Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

[Skeesix]

If they really wanted him out that badly, not that I'm saying none of them did but I wouldn't say there was a consensus, why didn't they simply refuse to re-sign him when they did?

Also, there's a big difference between having power to keep your job and having power to overrule everyone above you including the board of trustees to stop something this major that everyone above you is trying their damnedest to cover up. I'm not saying it was impossible or that he handled it ideally, but it's a lot easier said than done.

That's a bunch of bullshit. Fuck a coverup or any extenuating circumstances re: child abuse, every football coach everywhere has, as part of their job description, the power and the responsibility to decide who's going to be around the football players during work hours. You're going to tell me that Joe Fucking Paterno's powers did not extend to being able to say, "Maybe the guy who hasn't been a coach here in three years shouldn't have an office in the football building?"

Paterno deserves the firing and all the criticism. Maybe he didn't have the power to stop a coverup or to stop the abuse. Maybe he didn't know exactly what was going on, but he damn sure knew that something really grossly inappropriate was going on and he didn't even care enough to say "not around here."

 

[mauf]

I know I'll get shit on for this but I'll say it anyway. The more I think about all this the more I feel Paterno has been villified a lot more than he deserves. This interview didn't change my view in either direction about that.

I don't feel that Paterno had as much power to stop what happened as people may think, despite his iconic status. I think what people forget is that before the news broke about the scandal, the general consensus was that over the years Paterno had less and less power as he was getting older and more senile, and that was on the field let alone off the field. Even after time had passed and nothing was being done, how would he able to do what ideally should have been done to stop this given that the people above him, including the board of trustees IMO, were doing all they could to cover up this story? For anyone who says he should have gone to the police, I'm not sure what that could have accomplished given that he didn't witness Sandusky's actions. Mind you it's certainly not my field of expertise, but it's not likely Paterno's either.

I don't believe I'll convince anyone here of anything with this post. And before the 1st person posts any line to the effect of, "But what about the victims?", of course I feel awful about what happened to them and I'm not insinuating in any way, shape or form that the effect this scandal has had on Paterno is even close to comparable. But I'm feeling more and more that he has been getting more criticism than he deserves.

Sure, if you believe Paterno's account on two important points:

1. McQueary's report did not clearly describe the rape he witnessed, and was open to interpretation.

2. Paterno didn't know about the 1998 investigation of Sandusky.

A grand jury indicted Curley (Paterno's nominal boss) for saying substantially the same that Paterno did. So whatever Paterno may himself believe at this late date, I believe that McQueary's words weren't open to interpretation.

I'm also skeptical that Paterno didn't know about the 1998 investigation. I was surprised he doubled down on this denial in the interview. I do think we'll know the truth on this point eventually.

While I don't believe Paterno got a bad rap, I do think we'll learn that fewer people knew about Sandusky's serial pedophilia before 2009 than I would have thought possible when this story broke two months ago.

 

[wibi]

Regarding my last post I can see that as an answer to my first question. Now what about my last paragraph?

He didnt say he was trying to cover it up. That ESPN article I quoted basically said he didnt know how to deal with it so he passed it on to someone else and washed his hands of it. As the head coach of any college sports program that is the wrong answer no matter how you slice it, dice it or cut it. Ignorance of the policy does not excuse the admitted lack of effort on his part to ensure the proper steps were taken.

I was willing to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt until he came out with this interview but now I cannot see how he could have handled this situation any worse than he did.

 

[Wimmy Jilliams]

Oh gee, NOW Joe Paterno wants to tell his "story," but he's being prevented from doing so by this totally unfair witch hunt. Boo fucking hoo. The gonads on these people are Saturnine.

What? Why is that capitalized? And then why does that make sense?

The idea that someone is defined solely by the worst thing they ever did is a bummer, not unlike everything to do with this whole case. I detest PSU and Paterno, but I'm also not convinced that I'm being fair. I mean it feels good, it feels right, to hate someone who was negligent and permissive with respect to pedophilic predation. And I'm certainly fine being judgmental, it's not that. But Obama has dropped predator missiles down the throats of innocent 4yo girls. Ron Paul was ok with his name being used with racist bullshit. Mitt Romney once stole a Peppermint York paddy from the local dime store. Should everything else these people ever did, should all the positive impact they have had be nullified by something horrible they did? And these are just the frontrunners for POTUS, a cold-blooded murderer & torturer, a virulent racist, and a Mormon Peppermint Patty thief.

