Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

amh03

Tippi Hedren
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 27, 2003
6,637
All Ananias is saying is that Paterno was a really old man whose basic understandings of many social issues were already well-formed at the time of the incidents we're talking about. It doesn't make him less of a bad person, or less accountable, or even less likely to be guilty of what he's been accused of. If anything, the older generation's tendency toward silence makes it more likely that Paterno did exactly what you think he did.
I read Ananias' wording, albeit quite possibly unintended by him, as giving Paterno a pass. I'll bold the phrases of note that led me to that conculsion:

There's acceptable and there's acceptable. No, pedophilia has never been lauded as a pillar of society, but untill the late 1970s it was not something that was usually talked about publically. The notion that child pornography is illegal wasn't even completely clarified until 1977. Before that, it was seen as creepy and unwholesome but also was considered the kind of thing that not much could be done about. In short, being a pedophile was not socially acceptable -- but choosing to remain silent about a colleague's pedophilia WAS socially acceptable. It is hard for me to comprehend as well, but Paterno grew up in a time when turning your back and hoping it didn't happen again is what you did. The perpetrator was someone you kept your own kids from, but you didn't make a deal about it. That kind of silence was not only acceptable, it was expected. Paterno showed he was a coward by not breaking the cycle, but it was no different than what many men of his generation would have done.
I disagree with Ananias' societal view. I do not think that in 1998 or 1999 or 2000 people of a certain age would accept or even expect silence in this type of a situation. I believe Paterno did something very different from what others of his generation might have done in the same situation. He was much, much more than a coward, as suggested by Ananias. A coward implies inaction. Paterno acted, make no doubt about it.

The motivation behind Paterno and others' behavior had nothing to do with the actions of Sandusky...that was an afterthought as far as they were concerned, as evidenced by the total lack of concern for the victims. Some want to believe that Paterno was just a misguided old man. He wasn't. Paterno and the rest of that crew were calculated in their desire to put the reputation of their program above the safety of children. They should all be held accountable. And no one should defend them.
 

scotian1

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
16,324
Kingston, Nova Scotia
OK, here are the Courtney mentions in the Freeh Report:

1) Courtney declined to be interviewed "on the advice of counsel"

2) 2010-2011 emails:


3) 2011 email exchange in which Schultz appears to lie:


4) Courtney DID know about the 2001 issue and do legal research on it for PSU:


Wendell Courtney was the outside legal counsel at Penn State from 1980 until 2010. From 2008 to 2011, he was also legal counsel for the Second Mile and sat on its Board.

5) Courtney drew up Sandusky's retirement agreement in 1999.


My conclusion: Spanier and Courtney belong in jail along with Curley and Schultz. They are all part of the coverup, along with Paterno.
Agreed, it is really disturbing that Courtney also sat on the Second Mile Board and still said nothing.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
I have no idea if the NCAA has "jurisdiction" to hand down sanctions related to this, but if they don't then honestly they should just shut down the entire organization. I mean how on Earth can they penalize schools for such catastrophic things like coaches texting recruits during the wrong week, or boosters getting cars for players, when they can't/won't penalize one of the most prestigious athletic departments in the country for covering up a rampaging pedophile for more than decade?

I agree that penalizing PSU now harms the kids who are there and had nothing to do with this. But this school's priorities are so obscenely out of whack they really need to blow up the AD for a while. Let the players transfer out with no repercussions and try again in a few years.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,576
South Boston
I read Ananias' wording, albeit quite possibly unintended by him, as giving Paterno a pass.
It's got nothing to do with intentions. He didn't imply what you are inferring, period.

I'll bold the phrases of note that led me to that conculsion:

I disagree with Ananias' societal view. I do not think that in 1998 or 1999 or 2000 people of a certain age would accept or even expect silence in this type of a situation.
No. You don't understand Ananias's societal view.

I mean, bolding cherry-picked parts of his post (and this thread) is pretty much exactly the problem with what you did. Here is his actual post (I can't get rid of your bolding):

There's acceptable and there's acceptable. No, pedophilia has never been lauded as a pillar of society, but untill the late 1970s it was not something that was usually talked about publically. The notion that child pornography is illegal wasn't even completely clarified until 1977. Before that, it was seen as creepy and unwholesome but also was considered the kind of thing that not much could be done about. In short, being a pedophile was not socially acceptable -- but choosing to remain silent about a colleague's pedophilia WAS socially acceptable.
He's saying that before the late 70s, the social mores about reporting abuse were entirely different. And from a point of view of victims, victims families, and those around the perpetrator, this is simple historical fact.

It is hard for me to comprehend as well, but Paterno grew up in a time when turning your back and hoping it didn't happen again is what you did. The perpetrator was someone you kept your own kids from, but you didn't make a deal about it. That kind of silence was not only acceptable, it was expected.


Now he's saying that Paterno was formed in times in which silence was expected, and again pointing out how different that is today. He's not talking about what was accepted or expected in 1998 or 2000.

Paterno showed he was a coward by not breaking the cycle, but it was no different than what many men of his generation would have done.
Now he's saying that lots of old guys (not every) would have acted similarly in Paterno's place in1998-2000 because of what things were like when they grew up. Being a Catholic male Bostonian, I just don't know how you're going to argue against this. It's like pointing out the casual racism or homophobia of many of my grandparents' or parents' generations that many people of those ages exhibit, even if such behaviors are no longer part of the dominant social behavior at large. Pointing out that such behavior is somewhat widely exhibited by people of a certain generation is not the same as giving it a pass, especially when in the context of discussing changing historical morals.

All of this is even clearer when you read the post to which he is actually responding. Ananias isn't arguing for moral relativism today. He's stating the remarkably unremarkable proposition that old people often don't change with the times and that they often behave accordingly.

I mean, OK, you wanted a stronger word than "coward." I don't have any sort of a problem with that. But when you think someone might be defending a child-rape enabler, maybe it makes sense to take a sec to do a re-read?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
It's got nothing to do with intentions. He didn't imply what you are inferring, period.



No. You don't understand Ananias's societal view.

I mean, bolding cherry-picked parts of his post (and this thread) is pretty much exactly the problem with what you did. Here is his actual post (I can't get rid of your bolding):



He's saying that before the late 70s, the social mores about reporting abuse were entirely different. And from a point of view of victims, victims families, and those around the perpetrator, this is simple historical fact.

