them she was not representing them.</p>