 

[pedros hairstylist]

So people should be remembered only by the cherry-picked events that they want to be remembered by? Is that how history works?

I love the people who come in here and think there is some moral equivalency to people openly condemning Sandusky, as well as Paterno and the PSU hierarchy that willfully turned a blind eye to Sandusky's serial molestation, and to the actions themselves. So it's "bad" to diddle kids, but it's also "hate" to say mean things about public figures who do bad things? Got it.

The "Saturnine" was capitalized because it refers to the planet Saturn -- which is a noun -- and was used in reference to the G38 comment about Arroyo's balls being as big as Saturn. It's always fun to diagram humor for the humorless.

 

[Kremlin Watcher]

... and the Freeh investigation is hijacked by the PSU cult. Let the coverup continue. Link.

Some Penn State Faculty Council members are challenging the independence of Penn State's handling of child sexual-abuse allegations after the lead investigator told them he would present his findings twice to a university Board of Trustees' committee before releasing his report publicly.

Former FBI director Louis J. Freeh was hired by the board on Nov. 21 to investigate how Penn State handled the Jerry Sandusky sexual-abuse scandal, which led to the board's decision to fire Joe Paterno after 46 years as head football coach. Freeh pledged to conduct his inquiry with "complete independence, and take it wherever it may lead." The scope of his investigation, he announced, would include actions made by Penn State's Board of Trustees.

But Freeh held a one-hour, closed-door meeting with Penn State's Faculty Council on Jan. 10 and told faculty members that he intended to turn over his preliminary investigative report to the Special Committee of the Board of Trustees for their input, two attendees of the meeting told "Outside the Lines." After making revisions to the report, Freeh told the Faculty Council that he would then provide a second draft report to the trustees' special committee.

Freeh's investigative report into the worst scandal in Penn State's 156-year history will be made public after the second draft is reviewed by the board, he told the Faculty Council. Freeh's report will include recommendations for changes.

 

[Dan Murfman]

Poor Jerry can't take his dog on his deck and give him biscuits.

 

[Freddy Linn]

Prosecutors claim Jerry Sandusky sexually abused boys ranging in age from 8 to 17, eight of whom were molested on the Penn State campus, according to a document with new details about the case filed Thursday.

The Pennsylvania attorney general's office said in the document that crimes involving one of the 10 alleged victims took place in Florida and Texas, while another boy was abused at his own school.

...

The document said that so-called Victim 4 endured offenses that took place in Florida in December 1998 and January 1999, when Penn State was playing in the Outback Bowl; and in Texas in December 1999, when Sandusky's final game occurred in the Alamo Bowl. The filing does not specify the offenses.

The reference to other states comes less than a week after Penn State disclosed it received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Harrisburg, indicating a federal investigation is under way.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office declined comment.

In most of the allegations in the latest document, which was produced at the request of Sandusky's lawyer, prosecutors said they could not provide specific dates, noting some crimes occurred over many years, and the alleged victims were children at the time.

Prosecutors said offenses happened from 1996 to 2009 and occurred at Sandusky's home, in State College hotels, at Penn State athletic facilities and inside a car.

Link

 

[jon abbey]

"A psychologist who looked into a 1998 allegation against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky told police at the time that his behavior fit the profile of a likely pedophile, NBC News reported Saturday."

http://espn.go.com/c...-pedophile-1998

 

[ThePrideofShiner]

Outside the Lines has a long story up about the politics between Pennsylvania governor Corbett, the PSU board of trustees (of which he's a member) and the handling of the whole investigation

Pretty damn good.

http://espn.go.com/e...e-state-capital

 

[Skeesix]

If Corbett, as attorney general, held back his investigation until he got the governorship then he's as bad as any of them except Sandusky.

 

[Average Reds]

If Corbett, as attorney general, held back his investigation until he got the governorship then he's as bad as any of them except Sandusky.

Corbett is a shameless political opportunist and a complete asshole.

With that out of the way, I don't believe that he held back his investigation of Sandusky for the overtly political reasons you are implying. What he did instead was to place a low priority on the investigation in favor of other investigations that would help him politically - like the corruption cases against members of the legislature. Only after leads were uncovered making it clear that the Sandusky case was about much, much more than a single incident did Corbett ramp up the investigation. This may not be to his credit, but it doesn't make him guilty of covering anything up.