[/b]

Now he's saying that Paterno was formed in times in which silence was expected, and again pointing out how different that is today. He's not talking about what was accepted or expected in 1998 or 2000.



Now he's saying that lots of old guys (not every) would have acted similarly in Paterno's place in1998-2000 because of what things were like when they grew up. Being a Catholic male Bostonian, I just don't know how you're going to argue against this. It's like pointing out the casual racism or homophobia of many of my grandparents' or parents' generations that many people of those ages exhibit, even if such behaviors are no longer part of the dominant social behavior at large. Pointing out that such behavior is somewhat widely exhibited by people of a certain generation is not the same as giving it a pass, especially when in the context of discussing changing historical morals.

All of this is even clearer when you read the post to which he is actually responding. Ananias isn't arguing for moral relativism today. He's stating the remarkably unremarkable proposition that old people often don't change with the times and that they often behave accordingly.

I mean, OK, you wanted a stronger word than "coward." I don't have any sort of a problem with that. But when you think someone might be defending a child-rape enabler, maybe it makes sense to take a sec to do a re-read?


I hear you friend. But it needs to be said that most of these old guys were not graduates of Brown, university professors or, as was the case with Joe, a national moral authority on doing things the right way and keeping athletics in perspective. It is only natural to have expected more from him, much more.

I don't understand how you can abide the evil. Even if you're not inclined to turn Sandusky in -- because you figure, wrongly, that what's past is past and the University should not be harmed -- I can't comprehend how you can sleep at night without doing everything you can to ensure that there will be no more victims. Basic human empathy demands this -- just swap out a victim for your 11 year old grandson.

I have been around for a while and don't know that there has ever been a greater fall from grace. Nixon comes to mind, but although his crimes may have been more serious to the country, they did not have this human dimension -- and Nixon was not universally beloved.

There are no winners in this, only losers.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
2) 2010-2011 emails:


Courtney emails Schultz: Baldwin “called me today to ask what I remembered about JS issue I spoke with you and Tim about circa eight years ago. I told her what I remembered. She did not offer why she was asking, nor did I ask her. Nor did I disclose that you and I chatted about this.”
Courtney emails Baldwin that “someone ... contacted Children and Youth Services to advise of the situation so that they could do whatever they thought was appropriate under the circumstances, while being apprised of what PSU actions were, i.e., advising JS to no longer bring kids to PSUʹs football locker rooms.”
First, Courtney must be a fairly unskilled lawyer for emailing this to Schultz.

Second, he is now clearly caught in a lie -- this is entirely contradicted by his statements to the media in Nov 2011. Did he say this under oath to the grand jury?

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/17/2989371/courtney-denies-knowledge-of-acts.html
Courtney served as counsel for Penn State from the time he passed the bar in 1980 until 2008, all while working with the McQuaide Blasko law firm. He said in an interview he never was asked by Penn State whether police should be notified about any allegations of sexual abuse involving Sandusky.
“Had I ever been asked, my response would have been, ‘Absolutely and immediately,’ ” Courtney said. “Had I ever had any inkling that Sandusky was engaging in behavior with children that was even remotely improper, nothing on God’s green earth would have kept me from making certain that the allegations were reported to the police authorities and thoroughly investigated.”

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/17/2989371/courtney-denies-knowledge-of-acts.html
Sprowl - I agree. Courtney and Spanier are going down, at minimum for perjury.

What I don't understand is why they didn't just put the police on this in 1998, or in 2002. Especially in 2002. Sandusky is now retired, out of the program, and the Catholic Church accusations have been all over the news. Did they think he'd stop doing this? Did they think he'd really never be caught by authorities?
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,576
South Boston
I hear you friend. But it needs to be said that most of these old guys were not graduates of Brown, university professors or, as was the case with Joe, a national moral authority on doing things the right way and keeping athletics in perspective. It is only natural to have expected more from him, much more.
Sure. I'd expect even more from people who purport to interpret God's will. In a lot of ways (and your discussion of Nixon below is particularly relevant) I think the power and knowledge of those in such positions of power and trust sometimes operate to blind them to what is really important, having exactly the opposite effect we would expect and desire. Jealous chiefs of their own fiefdoms often tend to lose perspective. Again, not an excuse, but an observation.

I don't understand how you can abide the evil. Even if you're not inclined to turn Sandusky in -- because you figure, wrongly, that what's past is past and the University should not be harmed -- I can't comprehend how you can sleep at night without doing everything you can to ensure that there will be no more victims. Basic human empathy demands this -- just swap out a victim for your 11 year old grandson.

I have been around for a while and don't know that there has ever been a greater fall from grace. Nixon comes to mind, but although his crimes may have been more serious to the country, they did not have this human dimension -- and Nixon was not universally beloved.

There are no winners in this, only losers.
 

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
In the absence of such violations, however, a charge for lack of institutional control would be unprecedented. I suspect a lot of other member institutions would be loathe to set a precedent that allows NCAA staff to pass judgment on their administration in ways that are only tangentially related to intercollegiate athletics.
With respect to the bolded, qui gives a shit? If the NCAA lets member institutions comfort level determine how they act, that sets a far more dangerous precedent. One where the members get to determine which rules are enforced, and how they are enforced.
If the NCAA turns up the tiniest of infractions, I hope they'll throw the book at PSU, but if they don't, I don't think they sanction PSU based on "lack of institutional control" or any other theory, Mark Emmert's bluster notwithstanding.
I believe this is one of the rare instances the appearance of control trumps precedent. If the NCAA doesn't step in here and heavily punish PSU, they run the risk of appearing to say "Hey, it's not our problem. Let's leave it for the courts to decide." And I think that is a far more dangerous message or precedent to send or set.

The students had nothing to do with the crimes.
So? Say a guy gets drunk and murders someone in a barroom. He gets sent to prison. If he's the breadwinner, and has a wife and kids, that family gets "punished". It's unfortunate, but it happens. And that wouldn't be the fault of the NCAA. The blame would be at the feet of Sandusky, Paterno, Curley, and Spanier.

