Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
PSU is the person responsible. A somewhat helpful analogy is that when a UPS driver negligently hits someone's vehicle in the course of his employment, UPS is on the hook (through a concept called respondeat superior, which doesn't always extend to intentional torts, but bear with me). The institution itself is and should be responsible for the actions of its employees and agents taken in the course of their employment. This is one of those instances in which that legal concept matches up with the moral for me. Otherwise the institution moves on with no incentive to hire better people or have more (independent?) oversight.

Severely punishing the institution serves at least two of the most typically stated goals of punishment: retribution and deterrence (both specific and general). If the punishment involves a mandate for institutional changes, you can work some rehabilitation in their, too.
An excellent point, and one I would not argue with. If the NCAA (or PSU themselves, in a rare moment of contrition and responsibility in this shitstorm) announced that the gate receipts for every home game for the next two years were to be donated to survivor's and victim's rights groups, it would be a step in the right direction - as well as being both retribution and deterrence. There's still ways to "work some rehabilitation in there, too" with respect to how PSU's football program and the university behave going forward without the "death penalty".

And if the death penalty is what it takes for the next group of assholes and monsters
Yeah, preventing a college football program from competing for two years is gonna do a bang-up job on this particular issue.

Fuck the town, indeed.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I manage a bank. If I deliberately look the other way to my bank being used for a money laundering scheme, I'll go to jail. But my bank will also face massive penalties. Almost every banker whose gone through Anti-Money Laundering training has heard about Raul Salinas. In addition to the local banker participants being punished, AEBI was also fined $35 million for, essentially, not doing enough to prevent it. Most competent professional organizations are held liable for the actions of their employees and members.

*edit* To be clear...

It should be a given that if a football program was used as either a device or a reason to cover up a crime, the NCAA should stick PSU with harsh enough penalties that all schools know that whatever reputation hit they would take, or even penalties the NCAA may level, the non-reporting of the crimes will cause even more of a handicap to the program.

I could see the NCAA's arguments against sanctioning PSU if Jerry Sandusky was "just" caught molesting children. Even on campus, in a football facility. But to have members of the AD and coaching staff complicit in not reporting it makes it a program wide issue that then needs to be dealt with.

In the IRS example, it's not an accurate example, although admittedly the bank example isn't either. The NCAA isn't being asked to go after Jerry Sandusky. It's being asked to punish a member of its own constituency who knew crimes were going on and did nothing about it. A better example may be an IRS being asked to fire or suspend an auditor who, in the course of an audit, found evidence of criminal activity, but never reported it because the person being audited wrote out the check for the owed amount.
In your example of a rogue bank employee, the Department of Justice enforces federal laws against money laundering. Those laws provide for penalties both for individuals and organizations, so you are correct that the DOJ would go after the bank as well as the individuals involved. The FDIC and the Federal Reserve regulate banks extensively, but they would only get involved in a money-laundering case if the wrongdoing also implicated the laws they administer.

Applying this analogy to PSU, the NCAA is like the FDIC or Federal Reserve. Because of the hideous nature of what happened at PSU, I hope the NCAA seizes upon any grounds they can find to punish PSU, but I strongly suspect that no such grounds exist. NCAA rules simply aren't written with incidents like this one in mind.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,144
<null>
And as to if "innocent bystanders" get caught up in this, it regularly happens in these investigations.
Yes, and bullshit. I taught students who had dreams to play college football for the school they loved. Why should their lives be trampled on because of some horrible crimes committed by other people?

Really, the current players and coaching staff that had nothing to do with this brand of garbage should not be punished for it.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,090
Chelmsford, MA
Well i doubt the school they loved is living up to its reputation. You offer them free transfers without the year penalty or something like that and you move on. It's comical to try to protect the institution here because players and students will be hurt. The entire organization participated in ensuring that some young innocent children got hurt. That the entire community was so self serving that this was possible is something that needs to be FIXED. As of this day, you don't even know how rotten this entire apple is, and the university should be focusing on fixing that problem over making sure more football gates come in. Everyone who made this in the slightest bit possible has to be removed from that location. Severe NCAA penalties would send the right message about the penalties of a systemic coverup and enable PSU to start figuring out how the hell things got so irrevocably wrong.
 

hunter05

Member
SoSH Member
May 29, 2006
7,660
Hokkaido
Yes, and bullshit. I taught students who had dreams to play college football for the school they loved. Why should their lives be trampled on because of some horrible crimes committed by other people?