If we assume the descriptions of how the Governor acted last fall are accurate, it's pretty clear to me that the leaking of information combined with the careful planning of Corbett's attendance at the meeting of the Trustees was a coordinated event to allow the Governor to oust Spanier and claim the glory for cleaning up Penn State. This scenario may be distasteful, and likely will lead to grief for Corbett (when one of your fellow trustees is calling you a bald-faced liar with regard to your actions in this case, there is political trouble in your future) but it doesn't obscure the fact that Corbett was right to insist that Spanier and Paterno be fired.

Sometimes bad people end up doing the right thing, even if the motivation isn't pure.

 

[canderson]

Corbett held the investigation so his witch hunt of legislators could compntinue, making him a known figure who "fights corruption."

 

[JBill]

24 yr old Sara Ganim of the Patriot-News, who was and continues to be a must follow for this story, wins a Pulitzer for the paper's Sandusky and Penn State scandal coverage.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/04/pulitzer_prize.html

 

[canderson]

A few updates this week from the most fucked up case around:

- In another example of how the prosecution is trying its hardest to let Sandusky walk, today they posted online the names of the alleged victims and witnesses.
- Monday the date of the Mike McQuery incident has been changed, from March 2002 to February 2001, by the state AG office. This change gets Curley and Schultz's cases dismissed because statute of limitations will have expired.
- Sandusky's lawyers have subpoenaed the eight victims who will testify against him, seeking nearly every record they have — traffic tickets, school detention, employment records, etc. Groups are lining up to fight this ruling.
- Mike McQuery is suing Penn State, claiming an employee dispute and classified as a whistleblower suit.

It's hard to fathom how Corbett and the current AG office could fuck this case up more.

 

[bosox4283]

Why are they so incompetent? Are these rookie mistakes, or is the defense just better?

 

[canderson]

Most of their fuck ups have nothing to do with Sandusky's defense team. The state's simply not being very careful with details, as in releasing the names of all witnesses and victims despite judges' orders.

I truly won't be shocked if he ends up getting off on technicalities for the majority of the charges. Sickening thought.

 

[pedros hairstylist]

It's a win-win for everyone. What a corrupt state.

 

[BigMike]

A few updates this week from the most fucked up case around:

- In another example of how the prosecution is trying its hardest to let Sandusky walk, today they posted online the names of the alleged victims and witnesses.
- Monday the date of the Mike McQuery incident has been changed, from March 2002 to February 2001, by the state AG office. This change gets Curley and Schultz's cases dismissed because statute of limitations will have expired.
- Sandusky's lawyers have subpoenaed the eight victims who will testify against him, seeking nearly every record they have — traffic tickets, school detention, employment records, etc. Groups are lining up to fight this ruling.
- Mike McQuery is suing Penn State, claiming an employee dispute and classified as a whistleblower suit.

It's hard to fathom how Corbett and the current AG office could fuck this case up more.

Did you follow the Bonds trial, or the Clemens trial (or OJ), or even worse the government's attempt to argue for healthcare reform in front of the Supreme court.

Apparently as a society we have been spoiled by Law and Order and so many other procedural dramas over the years, that we simply don't seem to realize how big a freaking mess the legal system is in this country, especially if you have some money to fight with.

The system is intentionally rigged to give the accused the advantage from the start, and then 1 or two mistakes can turn an open and shut case into a free man

 

[Average Reds]

Did you follow the Bonds trial, or the Clemens trial (or OJ), or even worse the government's attempt to argue for healthcare reform in front of the Supreme court.

Apparently as a society we have been spoiled by Law and Order and so many other procedural dramas over the years, that we simply don't seem to realize how big a freaking mess the legal system is in this country, especially if you have some money to fight with.

The system is intentionally rigged to give the accused the advantage from the start, and then 1 or two mistakes can turn an open and shut case into a free man

To be fair, there were (and are) legitimate issues surrounding the Bonds and Clemens cases in terms of whether the entire actions fall within the scope of a legitimate government concern and whether it was an inappropriate use of resources. This simply does not apply in a case where you have a man charged with being a sexual predator over a long period of time and using a position of influence and power to hide/abet his actions.

The state has poured an incredible amount of time, effort and resources into this case. And again, unlike the Bonds or Clemens case, there isn't a defendant here with comparable resources of his own. If the state manages to fuck this up, it's not because of a "rigged system." It's because of gross incompetence.