Current administrators saying "The students had nothing to do with the crime," is one step removed from a guy murdering his parents and then asking for mercy because he's been orphaned.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,576
South Boston
With respect to the bolded, qui gives a shit?
Idiomatic translation aside, I think you want the dative there. :lol:

If the NCAA lets member institutions comfort level determine how they act, that sets a far more dangerous precedent. One where the members get to determine which rules are enforced, and how they are enforced.
Isn't that exactly what the NCAA does? Like, not as precedent, but as actual reality? :unsure:
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
Sally Jenkins is more than a little unhappy about her last interview with Paterno:

Paterno didn’t always give lucid answers in his final interview conducted with the Washington Post three days before his death, but on this point he was categorical and clear as a bell. He pled total, lying ignorance of the ’98 investigation into a local mother’s claim Sandusky had groped her son in the shower at the football building. How could Paterno have no knowledge of this, I asked him?

“Nobody knew,” he said.

Everybody knew.

Never heard a rumor?

“I never heard a thing,” he said.

He heard everything.

Not a whisper? How is that possible?

“If Jerry’s guilty, nobody found out til after several incidents.”
 

LeftyTG

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,345
Austin
The Freeh report blasts the cops for failing to interrogate Sandusky immediately after his admission to the victim's mother. Once that mistake was made, however, I don't think the DA had any case -- I certainly can't imagine advising a parent in that position to put their child through such an ordeal with such a flimsy case to go on.

I'm not sure what relevance, if any, the prosecutor's decision not to bring charges had to do with PSU's decision not to log the incident as a crime. Obviously, unsolved crimes are still reported as crimes, but in a case where the assailant is known but not charged, I don't know what the correct protocol is.
I read this part of the Freeh report with particular interest, as for the last 8 years I've worked as a prosecutor for child protective services prosecuting child abuse and neglect. Most people have (rightly) focused looking at things from a criminal law lens, but for obvious professional reasons I've been mindful of the child welfare/family law lens. Having read about the 1998 investigation in the Freeh report, I learned that CYS (every state seemingly has a different acronym for their child protective services) assigned an investigator (Jerry Lauro) from Harrisburg, due to the high profile of Sandusky locally (a good move). I found it especially interesting that Alycia Chambers, a licensed psychologist who had been working with the victim in the 1998 showering incident, called in the report to CYS. Ms. Chambers consulted with her colleagues, and they all agreed that, "the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile's pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, with a context of a 'loving', 'special' relationship."

Those are some pretty strong words coming from a group of licensed child psychologists. The important thing to understand in the difference between criminal prosecutions and CPS abuse/neglect prosecutions is that the burden of proof is different. While the state must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, the burden is merely preponderance (or 50.000001%). That's a huge difference and why it is routine that, in my job, I'll go forward (and win) cases that the DA can't even bring to trial.

Unfortunately, it seems that statement by Chambers made it to the cops, but not the Lauro, the CYA investigator. In the Freeh report, Lauro claims to have never seen the psychologist evaluation and would not have stopped the investigation had he seen it.

Also unfortunately, a second psychological evaluation of the victim was set up with Counselor John Seasock. He basically doomed any hope for the investigation. Seasock's report stated, "there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children". While the report also said the boy "had been placed in a situation where he was being 'groomed for future sexual victimizatino'", he also said he did not find evidence of abuse and had never heard of a 52 year-old man "becoming a pedophile" and stated that Sandusky "didn't fit the profile of a pedophile" and that he couldn't find any indication of child abuse.

According to the Freeh report, "a senior administrator of a local victim resource center familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was 'severely hampered' by Seasock's report".

Reading this, it is amazing at how spot on Chambers and her colleagues were in their assessment and how off the wall horrible Seasock's report was. I read through such reports all the time at work, so this was chilling and sobering for me, all at the same time. Looking back at the investigation, given what was in the Seasock report (and the fact the Chambers report wasn't known to CYA), I can see why the investigation wasn't pursued for prosecution. Even if CYA had looked at the big picture and said to themselves, "this just doesn't feel right, lets push forward and see what happens", that Seasock report just cut their legs out. When the counselor who was commissioned by CYA opines that Sandusky didn't do anything that could be construed as abuse and didn't fit the profile of a pedophile, then it is impossible to argue against your own guy in court."

It is heart breaking to look back and wonder "what if". Had that Chambers report made it to CYA, or the Seasock report not cut the legs out from under CYA, then the case against Sandusky could have been brought forward in family court. It wouldn't have resulted in jail time, but 1) he would have had to defend against it, which would have raised the profile and made it harder for the PSU community to keep it under wraps and 2) if CYA was successful in getting a finding, it would have made it impossible for Sandusky to continue to be associated with The Second Mile and would have at least partially kept him away from preying on vulnerable boys.

Moral of the story? Add Seasock to the list of villains in this whole affair.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
Why else did she get the interview with Paterno if not for the fact that she was seen as being a marshmallow who wouldn't do any real digging on Paterno's assertions and wouldn't challenge him more vigorously? She got played. Quelle surprise.

Nice Freudian slip there, LeftyTG. "CYS" vs. "CYA."
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,576
South Boston
But they at least aspire to pretend they have autonomy, don't they?
I don't think so. The NCAA is the member institutions. When you're self regulated, the regulatory apparatus is what you made it. When it changes without your say-so and threatens you beyond what you've agreed to, you tend to get rid of it.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,431
Harrisburg, Pa.
Jay Paterno on ESPN says he thinks the report is an opinion and contains no new facts, just new interpretations.

Note to the Paterno family: Shut up. You're all about to be sued out of your minds.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,033
I read this part of the Freeh report with particular interest, as for the last 8 years I've worked as a prosecutor for child protective services prosecuting child abuse and neglect. Most people have (rightly) focused looking at things from a criminal law lens, but for obvious professional reasons I've been mindful of the child welfare/family law lens. Having read about the 1998 investigation in the Freeh report, I learned that CYS (every state seemingly has a different acronym for their child protective services) assigned an investigator (Jerry Lauro) from Harrisburg, due to the high profile of Sandusky locally (a good move). I found it especially interesting that Alycia Chambers, a licensed psychologist who had been working with the victim in the 1998 showering incident, called in the report to CYS. Ms. Chambers consulted with her colleagues, and they all agreed that, "the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile's pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, with a context of a 'loving', 'special' relationship."