Really, the current players and coaching staff that had nothing to do with this brand of garbage should not be punished for it.
Well, I would think that if any such penalties are imposed, those players affected would be able to transfer and play somewhere else. I think part of the reason I do favor imposing harsh penalties against the school and program is because of the atmosphere and the culture that not only seemingly allowed this to go on, but still has people defending the person(s) involved. Its all fucked up. Clean house, start over, take a year off, figure things out.

Something else I can't shake is, and maybe I'm forgetting, but is that same shower area still there? I mean the idea of it still being in use grosses me out to no end.
 

Ananias

New Member
Mar 29, 2006
193
I taught students who had dreams to play college football for the school they loved. Why should their lives be trampled on because of some horrible crimes committed by other people?
That's a little bit of hyperbole, don't you think? The reason why it is necessary is in order to make it clear to the school in tangible terms they cannot ignore that it's not ok to actually trample on young people's lives. If your students really feel their lives are that crushed by having to rethink their college choices, maybe they need to rethink their perspective.


edit: I do think an argument can be made that this is outside the NCAA's jurisdiction (though I think it can also be argued that any student-athlete, regardless of age, who is on college property and supervised by college staff deserves a basic level of protection -- and it was the desire to protect student-athletes that was the motivation to start the NCAA in the first place). But an argument centered on protecting high school students' athletic opportunities, or for protecting the local economy, is really an argument against punishing a school program for anything ever. Especially when the wrongs were this grievious, any authority that does have jurisdiction has a responsibility to act.
 

drtooth

2:30
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 23, 2004
11,305
Someone's Molars
Yes, and bullshit. I taught students who had dreams to play college football for the school they loved. Why should their lives be trampled on because of some horrible crimes committed by other people?

Really, the current players and coaching staff that had nothing to do with this brand of garbage should not be punished for it.
They unfortunately would be collateral damage for the punishment put upon the institution of PennState.

The NCAA has punished schools for covering up payments (either monetary or otherwise) or recruiting violations under the term of "lack of institutional control". These violations were done to protect the program and maintain its competitive role in their selected sport. Players that were not involved with these violations were punished collaterally as part of the sanctions. The cover up of a hideous felony against children was likely done to not damage the reputation of the football program, thus putting their legendary coach and the program above the welfare of these kids. I am not sure how the NCAA can look the other way.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,802
Does someone have a link to the applicable rules/code? I know there was an excerpt on the previous page.
Here is Emmert's letter to PSU in Nov 2011, which contains a number of different provisions upon which sanctions could be issued.

The link is from this blog: http://sports-law.bl...-sanctions.html.

I agree with everyone that the NCAA typically would not get involved in criminal cases involving people rather than programs. However, this case is as atypical as one can get. And the fact that the football program and facilities were used in conjunction with the crimes means simply that PSU should get some sort of punishment. At the very least, players should have the ability to leave the program without penalty.

edit: the other thing that might come into play is that Emmert's letter asked for information to be submitted before the end of the year. If that information is contradicted by anything in the Freeh report, it could become an instance of being penalized because they are lying to the NCAA - like most of these scandals, the cover-up gets punished more than the actual offense. Like the Saints.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
They unfortunately would be collateral damage for the punishment put upon the institution of PennState.

The NCAA has punished schools for covering up payments (either monetary or otherwise) or recruiting violations under the term of "lack of institutional control". These violations were done to protect the program and maintain its competitive role in their selected sport. Players that were not involved with these violations were punished collaterally as part of the sanctions. The cover up of a hideous felony against children was likely done to not damage the reputation of the football program, thus putting their legendary coach and the program above the welfare of these kids. I am not sure how the NCAA can look the other way.
Here's the NCAA's statement; apologies if it has been linked upthread:

The NCAA is actively collecting information from the Penn State Special Committee Investigative Counsel during its ongoing investigation to determine our next steps. While we are actively monitoring the various investigations, we will not interfere with those efforts. The NCAA will determine whether any additional action is necessary on its part at the appropriate time.

Source
I don't love the NCAA, but they've handled the PSU scandal reasonably well. The PSU scandal touches only peripherally on the NCAA's core concerns, and a decade elapsed between the incidents over which the NCAA might have jurisdiction and the time those incidents were made public. It would be understandable if the NCAA had decided not to investigate those incidents. They deserve credit for not taking the easy way out. Because of their tenuous jurisdiction, however, harsh sanctions are unlikely. There may be no sanctions at all, or only self-imposed sanctions. If that happens, I'm sure many folks will accuse the NCAA of "look[ing] the other way," but I don't think that's fair.