 

[mauf]

A few updates this week from the most fucked up case around:

- In another example of how the prosecution is trying its hardest to let Sandusky walk, today they posted online the names of the alleged victims and witnesses.
- Monday the date of the Mike McQuery incident has been changed, from March 2002 to February 2001, by the state AG office. This change gets Curley and Schultz's cases dismissed because statute of limitations will have expired.
- Sandusky's lawyers have subpoenaed the eight victims who will testify against him, seeking nearly every record they have — traffic tickets, school detention, employment records, etc. Groups are lining up to fight this ruling.
- Mike McQuery is suing Penn State, claiming an employee dispute and classified as a whistleblower suit.

It's hard to fathom how Corbett and the current AG office could fuck this case up more.

Haven't seen the underlying reports, so I'm just reacting to what's here.

-- The breach of confidentiality might get prosecutors in trouble with the judge, but it doesn't jeopardize the case. It doesn't prejudice Sandusky's rights, so the defense won't have cause to complain (though they still may). The victims' identities will become publicly known at trial, if not before, so if any of them back away from testifying because of this disclosure, they would likely have backed away on the eve of trial anyway.

-- Can you say more about the screw-up with the dates? I didn't expect Curley and Schultz to go to jail anyway, but I just can't believe there was such a large discrepancy there.

-- McQueary's made a complaint about illegality, PSU handled it improperly, and his life is in shambles as a consequence. Leaving aside McQueary's own moral failings here, it sure sounds like a whistleblower case, right? I have no idea if his whistleblower claim has merit, but I frankly would've been surprised if he hadn't sued.

 

[canderson]

.
-- The breach of confidentiality might get prosecutors in trouble with the judge, but it doesn't jeopardize the case. It doesn't prejudice Sandusky's rights, so the defense won't have cause to complain (though they still may). The victims' identities will become publicly known at trial, if not before, so if any of them back away from testifying because of this disclosure, they would likely have backed away on the eve of trial anyway.

It to me shows the utter incompetence of the prosecution. Posting court-sealed documents on a website isn't the first thing eye totally screwed up. It's Keystone Cops-like.

-- Can you say more about the screw-up with the dates? I didn't expect Curley and Schultz to go to jail anyway, but I just can't believe there was such a large discrepancy there.

Here's a link that has the most details I've seen about the date change: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-08/penn-state-abuse-case/54830676/1

-- McQueary's made a complaint about illegality, PSU handled it improperly, and his life is in shambles as a consequence. Leaving aside McQueary's own moral failings here, it sure sounds like a whistleblower case, right? I have no idea if his whistleblower claim has merit, but I frankly would've been surprised if he hadn't sued.

Yeah, seems classic whistleblower and everyone in camous and in the AG office knew he'd sue. Expect it to be settled quietly our of court.

 

[pedros hairstylist]

Is there whistleblower protection if your "life being screwed up" happens nearly a decade later? I mean, wouldn't the employer have to fuck you over to be a whistleblower?

 

[Average Reds]

Is there whistleblower protection if your "life being screwed up" happens nearly a decade later? I mean, wouldn't the employer have to fuck you over to be a whistleblower?

He gave testimony to the Grand Jury last year. On the basis of that testimony, two PSU employees were indicted. One of those employees was the Athletic Director. And I would argue that the University fucked him over pretty badly since his testimony was made public.

Regardless of what you think of McQueary, there's no question that he meets the definition of a whistleblower.

 

[pedros hairstylist]

I'm not arguing it isn't, I'm just confused. How has he been fucked over? He kept his job -- and was promoted, in fact -- following the eyewitness of the shower rape. He maintained that job until this day, didn't he? What 'threat/discharge/retaliation' did he endure at the hands of the university? His name being made public was a function of the court, wasn't it?

 

[Average Reds]

I'm not arguing it isn't, I'm just confused. How has he been fucked over? He kept his job -- and was promoted, in fact -- following the eyewitness of the shower rape. He maintained that job until this day, didn't he? What 'threat/discharge/retaliation' did he endure at the hands of the university? His name being made public was a function of the court, wasn't it?

After the indictments were announced, the President of PSU stated flatly that the charges against the AD and VP of Finance/Operations - which were based almost completely on McQueary's testimony - were without merit. McQueary was then removed from his position, creating the strong implication that the University was not standing behind him.