Those are some pretty strong words coming from a group of licensed child psychologists. The important thing to understand in the difference between criminal prosecutions and CPS abuse/neglect prosecutions is that the burden of proof is different. While the state must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, the burden is merely preponderance (or 50.000001%). That's a huge difference and why it is routine that, in my job, I'll go forward (and win) cases that the DA can't even bring to trial.

Unfortunately, it seems that statement by Chambers made it to the cops, but not the Lauro, the CYA investigator. In the Freeh report, Lauro claims to have never seen the psychologist evaluation and would not have stopped the investigation had he seen it.

Also unfortunately, a second psychological evaluation of the victim was set up with Counselor John Seasock. He basically doomed any hope for the investigation. Seasock's report stated, "there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children". While the report also said the boy "had been placed in a situation where he was being 'groomed for future sexual victimizatino'", he also said he did not find evidence of abuse and had never heard of a 52 year-old man "becoming a pedophile" and stated that Sandusky "didn't fit the profile of a pedophile" and that he couldn't find any indication of child abuse.

According to the Freeh report, "a senior administrator of a local victim resource center familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was 'severely hampered' by Seasock's report".

Reading this, it is amazing at how spot on Chambers and her colleagues were in their assessment and how off the wall horrible Seasock's report was. I read through such reports all the time at work, so this was chilling and sobering for me, all at the same time. Looking back at the investigation, given what was in the Seasock report (and the fact the Chambers report wasn't known to CYA), I can see why the investigation wasn't pursued for prosecution. Even if CYA had looked at the big picture and said to themselves, "this just doesn't feel right, lets push forward and see what happens", that Seasock report just cut their legs out. When the counselor who was commissioned by CYA opines that Sandusky didn't do anything that could be construed as abuse and didn't fit the profile of a pedophile, then it is impossible to argue against your own guy in court."

It is heart breaking to look back and wonder "what if". Had that Chambers report made it to CYA, or the Seasock report not cut the legs out from under CYA, then the case against Sandusky could have been brought forward in family court. It wouldn't have resulted in jail time, but 1) he would have had to defend against it, which would have raised the profile and made it harder for the PSU community to keep it under wraps and 2) if CYA was successful in getting a finding, it would have made it impossible for Sandusky to continue to be associated with The Second Mile and would have at least partially kept him away from preying on vulnerable boys.

Moral of the story? Add Seasock to the list of villains in this whole affair.
Wow.

Ok, this is exactly why I get my news analysis from SoSH rather than the news outlets. Thank you for this--that was excellent.

Could you expand on a few things, though?

1) Could you tell us more about the CYA prosecutions are and what they entail in terms of reach and ramifications? Is the lower evidentiary burden larger a function of less punitive reach? And how far is that reach--basically, what is this adjunctive system and what is its relation to the mainstream criminal justice system? This seems fascinating and important, and I know very little about it and expect many others might be curious as well.

2) Why was the second opinion requested--is that standard? Also, how was that guy chosen? Whiffing is one thing, but your description of his findings seems to suggest a serious lack of competence for doing the evaluation--the noody becomes a pedophile at 52 part seems to especially and spectacularly misapprehend and/or make assumptions inappropriate to cases such as this.

3) Do you have any sense as to why the one report didn't make it to the CYA prosecutor but the other did? Is it possible that there was inappropriate and perhaps even criminal conduct I selective distribution of the psych reports? Or is it most likely just the bureaucratic clusterfuck which I fully recognize can happen in these institutions.

4) WHAT. THE. FUCK??????

DotB may lose his mind if he reads that post... Seriously, this might end him.


More to follow... has anyone read the Mark Twain story anout Hadleyburg?
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,431
Harrisburg, Pa.
Why would they be sued?
Given he lied under oath to fuel the fire, his estate can and you'd bet will be sued to oblivion by the victims of Sandusky. I'm not sure, honestly, what him giving Sue all his money, the house, his annuity, etc before he died (and some of these things years ago) means in relation to what's available within the estate to go after.

Im sure a lawyer here knows the ins and outs of things like estates and lawsuits.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
A lawsuit against Paterno singularly isn't happening. Plaintiff's attorneys focus on the defendants with deep pockets, they've got one in PSU. Paterno will be sued as one of several defendants in a lawsuit where PSU is a defendant, they will allege joint and several liability, meaning each defendant, if found responsible, is individually and mutually responsible should a verdict occur. These lawsuits will be settled.

If she's judgment-proof, she'll likely keep the money he left her.
 

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
The NCAA is the member institutions. When you're self regulated, the regulatory apparatus is what you made it. When it changes without your say-so and threatens you beyond what you've agreed to, you tend to get rid of it.
You're correct. That said, it seems to me that disbanding, re-constituting, or re- writing the charter of the NCAA due to some perception of "overreach" (if the NCAA decides to reach the outcome I desire in this case - the death penalty for PSU football) would seem to set a precedent that would be just as unsavory.

I know, I know: "Tough cases make bad law."

But more seriously, I have no faith that the powers that be at Penn State handled this any differently than, say, Nebraska, Alabama, Miami, or virtually any other major college football or basketball program. I suppose I can be convinced otherwise, but I'm not so sure. That's why I believe a harsh example needs to be set.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
Given he lied under oath to fuel the fire, his estate can and you'd bet will be sued to oblivion by the victims of Sandusky. I'm not sure, honestly, what him giving Sue all his money, the house, his annuity, etc before he died (and some of these things years ago) means in relation to what's available within the estate to go after.

Im sure a lawyer here knows the ins and outs of things like estates and lawsuits.
I'm not sure a person can sue for perjury to the grand jury.
 

LeftyTG

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,345
Austin
Wow.

Ok, this is exactly why I get my news analysis from SoSH rather than the news outlets. Thank you for this--that was excellent.

Could you expand on a few things, though?

1) Could you tell us more about the CYA prosecutions are and what they entail in terms of reach and ramifications? Is the lower evidentiary burden larger a function of less punitive reach? And how far is that reach--basically, what is this adjunctive system and what is its relation to the mainstream criminal justice system? This seems fascinating and important, and I know very little about it and expect many others might be curious as well.