Some commentators have offered the Baylor case as a parallel, but I don't see it. At Baylor, a murder investigation revealed wrongdoing that clearly fell within the NCAA's jurisdiction. Therefore, the NCAA only punished Baylor for offenses they would normally punish -- though the horrific related crime likely led to a harsher punishment than the norm. So far, no similarly clear-cut NCAA violations have emerged at PSU, making NCAA enforcement action a reach -- perhaps an overreach. Again, I don't love the NCAA; I have no illusions that any novel, expansive theory of jurisdiction they invoke to punish PSU will be confined going forward to cases that shock the conscience, rather than being invoked whenever the NCAA finds it convenient to do so.

So yes, if NCAA violations at PSU come to light, throw the book at them. But if no grounds for NCAA punishment exist, don't invent grounds -- not because that's unfair to PSU (seriously, fuck them), but for the sake of future NCAA targets that deserve fair treatment.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a university's participation in NCAA athletic competitions at the largesse of the association? You agree as a school to abide by all NCAA rules and policies in exchange for the privilege of appearing in their contests.

So they could easily bounce PSU for a criminal coverup and perhaps giving McQueary a promotion to buy his silence.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,651
guam
Here is Emmert's letter to PSU in Nov 2011, which contains a number of different provisions upon which sanctions could be issued.

I agree with everyone that the NCAA typically would not get involved in criminal cases involving people rather than programs. However, this case is as atypical as one can get. And the fact that the football program and facilities were used in conjunction with the crimes means simply that PSU should get some sort of punishment. At the very least, players should have the ability to leave the program without penalty.

edit: the other thing that might come into play is that Emmert's letter asked for information to be submitted before the end of the year. If that information is contradicted by anything in the Freeh report, it could become an instance of being penalized because they are lying to the NCAA - like most of these scandals, the cover-up gets punished more than the actual offense. Like the Saints.
In addition to untruthfulness with the NCAA, for which of course the institution could be punished, that letter cites a bylaw that imposes an affirmative ethical standard upon coaches and administrative personnel, non-compliance with which the institution may be held responsible. (Bylaws 19.01.2 on the ethical standard and 11.1.2.1 on the institution's obligation.) This makes sense. The NCAA reserves the right to disassociate, or make an example of, any program that is engaged in conduct detrimental to athletes, and more broadly -- but expressly, under the by-law -- to "young people." I wonder how that by-law has previously been cited in enforcement action (the letter says it has been employed "in at least a half dozen major infractions").

I don't see a jurisdictional problem, given the nexus to the football program and the emerging knowledge and role of administrators in covering it up.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a university's participation in NCAA athletic competitions at the largesse of the association? You agree as a school to abide by all NCAA rules and policies in exchange for the privilege of appearing in their contests.

So they could easily bounce PSU for a criminal coverup and perhaps giving McQueary a promotion to buy his silence.
Why do people assume the NCAA and Big Ten are free to expel Penn State if they wish? I would be shocked if member institutions gave those organizations that sort of power. In the NCAA, for instance, even imposing the so-called "death penalty" for a single sport requires a showing beyond what the NCAA can make in this case.

Like the Archdioceses of Boston and Philadelphia, PSU is going to survive this scandal without going through the radical culture change that most of us outside the institution (and presumably a lot of people inside the institution) believe is necessary.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
I didn't "assume" anything. I asked if that was the case. Why would an adjudicating body give members the power to overrule or ignore their directives? My understanding is that a school is a participant in the NCAA upon approval of the NCAA. Is that inaccurate?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,102
I didn't "assume" anything. I asked if that was the case. Why would an adjudicating body give members the power to overrule or ignore their directives? My understanding is that a school is a participant in the NCAA upon approval of the NCAA. Is that inaccurate?
Yes, but PSU has to violate NCAA rules in order for the NCAA to punish them and I think that's where people are having trouble finding a specific rule/regulation.

I wonder if the NCAA has the equivalent of a "morals clause", in that it reserves the right to punish member schools for items not specifically mentioned which damage the NCAA's reputation.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,651
guam
For what it's worth, the by-laws and constitution, which are binding as rules upon member institutions, are here. It's the 2009 version, but I doubt it's changed much.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
For what it's worth, the by-laws and constitution, which are binding as rules upon member institutions, are here. It's the 2009 version, but I doubt it's changed much.
As I suspected, the member institutions didn't give NCAA staff the power to expel members. Reading Section 3.2.5.1 (termination of membership) together with Section 5.1 (convention procedures), it appears expulsion of a member institution can only be accomplished by a two-thirds vote of delegates at the national convention. There are also procedural requirements that might permit a majority of the NCAA's Board of Directors to prevent a motion for expulsion from coming up for vote at the convention.