As a practical matter, the lack of institutional support for Mike McQueary when the charges were announced makes it clear that he will never again go by the title of "Coach McQueary" at PSU. Given the way this has played out, I'd say it's a virtual certainty that he'll never coach again - period. So I'd say he was fucked over pretty well with respect to his career.

Whether he deserves this fate is another matter altogether.

 

[mauf]

Is there whistleblower protection if your "life being screwed up" happens nearly a decade later? I mean, wouldn't the employer have to fuck you over to be a whistleblower?

Put it this way -- if Curley and Schultz had reported the allegation to the authorities, as they were legally required to do, McQueary's life wouldn't be screwed up. Curley and Schultz were agents of PSU; therefore, PSU screwed McQueary.

Obviously, McQueary's inaction in the face of PSU's nonfeasance kills any sympathy I might have for him, but that doesn't mean it kills his legal claim. (It might, but it's not self-evident that it does.)

 

[pedros hairstylist]

After the indictments were announced, the President of PSU stated flatly that the charges against the AD and VP of Finance/Operations - which were based almost completely on McQueary's testimony - were without merit. McQueary was then removed from his position, creating the strong implication that the University was not standing behind him.

As a practical matter, the lack of institutional support for Mike McQueary when the charges were announced makes it clear that he will never again go by the title of "Coach McQueary" at PSU. Given the way this has played out, I'd say it's a virtual certainty that he'll never coach again - period. So I'd say he was fucked over pretty well with respect to his career.

Whether he deserves this fate is another matter altogether.

See, I don't think you can make a convincing argument that he "lost" his potential job as the HC of the PSU. There was no promise that he would ever get that job, just as there's no promise that every candidate who runs for president will become the president. He didn't have the experience necessary to be a viable candidate and in fact, you could argue the school did him a favor by letting him continue to work there for X years to get that experience. He reported an incident, the people responsible for taking action apparently did not and now 2 of them are charged with lying to a grand jury. I don't see where the "harm" factor comes in for McQueary. I bet lots of schools would have hired the guy if he had done the stand up thing and then stepped down in disgust after realizing it was swept under the carpet. But he stayed -- knowing that nothing was done about Sandusky -- and enjoyed the perks and paycheck from PSU. That's why he'll have a hard time getting a job -- not because the school screwed him. That, and he's a ginger.

 

[Average Reds]

See, I don't think you can make a convincing argument that he "lost" his potential job as the HC of the PSU. There was no promise that he would ever get that job, just as there's no promise that every candidate who runs for president will become the president. He didn't have the experience necessary to be a viable candidate and in fact, you could argue the school did him a favor by letting him continue to work there for X years to get that experience. He reported an incident, the people responsible for taking action apparently did not and now 2 of them are charged with lying to a grand jury. I don't see where the "harm" factor comes in for McQueary. I bet lots of schools would have hired the guy if he had done the stand up thing and then stepped down in disgust after realizing it was swept under the carpet. But he stayed -- knowing that nothing was done about Sandusky -- and enjoyed the perks and paycheck from PSU. That's why he'll have a hard time getting a job -- not because the school screwed him. That, and he's a ginger.

Just to make sure there is no confusion, I was not making an argument that he was a potential HC at Penn State. Because there is no way in hell that was ever going to happen. I referred to him as "Coach McQueary" because all coaches - even the lowliest assistant coach - are referred to in that fashion.

The "harm" he suffered is that he's not even going to be a coach of any kind at Penn State or anywhere else in the future, and the reason is directly related to (a) the failure of his superiors to act in accordance with the law when he informed them of what he saw, and (b) his testimony to that effect last year. Again - this isn't a positive judgement about him. You asked whether he has a case as a whistleblower, and it's pretty clear that he does.

The other points you are making may be valid, but they are most likely not related to his whistleblower status.

 

[mauf]

Just to make sure there is no confusion, I was not making an argument that he was a potential HC at Penn State. Because there is no way in hell that was ever going to happen. I referred to him as "Coach McQueary" because all coaches - even the lowliest assistant coach - are referred to in that fashion.

The "harm" he suffered is that he's not even going to be a coach of any kind at Penn State or anywhere else in the future, and the reason is directly related to (a) the failure of his superiors to act in accordance with the law when he informed them of what he saw, and (b) his testimony to that effect last year. Again - this isn't a positive judgement about him. You asked whether he has a case as a whistleblower, and it's pretty clear that he does.

