Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal

Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Ham sandwiches....
Click to expand...

Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Not at all. The saying is a famous one regarding grand juries.
Click to expand...

I think his other book about the Mercury astronauts is better.

I think that it is easily 97% of the time that grand juries find sufficient evidence to indict. But when only one side is presented that is not so surprising.

In this case that there was an investigation and eye witnesses, yeah, witnesses there were two mentioned, I think that is pretty damning. Penn St. needed to show that they were finally getting on top of things and did what they needed to do. Remember, they are a business and they need to do what they need to protect their brand, just like any other business. What disappoints me is that the asst. coach who actually should have called the cops is only on administrative leave and may be able to be protected under whistle blower statutes. Had he been a man to begin with he would have called 911 first.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Not at all. The saying is a famous one regarding grand juries.
Click to expand...

Mh, you are quoting a disbarred lawyer (who went to prison for sleeping with his clients) to cast doubt on the work of this grand jury.

I doubt that the end result of this will be similar to the Duke or the french bankers case. The number of victims, the presence of witnesses to Sanduskys doings make me pretty confident that if not all, but a good number of the events detailed in the grand jury information will contribute to Sanduskys conviction.

Now, Paterno wasn't charged with anything and due process would demand that he should be suspended rather than fired until at least some of the charges against his subordinate were proven. The university was in a 'do something' situation and and figured it was in their best interest to move in the way they did.
 
weilke said:
Mh, you are quoting a disbarred lawyer (who went to prison for sleeping with his clients) to cast doubt on the work of this grand jury.
Click to expand...

Who was a very well-respected jurist, who was subsequently readmitted, and is now a professor. He actually went to prison for something stalking related.

Perhaps you have some kind of inside knowledge that suggests the findings of a grand jury are a reliable tool for basing conclusions upon? Maybe you were once the prosecuting attorney locked alone in a room with the grand jury, with everyone sworn to secrecy, and no one around to challenge anything that you said or did, and the ability to immediately incarcerate any witness that didn't cooperate?

I doubt that the end result of this will be similar to the Duke or the french bankers case.
Click to expand...

Did you mean to say, "I expect presumptions of guilt to be fulfilled [this time]?"

The number of victims, the presence of witnesses to Sanduskys doings make me pretty confident that if not all, but a good number of the events detailed in the grand jury information will contribute to Sanduskys conviction.
Click to expand...

If I tell you anything, will you believe it?

Now, Paterno wasn't charged with anything and due process would demand that he should be suspended rather than fired until at least some of the charges against his subordinate were proven. The university was in a 'do something' situation and and figured it was in their best interest to move in the way they did.
Click to expand...

At least it's an improvement that we don't engage in human sacrifice anymore.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Who was a very well-respected jurist,
Click to expand...

...right until he scammed a dead client out of a pile of money, slept with another client and started to stalk her after things didn't go his way.

who was subsequently readmitted, and is now a professor.
Click to expand...

Just to proove that some stuff always rises back to the top.

Did you mean to say, "I expect presumptions of guilt to be fulfilled [this time]?"
Click to expand...

Yes.

Sometimes you CAN judge a book by its cover.

If I tell you anything, will you believe it?
Click to expand...

You are a lawyer, so no.
 
weilke said:
...right until he scammed a dead client out of a pile of money, slept with another client and started to stalk her after things didn't go his way.
Click to expand...

He was convicted of harassment, spent less than a year in prison. But, wait, it's said that he might have done some other stuff; so I guess we'd better accept what's said as absolutely true! It has more credibility because it puts an otherwise respectable person in a bad light, doesn't it? There's nothing like a lurid story to lend credence to something.

Do you have some reason to disagree with what he said?

I'll ask again, being as you opted to ignore the question the first time: Perhaps you have some kind of inside knowledge that suggests the findings of a grand jury are a reliable tool for basing conclusions upon? Maybe you were once the prosecuting attorney locked alone in a room with the grand jury, with everyone sworn to secrecy, and no one around to challenge anything that you said or did, and the ability to immediately incarcerate any witness that didn't cooperate?

Just to proove that some stuff always rises back to the top.
Click to expand...

Mike Nifong was at the top, too. Based on your comments here, I'd be interested to know how you came down on the allegations at Duke.

Yes.

Sometimes you CAN judge a book by its cover.
Click to expand...