The deadline for bringing a motion is November 1, so the scandal broke too late to give rise to a motion at this year's convention. I doubt if any member institution will stick its neck out by making such a motion, but it would make for great theater if they did.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
ESPN says the report could come as early as next week, and will come down hard on Paterno and the football program:

"Much of the focus will be on the culture of the football program, with findings that go back more than a decade," said a Penn State official briefed on the inquiry, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's going to be very tough on Joe (Paterno)."
Not surprisingly, it sounds as though the they've already leaked the most damaging part of the report related to the 2001 incident:

A source who has reviewed all the early 2001 emails said the few that have been leaked "are definitely out of context. We think the one that was released was the worst one for everybody."
http://espn.go.com/c...cording-sources
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,090
Chelmsford, MA
Yes, but PSU has to violate NCAA rules in order for the NCAA to punish them and I think that's where people are having trouble finding a specific rule/regulation. I wonder if the NCAA has the equivalent of a "morals clause", in that it reserves the right to punish member schools for items not specifically mentioned which damage the NCAA's reputation.
But how is covering up a pattern of sexual abuse so that the football program receives no damage not somehow within the purview of the NCAA? The school was gaining a competitive advantage by keeping a crime under wraps. I know that this is something that people are questioning, but I really don't understand why there's a jurisdictional issue
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,607
Harrisburg, Pa.
This might get out Thursday.

Keep in mind it's all an attempt by the board of trustees to shuffle any blame from them and onto the individuals who are dead and/or essentially fired. The report was aimed at exploring how the school hid an investigation, but a large part of it delves into the football program with no association with the monster whatsoever.

It'll be damning (though what has leaked I'm thinking is the most blazing stuff basically) for sure, but I'm positive the PSU BoT has its hands all over this report.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
This might get out Thursday.

Keep in mind it's all an attempt by the board of trustees to shuffle any blame from them and onto the individuals who are dead and/or essentially fired. The report was aimed at exploring how the school hid an investigation, but a large part of it delves into the football program with no association with the monster whatsoever.

It'll be damning (though what has leaked I'm thinking is the most blazing stuff basically) for sure, but I'm positive the PSU BoT has its hands all over this report.
To their credit, I think the BoT let that proverbial cat out of the bag when they hired Louis Freeh to run a thorough outside investigation. If Freeh's report is as harsh on Spanier as it sounds like it will be, it will unavoidably (if implicitly) indict the BoT for placing their full confidence in Spanier for so long.
 

BelgianSoxFan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2003
661
Los Gatos, CA
The best punishment the NCAA could dole out is to remove all the wins PSU had from 1998 on from the record. It sounds like PSU and Paterno knew about Sandusky in 1998 and covered it up then by letting him retire.

I am not as sanguine about punishing the program going forward, though a small punishment would be appropriate, like a 2 year bowl ban and a reduction in scholarships.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,607
Harrisburg, Pa.
This will be released Thursday morning at thefreehreportonpsu.com.

The report's kinda bullshit, it takes a blow at 2007 football player incidents that Paterno was dealing with, and from what I've heard/read it doesn't delve into Sandusky nearly as much as it should and instead takes on the football program itself.

I'm all for exposing a program or whatever, but I think the BoT are trying to whitewash the school and paint a dead man as the only culprit. I hope I'm wrong on this.
 

Mr. Wednesday

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2007
1,593
Eastern MA
If Paterno himself was out of control (and I have little doubt that he was), is that not a reflection on the administration that allowed him to achieve that larger-than-the-institution status?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
If Paterno himself was out of control (and I have little doubt that he was), is that not a reflection on the administration that allowed him to achieve that larger-than-the-institution status?
Of course. But expecting the BoT to oversee the football program is a reach; expecting them to oversee the university president is not. Therefore, if canderson's instincts are correct, the Freeh Report will go easier on Spanier than it should.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,607
Harrisburg, Pa.
Given the statement the Paterno family just released, I'm convinced now the report is highly questionable. Note I don't care about the family, was not a big Paterno fan, etc., but a real investigation is needed. The BoT hired and IMO steered one that failed, from what I can tell thus far and hope to be wrong. In fact I feel sick to write something that could be construed of a defense of him (I want nothing like that to be thought).

If the report doesn't mention Spanier going to the BoT, talks extensively about Vicky Triponey, or focuses pages to a 2007 player incident, it's shenanigans.