2) Why was the second opinion requested--is that standard? Also, how was that guy chosen? Whiffing is one thing, but your description of his findings seems to suggest a serious lack of competence for doing the evaluation--the noody becomes a pedophile at 52 part seems to especially and spectacularly misapprehend and/or make assumptions inappropriate to cases such as this.

3) Do you have any sense as to why the one report didn't make it to the CYA prosecutor but the other did? Is it possible that there was inappropriate and perhaps even criminal conduct I selective distribution of the psych reports? Or is it most likely just the bureaucratic clusterfuck which I fully recognize can happen in these institutions.

4) WHAT. THE. FUCK??????

DotB may lose his mind if he reads that post... Seriously, this might end him.


More to follow... has anyone read the Mark Twain story anout Hadleyburg?
I appreciate the kind words. It isn't often when my kind of work bubbles to the surface of societal consciousness (and even in this case, only tangentially), so I'm always happen to answer any questions and shed light on what goes on the child protective services world. I have to caution you, though, in that this body of law is extremely state specific. As a result, I'm pretty limited in what I can opine on regarding Pennsylvania CYA as it existed in the late 90's. I prosecuted cases for ACS (Administration for Children's Services) in Manhattan for 6 years and currently work for DFPS (Dept of Family and Protective Services) in Texas, doing similar but not quite the same work (I'm no longer on the front lines, and my blood pressure has adjusted accordingly). If you want to know more authoritatively about New York or Texas, I'm your guy. I can only go so far with Pennsylvania. I can say the Texas and New York systems are wildly different in many respects. That being said, there are some core concepts that any system would share.

All that makes a perfect segue into your first question. I haven't looked at the PA statute, so I can't answer conclusively as to their reach. That being said, jurisdiction is definitely limited and typically revolves around 1) legal family relationships (beat up your own kid, cops and CPS come after you, beat up your neighbor's kid and the cops come after you but not CPS) and 2) regulated child care (day care workers, foster parents, etc).

The ramifications are typically twofold. The first, immediate, ramification is the possibility of the child going into foster care (obviously not an issue in the regulated child care cases). This involves a second question, that of immediate risk. When a case comes in, it is brought to court based on whether it meets the statutory definition of child abuse or neglect. The ultimate trial will hinge on proving (or not) the actions of the respondent meet the statutory definition. Within that framework, there is a separate question of whether the child is in immediate risk of danger. Here, the Department typically has broad emergency powers - in NYC the Department could unilaterally remove the child and had to file a petition with the court within 3 days. The parent can challenge whether immediate risk exists, so you end up with a minitrial inside the big picture trial.

The second ramification is related to the central registry. Each state maintains a registry of names of people who have been found guilty of neglect or abuse. Typically, by law, individuals applying to work in certain child care positions that are defined by statute are subject to a background check where they need to be cleared through the registry. If their name is in the registry, it will impact their ability to work in regulated child care or be a foster parent. The length of time one's name is in the registry varies by state, but is usually a really long time (in NY, if memory serves, it is until the youngest child in the case turns 28. In Texas, if there is a removal your name is in there forever, if not it is 24 years from the day due process exhausts).

Sandusky, by virtue of his involvement with Second Mile, would likely have been within the jurisdiction of CYA. According to the Freeh report, CYA actually contracted with Second Mile to provide services to kids in the foster care system (I believe they even ran a group home). Had Sandusky been found guilty of abuse or neglect, he would have been placed in the Pennsylvania registry and would have been prevented from working with kids anywhere there was regulation by the state.

The evidentiary burden is lesser, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. We are a civil court, so a preponderance standard is typically used (there can, and often are, exceptions in certain instances. In NY, for instance, the burden shifts from preponderance to "clear and convincing" for terminations of parental rights and certain kinds of abuse). Also, there can be some helpful (from the perspective of the state) changes in the evidentiary law. In New York, for instance, there is a statutorily defined extra hearsay exception that applied only to our abuse/neglect cases - that is, statements made by a child to another party are admissible in court. This makes trying cases soooooo much easier. If the CPS investigator was interviewing the child, and the child said his dad hit him in the mouth and made him bleed, then the caseworker could testify in court to what the child said. I didn't need to bring the child into court. Of course, the court, as trier of fact, could assign whatever weight to the otherwise hearsay statement, but the statement would come in (I suppose I should mention these trials are bench trials - no juries - or at least they are in Texas and NY). Partly because of this, it is pretty rare to lose a case. In my six years in NY, doing probably close to a thousand cases, I never lost an abuse or neglect trial. I did lose some of the imminent risk minitrials I spoke of earlier, but never the abuse/neglect determination. That wasn't because I was some awesome attorney, hardly anyone lost cases. Now this may have been different in rural Pennsylvania versus Manhattan, and especially with a high profile respondent, but the larger point remains - the deck tends to be stacked in favor of the Department in these cases.

In relation to the criminal justice system, we often overlap. We tend to give wide berth to, and take a backseat to, the cops. This is because they tend to be better trained investigators and they have higher stakes (personal liberty is at stake). Also, when our trials run concurrently the criminal proceeding almost always goes first. Any defense attorney with half a brain would never let their client take the stand in a CPS case, and be subject to cross examination, where the statements under oath could be used against them in the criminal case. On the flip side, if the criminal case goes forward and the defendant is convicted under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, then I can move for summary disposition in my case. The reverse is not true, since one can be guilty by a preponderance standard but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

2) The second opinion - the problem is that, to the CYA investigator, it wasn't a second opinion. If you believe him, he never was made aware of the Chambers report. Usually, one of the elements to proving abuse is there has to be some kind of injury - physical, mental, or emotional - to the child. Having the child seen by a therapist can help build up that element of the case. It is also just good practice. We're not purely in the business of running through trials and tagging people with findings. My job can often be part lawyer and part social worker. The Department's mandate is to protect the child first and foremost, but work to preserve families in marshaling and offering various services. In this case, having the child seen by a professional could help ascertain if there needed to be ongoing therapy that the worker would need to locate and make a referral for.

This Seasock guy had a contract with CYA, like any number of people who can provide services relevant to social work. I'm sure he was just picked from a list. As one might expect, the Department doesn't pay at the top of the scale and the best and brightest tend not to hold these contracts. It might have been incompetence, it might have been that Seasock was a PSU football fan and couldn't conceive that Sandusky would be a pedophile. Each is plausible to me.