The other points you are making may be valid, but they are most likely not related to his whistleblower status.

We've been conditioned to believe that whistleblowers always wear white hats. They don't.

 

[pedros hairstylist]

Just to make sure there is no confusion, I was not making an argument that he was a potential HC at Penn State. Because there is no way in hell that was ever going to happen. I referred to him as "Coach McQueary" because all coaches - even the lowliest assistant coach - are referred to in that fashion.

The "harm" he suffered is that he's not even going to be a coach of any kind at Penn State or anywhere else in the future, and the reason is directly related to (a) the failure of his superiors to act in accordance with the law when he informed them of what he saw, and (b) his testimony to that effect last year. Again - this isn't a positive judgement about him. You asked whether he has a case as a whistleblower, and it's pretty clear that he does.

The other points you are making may be valid, but they are most likely not related to his whistleblower status.

There's no proof he won't get a coaching job ever again. In fact, I bet there is some school somewhere who feels bad for the guy and is willing to take a chance on him. There are a ton of football programs and/or people who think the whole PSU/Sandusky situation is overblown and has nothing to do with football. So he is probably employable. The retaliation has to come from his superiors and the institution -- wasn't he put on administrative (paid) leave?

 

[Average Reds]

There's no proof he won't get a coaching job ever again. In fact, I bet there is some school somewhere who feels bad for the guy and is willing to take a chance on him. There are a ton of football programs and/or people who think the whole PSU/Sandusky situation is overblown and has nothing to do with football. So he is probably employable. The retaliation has to come from his superiors and the institution -- wasn't he put on administrative (paid) leave?

I think you are really over thinking this.

He was pulled from the sidelines last year. He's never coming back to the staff. That may not seem like retaliation, but it certainly is a punitive measure, because the reason he was pulled from the sideline was 100% based on the fact that he testified against Sandusky and the two PSU employees.

Yeah, he's still getting paid, but he's not allowed to, you know, coach. That's his profession. And the fact that he's been frozen out of anything having to do with football for the last 6 months and will probably remain frozen out for much longer cannot help but have a significant negative impact on his career.

This is very simple, and I think you are allowing your belief that McQueary is a bad guy (note: I'm not arguing against that point here) to get in the way of the fact that he obviously fits the guidelines for whistleblower protection.

Having said all this ... the irony is that if PSU had done nothing and left him in place, he would be fired along with the rest of the staff and there would be nothing he could do about it. Which may be why any damages he can claim are somewhat mitigated.

 

[The Napkin]

A PSU grad I know from high school just posted "This Sexually violent offender has established residency at the motel on 51 across from Ciccanti's." with the link to the megan's law story on Facebook. It's taking every bit of control I have to not reply "Penn St alum?".

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

I think you are really over thinking this.

He was pulled from the sidelines last year. He's never coming back to the staff. That may not seem like retaliation, but it certainly is a punitive measure, because the reason he was pulled from the sideline was 100% based on the fact that he testified against Sandusky and the two PSU employees.

Yeah, he's still getting paid, but he's not allowed to, you know, coach. That's his profession. And the fact that he's been frozen out of anything having to do with football for the last 6 months and will probably remain frozen out for much longer cannot help but have a significant negative impact on his career.

This is very simple, and I think you are allowing your belief that McQueary is a bad guy (note: I'm not arguing against that point here) to get in the way of the fact that he obviously fits the guidelines for whistleblower protection.

Having said all this ... the irony is that if PSU had done nothing and left him in place, he would be fired along with the rest of the staff and there would be nothing he could do about it. Which may be why any damages he can claim are somewhat mitigated.

I honestly thought they pulled him for his own safety. He was getting a lot of threats from PSU fans.

 

[Average Reds]

I honestly thought they pulled him for his own safety. He was getting a lot of threats from PSU fans.

It could be argued quite persuasively that the actions of the PSU President in the immediate aftermath of the indictments - backing Paterno and the two indicted employees while hanging McQueary out to dry - was the catalyst for much of the anger directed at McQueary.

You don't get to inadvertently place someone in a position where he's getting death threats and then pull him off the field "for his safety."