Here's their statement:

Over the last nine months Joe Paterno has been praised by some in near saintly terms and criticized by others as a villain.  He was neither.

As the people who worked closely with Joe know, he was tough, aggressive, opinionated and demanding.  He was also highly principled, uncompromisingly ethical, dedicated to his job at Penn State and committed to excellence.

When the Sandusky case exploded last fall, Joe's first instincts were to tell everything he knew.  He assumed the University would want to hear from him, but he was never given the chance to present his case.

He planned to hold a press conference, but University officials ordered him to cancel it.  And then the various investigations started and the legal process took over.  On top of everything else, Joe was diagnosed with lung cancer.  Two months later he was gone.  The end result is his story has never fully been told.

As this situation unfolded, Joe cautioned everyone not to jump to conclusions.   He believed that a rush to judgment and a disregard for due process would ultimately result in conclusions that would not stand the test of time.  To be clear, he did not fear the truth, he sought it.  As much as anyone he wanted to know exactly what Jerry Sandusky had done and he wanted to understand how it happened.

The hiring of the Freeh Group is the single most important action the Board of Trustees has taken.  Joe supported this decision with the hope that it would result in a thorough, balanced and thoughtful assessment of the Sandusky tragedy.  Unfortunately, recent events have raised questions about the fairness and confidentiality of the investigative process.

Over the last several weeks there has been a virtual torrent of leaks about the Freeh Group's work.  To be clear, we do not know the source, or sources, of the leaks.  What cannot be disputed, however, is that select emails intended to smear Joe Paterno and other former Penn State officials have been released.  Testimony from witnesses highly critical of Joe has been revealed.  And purported conclusions condemning the culture of the football program have been widely disseminated.  The Board promised a fair, transparent and impartial process.  These developments are a threat to their stated objectives.

When these leaks first started we appealed to the Freeh Group, the Board and the Attorney General to condemn the leaks and caution the public that it would be wrong to reach any conclusions from selectively released materials.  We then asked that all emails and other documents be released so a full picture of their research could be understood.

As purported conclusions started leaking out, we followed up with the Freeh Group to ask for the right to respond.   Since Joe Paterno never had an opportunity to present his case, we believe we should have a reasonable time to review their findings and offer information that could help complete the picture. We were told we could offer responses to the publicly reported allegations, but the Freeh Group declined to confirm that these allegations are in the final report.   It is our firm belief that the report would be stronger and more credible if we were simply given a chance to review the findings concerning Joe Paterno in order to present the case he was never allowed to make.

Since the outcome of this process appears set in stone, we have no choice but to wait for the report and respond as best we can.  Given that the report is estimated to be between 100-150 pages it will understandably take us some time to study it and prepare a comprehensive response.

In advance of the release of the report, there are a few facts we want on the record:

- We would still welcome a chance to meet with the Freeh Group to review the findings and offer a response.  We do not seek or expect the right to edit the report; but we believe our voice should be reflected in its conclusions.

- To this point, Joe Paterno is the only person who publicly acknowledged that with the benefit of hindsight he wished he had done more.  This was an honest and courageous admission that a true leader must assume a measure of responsibility when something goes wrong on his watch.

- The sad and frightening fact is Jerry Sandusky was a master deceiver. He fooled players, coaches, law enforcement officials, child service professionals, Penn State Board members, University leaders, neighbors, donors, staff and supporters of Second Mile and his family.

- With respect to the email from Tim Curley which stated, "After giving it more thought, and talking it over with Joe yesterday - I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps," the media spin that this is proof of some sort of cover up is completely false. When the facts come out, it will be clear that Joe Paterno never gave Tim Curley any instructions to protect Sandusky or limit any investigation of his actions.

- Joe Paterno did not cover up for Jerry Sandusky.  Joe Paterno did not know that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile.  Joe Paterno did not act in any way to prevent a proper investigation of Jerry Sandusky.  To claim otherwise is a distortion of the truth.
If he were with us today, we are certain Joe Paterno would say that he wished he had done any number of things differently.  We also believe he would make it clear that he was not an investigator, law enforcement officer, child services professional or a member of the Board of Trustees.  Joe would accept his responsibility, but he would expect others to step forward as well.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,607
Harrisburg, Pa.
Few additional notes:

1) Spanier told the Freeh investigators he was never told about Sandusky's actions: http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/spanier-tells-freeh-investigators-he-was-not-aware-of-any-child-sexual-abuse-by-sandusky-1087269/

2) ArtsFest, by far State College's biggest event all year outside a football game, is this weekend and historically is a weekend if drunken college kids running amok causing havoc. Maybe we'll see a redux of the night they fired Paterno! Great move, PSU. Between the report bei g released a day before a BoT meeting and all these leaks, this is such all bullshit by everyone involved.