When can you judge guilt from a grand jury's findings?

I say we just do the trial based on the prosecutor's opening statement.

You are a lawyer, so no.
Click to expand...

Yet you're willing to take a prosecutor's rubberstamp at face value.
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
He was convicted of harassment, spent less than a year in prison.
Click to expand...

The inbred NY judicial system at work. No big suprise here.

Mike Nifong was at the top, too. Based on your comments here, I'd be interested to know how you came down on the allegations at Duke.
Click to expand...

Something happened with those strippers that went beyond the usual business transaction. We'll never know what that was.

Yet you're willing to take a prosecutor's rubberstamp at face value.
Click to expand...

In this case I take the findings of a jury that has heard witnesses, judged some of them to be more credible than others. Yes, the DA controls the process, thank god he does.
 
weilke said:
The inbred NY judicial system at work. No big suprise here.

Something happened with those strippers that went beyond the usual business transaction. We'll never know what that was.

In this case I take the findings of a jury that has heard witnesses, judged some of them to be more credible than others. Yes, the DA controls the process, thank god he does.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to continue this. You're either yanking my chain, or are an incredibly dangerous person to have on a jury. If the former, a tip of the hat to you. If the latter: http://www.innocenceproject.org/; not that it would change your mind if you're being sincere (which is certainly commendable).

By the way...the only time a grand jury will ever judge credibility if the prosecutor, who controls the process, is inept.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I'm not going to continue this. You're either yanking my chain, or are an incredibly dangerous person to have on a jury.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they stopped sending me the postcards.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/; not that it would change your mind if you're being sincere (which is certainly commendable).
Click to expand...
Oh sure, those are the guys who managed to spring Steven Avery. He then proceeded lure a young photographer to his scrap yard, rape and murder her and dispose of the body in a burn barrel. Oh sure, poor guy was framed, twice.....

Kind of soured my enthusiasm for their work. Some people belong in prison.
 
weilke said:
Oh sure, those are the guys who managed to spring Steven Avery. He then proceeded lure a young photographer to his scrap yard, rape and murder her and dispose of the body in a burn barrel. Oh sure, poor guy was framed, twice.....

Kind of soured my enthusiasm for their work. Some people belong in prison.
Click to expand...

Before passing judgment on their work, I'd want to know how many innocent people they got off, and how many guilty people they got off. Without knowing both numbers, or at least the percentages, I wouldn't feel that I had a basis for a conclusion.
 
wabower said:
Why do chains of command exist? To be disregarded at the whim of those in them?
Click to expand...

I think it would be a mistake to attribute authority to a chain of command that is outside its purview. For example, I don't see how a school's chain of command would have the authority to prevent a crime from being reported to the police.

Excessive deference to a chain of command may be part of how Enron went off the deep end.

Joe reported the problem to his superior the next day.
Click to expand...

If I had been in his shoes, I think I would have felt an obligation to make sure the situation was properly handled. I wouldn't feel justified in assuming that a school chain of command had done so unless I subsequently heard back enough information to justify that assumption.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Uhhhh...do you have any idea of how a grand jury works?

I mean, really? You're using a grand jury report as indicative of a crime?
Click to expand...

uh, yes...that is the point of a grand jury-to see if the evidence is sufficient for a criminal indictment...
 
Rugbydude said:
uh, yes...that is the point of a grand jury-to see if the evidence is sufficient for a criminal indictment...
Click to expand...

OK, but I think people have a point in saying that we shouldn't use an indictment alone as proof of guilt. It's just a legal determination that a person should be put on trial. It lacks due process safeguards, so it's not a replacement for a trial.
 
Geico266 said:
So it is all of your contentions that a 10 year old was raped by Sandusky ( we have an eye witness) so he could sue the university?
Click to expand...

I insist that you not quote my posts out of context and imply I somehow support child rape.

Sophistry is one thing, defamation and slander are another.
 
Rugbydude said:
uh, yes...that is the point of a grand jury-to see if the evidence is sufficient for a criminal indictment...
Click to expand...