3) It doesn't necessarily shock me that the report was in the hands of law enforcement but not given to the CYA investigator. They are two separate agencies, and anyone who has ever tried to deal with multiple government agencies knows how difficult it for them to share even simple information. There also tends to be a dynamic where the police department feels like they are doing the real investigation and sees the child protective investigation as amateurish or somehow lesser, so there isn't always a feeling of urgency in sharing information.

That being said, there is one oddity that sticks out to me. Standard procedure for any child protective investigation is to first contact and interview the source of the report. Basically, the entire child protective system depends on calls of suspected child abuse or neglect. Each state has its own hotline. This is where all the mandated reporter stuff comes in. Anyone can (and should) call in if they have reason to suspect abuse or neglect, though people in certain, statutorily defined occupations have an affirmative duty to call in. Once a call comes in, it is screen and if it has any merit at all, assigned to the local CPS office who assigns it to a worker. The worker then typically must initiate an investigation within a day or two, and the first step is always to contact the source of the report (if known, sometimes reports come in anonymously).

In this case, the psychiatrist who wrote the prescient report, Ms. Chambers, was the source. Which, of course, means she should have been the first one interviewed. I don't know the exact timing of when the intake call was placed, when Ms. Chambers consulted with her colleagues and made their consensus view of Sandusky and created the report, and when first contact between CYS and Ms. Chambers was, but at minimum you can expect Ms. Chambers to emphatically make her suspicions known. In fact, in the Freeh report, it specifically said that Ms. Chambers felt like the gravity of her concerns were properly felt by CYA and the police.

The one thing I can think of that might have screwed it up, from the perspective of CYA, is that the case was initally assigned to the Centre County CYA office. They decided there was a conflict of interest due to the Second Mile holding local CYA contracts, so the case was transferred to the Harrisburg office. In the midst of this transfer, it is possible the Centre County investigator first talked with Ms. Chambers and the Harrisburg investigator, when he picked up the case, saw she had been contacted and didn't do it himself. One would have hoped the first investigator would have made good notes and passed on the information obtained from Ms. Chambers to the Harrisburg investigator, but sadly those kinds of transfers are seldom smooth. If someone knows they are passing a case on, they typically don't put much effort into it. Of course, the possibility also exists that Mr. Lauro, the Harrisburg investigator, is lying through his teeth when he said he didn't know about the Chambers report.

A small point - I see no evidence that a CYA prosecutor ever saw this case. In fact, I'd be shocked if one did. Again, I don't know the PA system specifically, but cases are usually only brought to attorneys at the very end, once everything is lined up. In a case where they decide there isn't enough there to pursue (which is the majority of cases - people love calling in reports, most of which are bogus), an attorney would never know it existed.

Hope all this helps. It's only my somewhat limited, outsider, perspective. If you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
What's the culpability of the University police chief, Tom Harmon? According to the report, it appears he chose not to log the questioning of Sandusky, the victim or his conferences with PSU officials in 1998 as a courtesy and to prevent word from getting out. Does he have some professional ethics to investigate and document a crime even if it clashes with the PR goals of his employer?
 

Rocco Graziosa

owns the lcd soundsystem
SoSH Member
Sep 11, 2002
11,345
Boston MA
Awesome awesome stuff Lefty. One question with regards to this:

The evidentiary burden is lesser, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. We are a civil court, so a preponderance standard is typically used (there can, and often are, exceptions in certain instances. In NY, for instance, the burden shifts from preponderance to "clear and convincing" for terminations of parental rights and certain kinds of abuse). Also, there can be some helpful (from the perspective of the state) changes in the evidentiary law. In New York, for instance, there is a statutorily defined extra hearsay exception that applied only to our abuse/neglect cases - that is, statements made by a child to another party are admissible in court. This makes trying cases soooooo much easier. If the CPS investigator was interviewing the child, and the child said his dad hit him in the mouth and made him bleed, then the caseworker could testify in court to what the child said. I didn't need to bring the child into court. Of course, the court, as trier of fact, could assign whatever weight to the otherwise hearsay statement, but the statement would come in (I suppose I should mention these trials are bench trials - no juries - or at least they are in Texas and NY). Partly because of this, it is pretty rare to lose a case. In my six years in NY, doing probably close to a thousand cases, I never lost an abuse or neglect trial. I did lose some of the imminent risk minitrials I spoke of earlier, but never the abuse/neglect determination. That wasn't because I was some awesome attorney, hardly anyone lost cases. Now this may have been different in rural Pennsylvania versus Manhattan, and especially with a high profile respondent, but the larger point remains - the deck tends to be stacked in favor of the Department in these cases.
How confident are you that nearly 100% of defendants you try in court guilty? I've always operated under the assumption that a small percentage of people tried for crimes were innocent. Lets say 5 to 7%. If that was the case here, your conviction rate is a tad alarming.

Or maybe I just watch too much Law and Order.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,431
Harrisburg, Pa.
Sara lays out the bullshit that was the AG investigation. Finally this is beng said in a public arena.

I urge everyone here to read this article (link below selected quotes), it explains so much of what I've hinted at in a very clear manner.

Two days after Jerry Sandusky was charged with sexually assaulting children, state Attorney General Linda Kelly said Joe Paterno had done the right thing.

An internal report from Penn State University released Thursday laid blame for a culture of silence at the feet of the legendary coach ...
Unlike the grand jury, the Freeh team had no ability to compel evidence and witnesses, and no threat of charges for those who didn’t comply.

So how could they have come up with such different results about who was to blame for Jerry Sandusky’s rampant abuse of young boys on campus?

Before the report was made public, it was clear the Freeh investigators had been more successful in burrowing into the traditionally closed university.

Freeh’s team found emails that the AG’s investigators couldn’t get. Freeh called those emails the “most important pieces of evidence in the case.”
Freeh’s report concluded two critical things the attorney general has not said:

- That Joe Paterno did know about a 1998 police investigation into Sandusky’s behavior and followed it closely, even though he testified he hadn’t heard of allegations other than in 2001.
- That Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz actively concealed very similar allegations three years later in 2001.