3) For a family to categorically release such strong statements that aren't vindictive in tone, they seem to basically be laying it all on the line. You don't see that all too much.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,632
Haiku
Other than the Paterno reference, this is what stands out to me from the emails:
"The only downside for us is if the message (to Sandusky) isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier purportedly writes.
Not that it's surprising, but they all knew what they were doing, and what risks they were taking, by not going to authorities.

I guess the next thing to come out will be more info about Sandusky's abrupt "retirement."
Few additional notes:

1) Spanier told the Freeh investigators he was never told about Sandusky's actions: http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/spanier-tells-freeh-investigators-he-was-not-aware-of-any-child-sexual-abuse-by-sandusky-1087269/
If the email cited by JBill is indeed from Spanier, then it appears that Spanier lied to the Freeh investigators, and probably a few other investigators along the way.

Spanier also testified to the grand jury that recommended indictments for perjury against Curley and Schultz. Since Spanier appears to have been in the coverup up to his neck, I wonder why Spanier was not also indicted.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,419
Southwestern CT
This will be released Thursday morning at thefreehreportonpsu.com.

The report's kinda bullshit, it takes a blow at 2007 football player incidents that Paterno was dealing with, and from what I've heard/read it doesn't delve into Sandusky nearly as much as it should and instead takes on the football program itself.

I'm all for exposing a program or whatever, but I think the BoT are trying to whitewash the school and paint a dead man as the only culprit. I hope I'm wrong on this.
Given the statement the Paterno family just released, I'm convinced now the report is highly questionable. Note I don't care about the family, was not a big Paterno fan, etc., but a real investigation is needed. The BoT hired and IMO steered one that failed, from what I can tell thus far and hope to be wrong. In fact I feel sick to write something that could be construed of a defense of him (I want nothing like that to be thought).

If the report doesn't mention Spanier going to the BoT, talks extensively about Vicky Triponey, or focuses pages to a 2007 player incident, it's shenanigans.

Here's their statement:
Few additional notes:

1) Spanier told the Freeh investigators he was never told about Sandusky's actions: http://www.statecoll...ndusky-1087269/

2) ArtsFest, by far State College's biggest event all year outside a football game, is this weekend and historically is a weekend if drunken college kids running amok causing havoc. Maybe we'll see a redux of the night they fired Paterno! Great move, PSU. Between the report bei g released a day before a BoT meeting and all these leaks, this is such all bullshit by everyone involved.

3) For a family to categorically release such strong statements that aren't vindictive in tone, they seem to basically be laying it all on the line. You don't see that all too much.
How about we wait for the actual report before judging it?

I mean, you may be right, but let's remember that there are more than a handful of posts here where you predicted with absolute certainty that Sandusky was going to walk despite all of the evidence being introduced at trial. So I might go easy on the outrage this time until you actually have the facts.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,419
Southwestern CT
If the email cited by JBill is indeed from Spanier, then it appears that Spanier lied to the Freeh investigators, and probably a few other investigators along the way.

Spanier also testified to the grand jury that recommended indictments for perjury against Curley and Schultz. Since Spanier appears to have been in the coverup up to his neck, I wonder why Spanier was not also indicted.
Because the Grand Jury did not have access to the emails (Which apparently turned up after the indictments were handed down) and there was no testimony that contradicted Spanier's claim that he was never told of the severity of the incident McQueary reported.

If the leaked emails prove to be credible, I expect Spanier to be indicted for perjury fairly soon.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,835
South Boston
Few additional notes:

1) Spanier told the Freeh investigators he was never told about Sandusky's actions: http://www.statecoll...ndusky-1087269/

2) ArtsFest, by far State College's biggest event all year outside a football game, is this weekend and historically is a weekend if drunken college kids running amok causing havoc. Maybe we'll see a redux of the night they fired Paterno! Great move, PSU. Between the report bei g released a day before a BoT meeting and all these leaks, this is such all bullshit by everyone involved.

3) For a family to categorically release such strong statements that aren't vindictive in tone, they seem to basically be laying it all on the line. You don't see that all too much.
I have literally no idea what you are talking about. That's been true for pages now, but is especially true now. A report you haven't seen is bullshit because a self-interested family that hasn't seen it didn't have any input into it? I mean, "We believe our voice should be reflected in its conclusions"? Fucking why?