 

[pedros hairstylist]

The school can very plausibly argue they, in fact, gave him special treatment by pulling him from the sidelines to protect him from alumni death threats. I really don't think the Whistleblower thing is nearly the slam dunk as some do. To me, it looks like the guy got a promotion in the aftermath of telling Paterno about the rape and then letting the issue die on the vine for years afterward.

 

[canderson]

Jury selection happening today, judge wants trial to begin next Monday.

So far, two women and a man have been selected as jurors (one Wal-Mart employee, one 24-year-old student and the other a son of a PSU employee). The judge said working for the university isn't grounds for immediate dismissal.

A pre-screening survey went out to 660 people in Center County, and IIRC only 280 made it through said survey.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

The judge said working for the university isn't grounds for immediate dismissal.

Let me see if i get this straight. The son of a man who works for the defendant isn't biased? Without knowing more facts (ie. how long did dad work there, what capacity, does he still work there), could an argument not be made that this juror feels some responsibility toward the institution/company that helped him have a roof over his head and food in his stomach while he was growing up?

I mean, if someone who works for a pharmaceutical company blows the whistle on the fact that they were falsifying their trials and putting drugs on the market that they knew were killing people, is there any judge in this country that would allow the kids of employees of the pharmaceutical company to sit on that jury? What the fuck is going on in Pennsylvania? If you can't find 15 or so truly unbiased people, move the fucking venue or get jurors from somewhere else. If I were on a jury against the company that employed my father during my childhood, short of them showing me a picture of a dead body and the company's CEO standing over him with a gun, I'd be hard pressed to find guilt given the kind of chance they gave my father 40 years ago. I just don't get it. At every turn, the prosecution just opens themselves up to ridicule.

 

[Myt1]

Let me see if i get this straight. The son of a man who works for the defendant isn't biased?

This criminal trial is just against Sandusky, right?

 

[Deathofthebambino]

This criminal trial is just against Sandusky, right?

I honestly haven't been following along that closely, so I thought the trial also involved charges against Schultz and Curley. Either way, I'm not sure my point doesn't stand. It's a criminal trial against a co-worker of the juror's dad. His father and Sandusky may not have had any contact and may not know each other at all, but the whole thing is a pretty big indictment of the institution itself. I don't know. I always thought, perhaps mistakenly, that judges and the system were meant to avoid any appearance of impropriety or bias, and well, it seems to me that this would give off that kind of appearance. They really can't find 15 people with no connection to the school in the whole damn county. If so, that's pretty sad.

If it's just against Sandusky, and this juror ends up being the lone holdout and word leaks, we'll just add another person to the list of folks whose lives are ruined, I guess.

 

[canderson]

This is solely for Sandusky's case, not Curley or Schultz (they never go to trial IMO).

Nine jurors seated, starting back up in the a.m. Juror #7 is a part-time Penn State athletic department employee whose cousin was a PSU football player. In HS he was coached by the same guy that hired Sandusky a few years ago to be a volunteer assistant.

Five are women.

 

[mauf]

I honestly haven't been following along that closely, so I thought the trial also involved charges against Schultz and Curley. Either way, I'm not sure my point doesn't stand. It's a criminal trial against a co-worker of the juror's dad. His father and Sandusky may not have had any contact and may not know each other at all, but the whole thing is a pretty big indictment of the institution itself. I don't know. I always thought, perhaps mistakenly, that judges and the system were meant to avoid any appearance of impropriety or bias, and well, it seems to me that this would give off that kind of appearance. They really can't find 15 people with no connection to the school in the whole damn county. If so, that's pretty sad.

If it's just against Sandusky, and this juror ends up being the lone holdout and word leaks, we'll just add another person to the list of folks whose lives are ruined, I guess.

If your father worked at, say, Raytheon, that wouldn't keep you off the jury in a molestation case against a Raytheon employee whom your father did not know.

Sandusky didn't damage PSU the way he damaged his young victims, but I have to imagine that the PSU community blames Sandusky for what has happened there in recent months. If anything, the judge's ruling that PSU employees and students may be seated on the jury favors the prosecution.

 

[crystalline]

They really can't find 15 people with no connection to the school in the whole damn county. If so, that's pretty sad.

If it's just against Sandusky, and this juror ends up being the lone holdout and word leaks, we'll just add another person to the list of folks whose lives are ruined, I guess.