Paterno had previously denied knowledge of the 1998 police investigation twice — first vaguely when he testified before the grand jury, and then directly eight days before his death in January during an interview with The Washington Post.

Until now, there was no evidence to challenge his word.

The mother of Victim 6, who is the victim in the 1998 case, told The Patriot-News several months ago that when investigators closed that case without charging Sandusky, they told her Paterno was aware of the decision.

Her recollection couldn’t be verified, and so it wasn’t printed.
If that was the culture that permeated Penn State, could it have affected the investigation by state attorney general’s office?
Jonelle Eshbach, the senior deputy attorney general who interviewed Paterno, several of Sandusky’s victims and Penn State officials when they appeared before the grand jury, has not been shy about her loyalty to the late coach.

After Paterno’s divisive firing, her Facebook page showed she took a survey about the board’s decision. Her page says she answered that she would have let Paterno finish the 2011 season, then retire as he planned.

Freeh’s team concluded that Paterno’s firing was warranted.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/analysis_fbi_director_louis_fr.html
 

LeftyTG

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,345
Austin
What's the culpability of the University police chief, Tom Harmon? According to the report, it appears he chose not to log the questioning of Sandusky, the victim or his conferences with PSU officials in 1998 as a courtesy and to prevent word from getting out. Does he have some professional ethics to investigate and document a crime even if it clashes with the PR goals of his employer?
In reading the report, my understanding was that Harmon initially dragged his feet in logging it due to the high profile of Sandusky, but eventually did log it, albeit "accidentally" misclassifying it under Administrative Procedures, or something like that. In 2001 Schultz asked Harmon if the 1998 investigation was logged, and Harmon said it was, dug it up, and provided it.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
I get that it is not at all related to pedophilia, but it struck me as almost creepy that Spanier is apparently a leading scholar on the "sexual behavior that leads to co-marital wife-swapping or swinging". His book: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1973.00279.x/abstract

He also gives a nice little endorsement of a dating website here: http://www.perfectmatch.com/Help/endorsements.html

I don't think he'd fall into the naive old man category when it comes to talking and understanding about sex and stuff.

He'll probably get the chance to do a lot of swinging in prison this time next year.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,440
Haiku
Another choice morsel from the Freeh report:

Scheduled date of meeting between Curley and Sandusky. In his 2011 Grand Jury testimony, Curley said he told Sandusky “we were uncomfortable” about the incident and would report it to the Second Mile. Curley says he also told Sandusky to stop bringing children to the athletic facilities. Sandusky’s counsel later reports that no accusation of sexual abuse was made at this meeting and that Sandusky offered to provide the name of the boy to Curley, but Curley did not want the boy’s name.
As long as Victim 2 remained nameless and unidentified, it seems to have been easier for the PSU administrators not to take the child's welfare into consideration.
 

LeftyTG

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,345
Austin
Awesome awesome stuff Lefty. One question with regards to this:



How confident are you that nearly 100% of defendants you try in court guilty? I've always operated under the assumption that a small percentage of people tried for crimes were innocent. Lets say 5 to 7%. If that was the case here, your conviction rate is a tad alarming.

Or maybe I just watch too much Law and Order.
Hey, Law and Order is awesome. I used to love that show until law school ruined it for me.

It is important that you don't conflate what I'm talking about with criminal law, criminal activity, criminal conviction, or criminal anything. That would, in fact, be an alarmingly high criminal conviction rate.

To answer your question, no, I never won a case where I had an even nagging doubt as to the fact the respondent was neglectful or abusive. I can't speak to all CPS offices around the country, but in Manhattan the volume of cases we dealt with ensured that only the worst and clearest cases made it through. I mentioned earlier how a case originates with the intake report. From there they get investigated, and if at the end of the investigation there is enough evidence to meet the statutory definition of abuse or neglect AND the situation in the home is dangerous or unstable enough to warrant court intervention, then the case would come in to Legal. Once the case is brought in to Legal intake, the lawyers listen to the investigator explain the nature of the case and the evidence. The lawyers would thoroughly vet the case and oftentimes refused to file it because of a hole in the case, or a disagreement over whether the evidence actually fits the law. Only strong cases make it through - we simply didn't have enough staff to go chasing iffy cases. As it was, my office of about 25 attorneys was each carrying about 150 cases (we were supposed to be capped at 60). In a lot of ways, the focus is on the social work (figuring out where the child goes, what visitation the parents get, what services are needed for both parents and child, lining up drug treatment programs or whatever other services are needed to achieve reunification, etc) with the legalities being an annoying subplot.
 

Time to Mo Vaughn

RIP Dernell
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
7,204
Change JoePa out for your father and Sandusky for your uncle and one of the kids for your little brother. Would you still think the same way on this?
What if we change out Sandusky for a local boston musician and JoePa for Eric Van?

Would that make all the Vanatics on the main board the PSU alumni base?
 

TheGoldenGreek33

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 21, 2007
1,934
I just heard that Penn state will keep the Joe Paterno statue on campus.

They're just going to turn it so it looks the other way.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,440
Haiku
That tidbit came from Sandusky's attorney. I wouldn't put any stock in it.
That Curley had a chance to find out more about the victim, and avoided finding out even his name, is quite consistent with the picture of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier managing information and ignorance that emerges from the report. It also has the ring of truth about it. I'm inclined to give it credence as confirmation.
 

ThePrideofShiner

Crests prematurely
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,687
Washington
Bill James thinks the Freeh report exonerated Paterno:

http://deadspin.com/5925694/someone-actually-thinks-the-freeh-report-exonerated-joe-paterno-and-its-bill-james
 

ThePrideofShiner

Crests prematurely
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,687
Washington
LaVar Arrington with some strong words about Paterno, and Penn State. Also, I didn't realize he knew Victim 4.

"I think the best thing is anybody who had any type of knowledge about it and it's connectable to them, they should be gone immediately," Arrington said. "I think after today, and I'll look at the Freeh report again, and again, and probably again after that. I just think that any way, any how, something or someone is related to it, it has to be purged from the institution itself.