And Freeh's incentive to do the bidding of Penn State at the potential cost of his professional reputation is . . . what, exactly?
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,419
Southwestern CT
And Freeh's incentive to do the bidding of Penn State at the potential cost of his professional reputation is . . . what, exactly?
Yeah, I'm having a real hard time understanding how anyone thinks that Louis Freeh is going to destroy his reputation for integrity - earned over decades as a prosecutor, federal judge and then as Director of the FBI - because he needs the fee that Penn State is paying him.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,835
South Boston
FWIW he's right about the timing of revealing this right before ArtsFest.
What is he right about? That this confluence of events actually exists, or that the timing is therefore bullshit?

I mean, the comments are kind of cryptic, but I'm trying to piece together the reasoning: the BoT of the university has Freeh doing their bidding in an attempt to protect the university and blame everything on a dead guy, but they're having him do their bidding in a way that is specifically designed to cause a reaction that might bring worse publicity to the university?
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,607
Harrisburg, Pa.
How about we wait for the actual report before judging it?

I mean, you may be right, but let's remember that there are more than a handful of posts here where you predicted with absolute certainty that Sandusky was going to walk despite all of the evidence being introduced at trial. So I might go easy on the outrage this time until you actually have the facts.
Thank God he didn't walk, I was thinking a technicality would be the reason and thought the defense could trigger it. Glad I was wrong. Regarding facts, the leaked portions are bait for someone's gain. I'm unfortunately kinda close to this nonsense so see the dark side if it all. I haven't seen probably 1/2 of the report, it very well might damn the university as a whole, the state AG office, the DA, etc. I haven't heard it really does though from people who were interview, involved, etc.

I have literally no idea what you are talking about. That's been true for pages now, but is especially true now. A report you haven't seen is bullshit because a self-interested family that hasn't seen it didn't have any input into it? I mean, "We believe our voice should be reflected in its conclusions"? Fucking why?

And Freeh's incentive to do the bidding of Penn State at the potential cost of his professional reputation is . . . what, exactly?
Don't mean to be cryptic. I have seen a few parts of this report per my job, actually. I think the DA, police, and state AG office (who are all part of allowing Sandusky to roam free and destroy countless lives) aren't looked at in this report closely.

Please don't believe I have any trust, faith or admiration for the Paterno's (the opposite actually). Their statement is just really odd (and I believe they have seen a good part of the report via leak).

Regarding the timing, it only continues to show the terrible PR/planning/whatever within Penn State and with the BoT. The leaks are pretty positively coming from the board itself, and it's being done for a reason.

I believe the report will shine negatively on many at PSU, but fear it will shy away from the boatd's control over Spanier.

I hope I'm wrong, will gladly admit to be if am. I have probably spewed too much here without thinking about what I'm saying for which I apologize. I simply have a suspicion an investigation isn't being directed totally at major players here, and that's a personel belief. It may be tainting my broader view, which upsets me if others believe it to be the case.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think (hope) he was being funny with the ArtsFest mention.
There is a history of problems (including an all-out riot 14 years ago) during ArtsFest. If a report appears to attack a still-beloved figure by the majority of the crowd, it wouldn't take much to turn ugly. These aren't sober, level-headed people we're talking about here.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,835
South Boston
Don't mean to be cryptic. I have seen a few parts of this report per my job, actually.
That's good to hear. Sometimes, people who are really close to information or a field can discuss related facts as if the conclusions to draw from those facts were self-evident. I appreciate you going into a bit more detail about the process.

I think the DA, police, and state AG office (who are all part of allowing Sandusky to roam free and destroy countless lives) aren't looked at in this report closely.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of them are the subject of the report, right? I'm still a little confused. The report is basically an audit of Penn State's actions, right?

Please don't believe I have any trust, faith or admiration for the Paterno's (the opposite actually). Their statement is just really odd (and I believe they have seen a good part of the report via leak).

Regarding the timing, it only continues to show the terrible PR/planning/whatever within Penn State and with the BoT. The leaks are pretty positively coming from the board itself, and it's being done for a reason.
I have little doubt that this is true. I'm not sure about what that reason is, though. The rhetor in me thinks you use partial leaks to preemptively spin a whole that doesn't necessarily go the way you want it to. If the whole report is designed to slam Paterno, then the partial leaks don't matter as much.

I believe the report will shine negatively on many at PSU, but fear it will shy away from the boatd's control over Spanier.