Do you equate indictment with guilty? Or failure to indict as not-guilty?
 
wabower said:
Do you equate indictment with guilty? Or failure to indict as not-guilty?
Click to expand...

fair point...but I think you, and other posters that are critical of the grand jury process, are talking apples and oranges as it pertains to the Paterno situation...the Board of Trustees never said Paterno is guilty of a crime based on the grand jury report... and, notwithstanding the inherent weaknesses of the grand jury proceedings where you don't get to cross examine witnesses, and Paterno's own attorney is not asking Paterno questions that might shed more light on the situation, etc, etc- Paterno still said what he said and that can be used against him esp. with all the other known facts...

...and, it is clear, even taking the facts most favorable to Paterno, that Paterno knew of some sex act between the adult and a child, and that Paterno knew the adult had a "history" of this, and Paterno never followed up to make sure LE was called... that in some peoples eyes, certainly mine, that is enough to fire the coach who preaches about doing the right thing all the time... the standards to fire the coach aren't the beyond a reasonable criminal doubt, and Paterno has no "right" to his job...also, Paterno pretty much dared the Trustees to fire him when he tried to resign on his own terms and dictated to the Trustees what they should or should not do...

...growing up I always admired Paterno...but he lost me a few years ago at a bowl game when the opposing player from Florida State was accused of rape and sent home from the bowl game--Paterno's response, not knowing any of the facts, said something to the effect of "well, what is a guy to do when a pretty girl knocks on the door"

... like I said, this will get alot worse before it gets better once the civil depos start...you also have many excellent investigative reporters that will have a field day on this... I think what we will find is an old coach who cared more about his "legend" and the "schoold and football team legend" than the kids... the kids were "expendable"
 
dmccormack said:
You shouldn't take it as a compliment.

You should recognize that simplistic, reductionist, labelling is silly, infantile, and beneath intelligent discourse.
Click to expand...

This place becomes more like the red board every day.
 
I have no idea how this case will play out. My problem is that nobody else does either, especially those who called the shots before the targets were in position. My position is unchanged from an early post. If Joe is guilty, he should be punished. It's also clear (to me anyway) that Joe did what he was supposed to do and somebody else dropped the ball. If they had done what Joe did, none of this would be under discussion now. Joe's motives for handling it the way he did may be as pure as driven snow or may be part of a sinister cover-up plot to foil the investigative process and stay above the law. Either way, I hope he gets what he deserves.

Rugbydude said:
fair point...but I think you, and other posters that are critical of the grand jury process, are talking apples and oranges as it pertains to the Paterno situation...the Board of Trustees never said Paterno is guilty of a crime based on the grand jury report... and, notwithstanding the inherent weaknesses of the grand jury proceedings where you don't get to cross examine witnesses, and Paterno's own attorney is not asking Paterno questions that might shed more light on the situation, etc, etc- Paterno still said what he said and that can be used against him esp. with all the other known facts...

...and, it is clear, even taking the facts most favorable to Paterno, that Paterno knew of some sex act between the adult and a child, and that Paterno knew the adult had a "history" of this, and Paterno never followed up to make sure LE was called... that in some peoples eyes, certainly mine, that is enough to fire the coach who preaches about doing the right thing all the time... the standards to fire the coach aren't the beyond a reasonable criminal doubt, and Paterno has no "right" to his job...also, Paterno pretty much dared the Trustees to fire him when he tried to resign on his own terms and dictated to the Trustees what they should or should not do...

...growing up I always admired Paterno...but he lost me a few years ago at a bowl game when the opposing player from Florida State was accused of rape and sent home from the bowl game--Paterno's response, not knowing any of the facts, said something to the effect of "well, what is a guy to do when a pretty girl knocks on the door"

... like I said, this will get alot worse before it gets better once the civil depos start...you also have many excellent investigative reporters that will have a field day on this... I think what we will find is an old coach who cared more about his "legend" and the "schoold and football team legend" than the kids... the kids were "expendable"
Click to expand...
 
Palmpilot said:
Before passing judgment on their work, I'd want to know how many innocent people they got off, and how many guilty people they got off. Without knowing both numbers, or at least the percentages, I wouldn't feel that I had a basis for a conclusion.
Click to expand...

According to the most recent DOJ statistics in 2007, there were 168,200 inmates in US state prisons for murder, 15,100 for manslaughter and 70,200 for rape (253,500 total). Given that population, over the course of the 19 years that the innocence project is up and running, they have managed to exonerate 278 handpicked cases. Out of those 278, 277 haven't murdered yet and one has.