"And then they have to do a lot of work to rebuild a tarnished reputation based upon what took place and the lack of action and the failure as an institution to protect children."
About Victim 4:

He defended his school and his coach from the beginning, but during the Sandusky trial last month, Arrington learned — as Wetzel put it — he had been the candy to lure Sandusky's victims to his van.
After hearing the testimony of "Victim 4," Arrington realized he knew the young man and had spent a good deal of time with him. Arrington was "Victim 4's" favorite player and Sandusky used that as a way to get close to him. Arrington penned an op-ed in The Washington Post about his relationship with "Victim 4" and how he wished he had paid more attention to the warning signs. Arrington told Wetzel he's still coming to grips with that relationship.
"I didn't know that there's words to describe the amount of disappointment that I'm feeling at this point," Arrington said. "I mean, that was a low moment when I heard and knew exactly who the kid was, but it got even lower to know that no one was trying to help these kids.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/lavar-arrington-joe-paterno-didn-t-know-person-014135658--ncaaf.html
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
On the question on whether to "punish" students by slapping NCAA sanctions on the school: it's not like the NCAA would be taking away students' ability to get an education or a college degree. Barring those kids in the football team - who should be allowed to transfer - it strikes me that students who would consider the NCAA sanctions to be a severe personal punishment are over invested in the role of ther school's football team to their identity.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,839
LaVar made for some good radio time last night on the LaVar and Dukes show (106.7 TheFan in DC). His tone on the radio was very similar to the op-ed piece but much more animated in light of the Freeh report.

If I can find digital audio of his comments on the whole shebang, I'll link it up here
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
That Curley had a chance to find out more about the victim, and avoided finding out even his name, is quite consistent with the picture of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier managing information and ignorance that emerges from the report. It also has the ring of truth about it. I'm inclined to give it credence as confirmation.
You're right about Curley, but the idea that Sandusky volunteered the identity of the 10-year old boy he was sodomizing in the shower is not really believable to me. It obviously took a lot of nonfeasance on the part of a lot of people for Sandusky to get away with raping children for so long, but it also took some shrewd deception on Sandusky's part. Volunteering the boy's name in that situation would be the last thing I'd expect Sandusky to do.
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
I hate to say it, but if any of those janitors mentioned in the report as having witnessed this/learned of it and doing nothing are still working for PSU, they also need to be fired....
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
Leave Joe's statue up, but place another of a 10 year-old child behind it, looking for help, as Joe looks away.

that might keep the memory of JoPa and his accomplishments in context every Saturday afternnon.
 

Dave Stapleton

Just A Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2001
9,112
Newport, RI
I have to give Lavar a lot of credit. I blasted him when he supported the school originally and while it seems like an obvious gesture, sometimes the ego takes over. Here is did not.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,500
The SI legal guy was on the radio this am (McCann, I think his name is) and made a good point. If this had come out 10 years ago there almost certainly would have been NCAA penalties imposed on PSU - based on the criminal failure to report and other ethical requirements.

So if the NCAA does nothing now, they are giving other programs the incentive to cover things rather than come clean.

That being said, I doubt the NCAA is going to do anything because, quite frankly, as it probably is not going to impact it's bottom line or perception, they'll let this one play out.

One other thing - anyone not belive that JoePa transfered title of his house because he knew the lawsuits were coming?
 

Hyde Park Factor

token lebanese
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2008
2,791
Manchvegas
The SI legal guy was on the radio this am (McCann, I think his name is) and made a good point. If this had come out 10 years ago there almost certainly would have been NCAA penalties imposed on PSU - based on the criminal failure to report and other ethical requirements.

So if the NCAA does nothing now, they are giving other programs the incentive to cover things rather than come clean.

That being said, I doubt the NCAA is going to do anything because, quite frankly, as it probably is not going to impact it's bottom line or perception, they'll let this one play out.

One other thing - anyone not belive that JoePa transfered title of his house because he knew the lawsuits were coming?
That's obvious, just as it was when John Geoghan transferred all of his assets to his sister.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
The SI legal guy was on the radio this am (McCann, I think his name is) and made a good point. If this had come out 10 years ago there almost certainly would have been NCAA penalties imposed on PSU - based on the criminal failure to report and other ethical requirements.

So if the NCAA does nothing now, they are giving other programs the incentive to cover things rather than come clean.

That being said, I doubt the NCAA is going to do anything because, quite frankly, as it probably is not going to impact it's bottom line or perception, they'll let this one play out.
Spanier, Curley & Schultz need to be judged by a higher authority than the NCAA; they need to be jailed, which makes this a State of Pennsylvania or a Justice Department issue. The hue and cry for the NCAA to get involved in this mess is misguided; I'm keen to see Spanier sent to prison for "lack of institutional control"; I'm hoping Curley & Schultz are similarly punished. The NCAA being involved is a bit like hoping the Homeowner's Association gets involved in disciplining the owners of 42 Evergreen Terrace for multiple murders that took place after quiet hours and left the yard a mess.

Spanier & Paterno & Curley & Schultz did what they did so PSU stayed profitable. They did what they did for money. To protect Paterno's reputation, sure, but mostly to protect PSU (not just the football team) from public embarrassment and lawsuits. To protect their bottom line. They covered up horrible crimes because to report them would have cost the university money (and reputation).

The NCAA should force PSU's football (and all athletic teams?) to donate all revenue for two years to survivor's groups, victim's rights groups and awareness campaigns so this NEVER happens again. PSU, as an institution, needs to feel what Spainer, et. al. feared - the loss of money and reputation. The current student/athletes are not responsible for this mess, no "competitive advantage" was gained...the NCAA's jurisdiction is questionable, at best. But the one thing they could do is force PSU's athletic department to forgo revenue for several seasons, in compensation for and recognition of past offenses.

Paterno is beyond punishment; Spainer, Curley & Schultz should go to jail for their actions (which have to include obstruction of justice, among other things) and be barred from ever working in higher education after their eventual release. And PSU should pay for their lack of institutional control with money. Make the PSU community fund Sexual Abuse Survivor's & Advocacy groups for several years. Make them post banners outside the stadium that read "Proceeds from today's game will be donated to XYZ. The PSU can never apologize enough for the failures of our past administration & leaders."

The football program should not "go away"; the football program can help keep this awful, horrible situation front & center and make the PSU community confront the failures of their leadership. Wishing the program would "go away" is the easy way out. Making PSU confront their failure might help some of them realize just how awful and horrible their leadership was.