I hope I'm wrong, will gladly admit to be if am. I have probably spewed too much here without thinking about what I'm saying for which I apologize. I simply have a suspicion an investigation isn't being directed totally at major players here, and that's a personel belief. It may be tainting my broader view, which upsets me if others believe it to be the case.
I understand. There are still some blanks for me, but I'm seeing where you're coming from a bit more.

There is a history of problems (including an all-out riot 14 years ago) during ArtsFest. If a report appears to attack a still-beloved figure by the majority of the crowd, it wouldn't take much to turn ugly. These aren't sober, level-headed people we're talking about here.
So, stupidity, not malice? I kind of understand, but there's something to be said for not waiting any longer, right?
 

sfip

directly related to Marilyn Monroe
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2003
7,838
Philadelphia suburb
There is a history of problems (including an all-out riot 14 years ago) during ArtsFest. If a report appears to attack a still-beloved figure by the majority of the crowd, it wouldn't take much to turn ugly.
No I didn't say what I said to be funny. What's quoted above is why I said it.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,159
Tuukka's refugee camp
Well I can certainly assume that one thing that hurts the victims of sex offenders worse than the public shaming of sex offenders is, well, being sexually abused. Nice logical progression there by the author. Pity the poor Sandman.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,516
I cannot comprehend how someone who is supposed to be highly educated would ever write something like this.
http://www.philly.co...852885.html?c=r
Until I read this, I thought i knew what the word inhumane meant. I guess not.
It's not so much that he's wrong in his conflation of the laws being a problem versus how screwed up we are culturally about sex crimes as it is that he ought to renounce what he wrote, resign, and go on some sort of spirit quest or some shit, because he wouldn't recognize right if it molested him in the shower.
 

ThePrideofShiner

Crests prematurely
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,779
Washington

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,835
South Boston
It's not so much that he's wrong in his conflation of the laws being a problem versus how screwed up we are culturally about sex crimes as it is that he ought to renounce what he wrote, resign, and go on some sort of spirit quest or some shit, because he wouldn't recognize right if it molested him in the shower.
Yeah, it felt like he wanted to write an article about Tookie Amirault but was asleep 5 years ago.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Yeah, it felt like he wanted to write an article about Tookie Amirault but was asleep 5 years ago.
Exactly right.

If you Google the author (Daniel Filler), it shows that he's a defense attorney turned law professor who has written in the past about what he sees as the law's excessively punitive treatment of sex offenders. He's also been used as an expert by media covering the Sandusky trial. It looks like he tried to use his newfound fame to push his old pet cause.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,835
South Boston
Exactly right.

If you Google the author (Daniel Filler), it shows that he's a defense attorney turned law professor who has written in the past about what he sees as the law's excessively punitive treatment of sex offenders. He's also been used as an expert by media covering the Sandusky trial. It looks like he tried to use his newfound fame to push his old pet cause.
Color me unsurprised.

The thing is, there are plenty of legitimate examples that could support a version of his general thesis. I can't remember names of the top of my head, but there's the high school athlete with the girl a year younger that ESPN profiled a little while back, the guy who just got released from prison and got NFL tryouts, and even the Duke lacrosse team. But using this example to make the point is just utterly tone-deaf.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,516
Exactly right.
If you Google the author (Daniel Filler), it shows that he's a defense attorney turned law professor who has written in the past about what he sees as the law's excessively punitive treatment of sex offenders. He's also been used as an expert by media covering the Sandusky trial. It looks like he tried to use his newfound fame to push his old pet cause.
I was once a witness for a sexual assault claim at a large university where the accused's adviser for the Judicial hearing Board was a professor in the philosophy department who's research area was about linguistic communication theory and how communication is actually often inaccurate he used the idea of people accidentally giving consent as a theoretical case study. As a result, he had a kind of hobby of defending those accused of sexual assault in the school's judicial affairs proceedings. Happily, he was phenomenally bad at it.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
Has the Paterno family seen the Freeh report? Because the all-out PR offensive now includes a previously unpublished letter from Paterno to his players, supposedly written in late December...

Paterno says "this is not a football scandal":

Whatever failings that may have happened at Penn State, whatever conclusions about my or others' conduct you may wish to draw from a fair view of the allegations, it is inarguable that these actions had nothing to do with this last team or any of the hundreds of prior graduates of the &ldquo;Grand Experiment.&rdquo;
Penn Staters across the globe should feel no shame in saying &ldquo;We are&hellip;Penn State.&rdquo; This is a great University with one of the best academic performing football programs in major college athletics. Those are facts &mdash; and nothing that has been alleged changes them.
http://pennstate.scout.com/2/1201534.html (via Sara Ganim)