Just shows that every system has errors, including the one used to exonerate prisoners. What tweaks me the wrong way is that they still list Avery as one of their 'innocent' on their website, no footnote, no asterisk, nothing. Their local affiliate in Wisconsin has just sanitized all their involvement in the case from their website.
 
A very interesting article
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html

SO MANY CHANCES MISSED

1995.
1998.
2000.
2002.
2008.

These dates spanning 13 years share two common threads that run through the entire grand jury presentment. At each stage, boys voiced concern or pain or alarm at the conduct of Jerry Sandusky — or adults witnessed behavior they found troubling or alarming.

And at each stage, other adults dismissed, minimized or failed to act upon those concerns.

It remains to be seen whether any of these actions, or the statements behind them, are a matter for the courts. For now, only two things are certain:

Many of the accounts in this tragic and tangled history conflict with one another.

And everyone cannot be telling the truth.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I have no idea how this case will play out. My problem is that nobody else does either, especially those who called the shots before the targets were in position. My position is unchanged from an early post. If Joe is guilty, he should be punished. It's also clear (to me anyway) that Joe did what he was supposed to do and somebody else dropped the ball. If they had done what Joe did, none of this would be under discussion now. Joe's motives for handling it the way he did may be as pure as driven snow or may be part of a sinister cover-up plot to foil the investigative process and stay above the law. Either way, I hope he gets what he deserves.
Click to expand...

The Big 10 conference commitee just removed Joe Paterno's name from the Big 10 Championship Trophy.
 
Not particularly surprising. Piling on is common behavior.

Geico266 said:
The Big 10 conference commitee just removed Joe Paterno's name from the Big 10 Championship Trophy.
Click to expand...
 
I think there is going to be some further digging at the second mile. This is their press release from today:

A Statement from The Second Mile Board of Directors - 11.14.2011
Yesterday, the Board of Directors of the Second Mile (TSM) accepted the resignation of Dr. Jack Raykovitz, the CEO of The Second Mile for the past 28 years. Both Dr. Raykovitz and the Board believe this is in the best interests of the organization. David Woodle, the current Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, will now be responsible for day-to-day operations of The Second Mile.
Although the allegations against Jerry Sandusky and the alleged incidents occurred outside Second Mile programs and events, this does not change the fact that the alleged sexual abuse involved Second Mile program children, nor does it lessen the terrible impact of sexual abuse on its victims.

The Second Mile’s mission is to help young people – particuarly those in need – to achieve their potential. The safety and well-being of the children participating in our programs is central to fulfilling that mission. To that end, we made the following decisions:

  • We will conduct an internal investigation to assess our internal policies, procedures and processes; and make recommendations regarding the organization’s future operations. We hope to have those findings by the end of December.
  • We have engaged as our General Counsel the firm of Archer & Greiner, including partner Lynne Abraham. Archer & Greiner succeeds Wendell Courtney, who resigned from that position last week.
In addition, we will of course continue to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation by the Attorney General’s office.
Over the past week the families of many participants have urged us to maintain TSM’s programs, saying they continue to believe deeply in TSM’s mission and the value it provides young people in our community. We remain committed to Second Mile children, teens and families.
Our continued prayers, thoughts and concerns go out to all those affected. Just as the Second Mile is making reports of any information we receive, we continue to encourage anyone with information regarding this investigation to contact investigators from the Office of Attorney General at 814-863-1053 or Pennsylvania State Police at 814-470-2238.

I am so relieved to hear that they are conducting an 'internal investigation into their internal policies and procedures' that'll clear everything up and prevent further malfeasance.
 
It works for Congress, and we know they are all white-hats. No reason it shouldn't work here.


weilke said:
I am so relieved to hear that they are conducting an 'internal investigation into their internal policies and procedures' that'll clear everything up and prevent further malfeasance.
Click to expand...
 
300400_10150392695664110_809964109_8125310_158206916_n.jpg
 
wabower said:
Not particularly surprising. Piling on is common behavior.
Click to expand...

you seem to think that Paterno has some sort of god given right to his job as the head ball coach of a major university :confused:

...while I appreciate your experience I just don't get where your coming from... personally, at a bare minimum, I'd fire him just for having a guy on staff for over 30 years that has an apparent proclivity for taking showers with young boys in the football complex...not to mention that one of Paterno's so called former student-athletes that he mentored witnessed said shower events and mustard only the courage to call his daddy...
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Sandusky:


Ya think?