Practically speaking, they may have trouble finding jurors not connected to the school in Centre County. Wikipedia gives the current county population as 154,000 and the number of students at the campus in 09-10 as 45,000. I bet the number of employees is in that ballpark. There's really not much else in the county besides the school; pretty much everyone there either went to PSU, works there, or is the spouse/close family member of someone who does.

Edit: numbers

 

[canderson]

Here are the bios of the first nine jurors: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/a_look_at_the_9_jurors_seated.html

 

[Infield Infidel]

A couple of those are really close to the case. Juror 3 is the wife of a doctor who worked with McQueary's dad. McQueary's dad is likely going to testify.

Juror 7 is a student that works in the Athletic dept. I don't think being a student is a big deal, but working in the AD that has been affected greatly by the case might cause conflict.

 

[smastroyin]

Maybe Obama should just put him on the kill list and avoid all this pesky due process.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Apparently, part of the evidence to be presented by the prosecution include "creepy" love letters: http://abcnews.go.com/US/jerry-sanduskys-love-letters-alleged-victim-revealed/story?id=16501341. Snippet:

Intimate love letters allegedly written from Sandusky to the accuser, known as Victim 4, will be read into testimony after the trial begins on Monday, sources close to the case told ABC News. Victim 4, who is expected to be the first witness called to testify against Sandusky, will also show the gifts, including a set of golf clubs, that Sandusky allegedly gave him during their relationship.

The letters, which were allegedly written in Sandusky's own handwriting, are expected to corroborate the testimony of the man known as Victim 4, now 28 years old, who met the coach through Sandusky's charity, the Second Mile. The victim's attorney won't talk about the letter, but sources describe the letters as "creepy" and note that one was a story written in the third person.

Ben Andreozzi, the alleged victim's attorney, did say, "They have evidence to support his allegations, and there's other evidence that has not been released to the public yet that I think will really resonate with the jury."

 

[Myt1]

Either way, I'm not sure my point doesn't stand. It's a criminal trial against a co-worker of the juror's dad. His father and Sandusky may not have had any contact and may not know each other at all, but the whole thing is a pretty big indictment of the institution itself. I don't know. I always thought, perhaps mistakenly, that judges and the system were meant to avoid any appearance of impropriety or bias, and well, it seems to me that this would give off that kind of appearance. They really can't find 15 people with no connection to the school in the whole damn county. If so, that's pretty sad.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this.

If your father worked at, say, Raytheon, that wouldn't keep you off the jury in a molestation case against a Raytheon employee whom your father did not know.

If it happened in a Raytheon bathroom, and there was a ton of press regarding Raytheon's failure to report the incident, it might, no?

 

[Average Reds]

If it happened in a Raytheon bathroom, and there was a ton of press regarding Raytheon's failure to report the incident, it might, no?

In the abstract, it probably would.

Of course if Raytheon employed such an incredibly high percentage of adults in the county that it was virtually impossible to find 12 jurors (plus alternates) with no ties to the company, it probably wouldn't.

I will say that I am amazed at the profile of the jurors that Infield Infidel posted. Seems like these are so close to the case that they should be excused without much thought. I guess not living in Pennsylvania for about 30 years has caused me to to forget that the middle of the state is like one big extended family ...

 

[canderson]

12 jurors and a alternate seated. These are today's pick:

Juror 12: Woman in her 50s or 60 who has been a Penn State professor for the past 24 years. She worked worked on committee with fired university President Graham Spanier and current president Rodney Erickson for six years. She did not say what she teaches. Sandusky gave a commencement address at her graduation, and she has two sons ages 14 and 16.

Juror 11: A Penn State continuing education instructor of dance. Mother of a 6-year-old boy. Late 30s. When asked about her son by Sandusky's attorney Joe Amendola, she she recognizes kids don't always tell the truth. She also has ties to a witness -- Kelly Hastings, the superintendent of the Clinton County school district where alleged Victim One attended school, and where Sandusky was a volunteer football coach before he was accused. Juror 11's husband works as a media information specialist at Penn State, and she said she has talked to him about this case.

Juror 10: Woman in her 50s who works at Penn State as administrative assistant in engineering. She has two daughters and four grand kids.

The first alternate juror, known as juror 13: Single woman in her 30s, and a 2007 Penn State graduate in health and human development.

Jurors 11 and 12 seem loaded, but whatever. I stand by my statement a month or two back than Sandusky walks from most all charges.