Sandusky's Attorney:
when showering with boys.

Ya think?
Click to expand...

The thing to keep in mind when hearing his statements from yesterday is that wealthy pedophiles manage to carry on with their doings for so long because they have a great ability to seamlessly talk themselves out of sticky situations.
 
weilke said:
The thing to keep in mind when hearing his statements from yesterday is that wealthy CRIMINALS manage to carry on with their doings for so long because they have a great ability to seamlessly talk themselves out of sticky situations.
Click to expand...

Please note the change in the above sentence. Welcome to most of the banking scandal, mortgage scandal, oh... just about any scandal.
 
And you seem to think you have all the facts necessary for a decision, other than those that might be presented by Paterno. Are you serving on Geico's "guilty until proven innnocent" committee, or just auditioning for the "get a rope" part as the guy in the front row of the pitchfork-wielding, mouth-breathing lynch mob in front of the jail?

I've probably posted a dozen times on this thread. Please point to any language suggesting that Paterno is entitled to anything other than the presumption of innocence until proven guilty or at least the opportunity to present his side of the story.

After that happens, I'll be happy to opine. Twenty-some years (combined) experience in running a police department as well as a number of human services companies has cured me from making decisions before the facts are in. Evidently that lesson hasn't yet sunk in for others.



Rugbydude said:
you seem to think that Paterno has some sort of god given right to his job as the head ball coach of a major university :confused:

...while I appreciate your experience I just don't get where your coming from... personally, at a bare minimum, I'd fire him just for having a guy on staff for over 30 years that has an apparent proclivity for taking showers with young boys in the football complex...not to mention that one of Paterno's so called former student-athletes that he mentored witnessed said shower events and mustard only the courage to call his daddy...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
I've probably posted a dozen times on this thread. Please point to any language suggesting that Paterno is entitled to anything other than the presumption of innocence until proven guilty or at least the opportunity to present his side of the story. .
Click to expand...
Paterno is certainly entitled the presumption of innocence and I cannot think of anyone here saying is guilty of anything but an apparent moral failing. But Penn St. is also entitled to protect its brand and reputation and that organization apparently felt that it was being hurt by the scandal and that they needed to distance itself from those involved so the board took action. Are you suggesting that the board should risk further exposure by retaining those involved? If so that is certainly an opinion you are entitled to.
 
I find the board's process and subsequent press conference to be somewhat curious, and am of the opinion that they threw Joe under the bus in their haste to "protect their brand" by canning a guy who may not have been responsible for the damage it incurred.

The spokesman said as much during the press conference, when he admitted the board didn't have all the facts but felt they had to make the call to move on without respect to Joe's rights to presnt his case. Many other avenues were available (admimistrative leave, suspension, etc.) that would have yielded a much more equitable resolution, but they opted for expediency rather than fairness. Welcome to PSU.


ScottM said:
Paterno is certainly entitled the presumption of innocence and I cannot think of anyone here saying is guilty of anything but an apparent moral failing. But Penn St. is also entitled to protect its brand and reputation and that organization apparently felt that it was being hurt by the scandal and that they needed to distance itself from those involved so the board took action. Are you suggesting that the board should risk further exposure by retaining those involved? If so that is certainly an opinion you are entitled to.
Click to expand...
 
The PA mandated reporter law is pretty poorly written in my opinion. From a strict reading of it, Paterno had NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to report this to the police (in fact, nobody has to report it. There are two reasons for this. First off, the child wasn't in Paterno's care or being dealt with in his employed capacity. Second, the mandated report is to be made to the "... person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency...".

It appears that JoPa made the report which we wasn't strictly required to make and in the way that the statute specifically requires it to be made.

The head of the school is then supposed to report it to the Department of Public Welfare (notifying the police is neither required nor sufficient, though nothing precludes them doing so).

Frankly, in my opinion Paterno is the victim of a witch hunt and being thrown under the bus by the institution he served for over half a century rather than even being allowed to fade away with dignity.
 
flyingron said:
The PA mandated reporter law is pretty poorly written in my opinion. From a strict reading of it, Paterno had NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to report this to the police (in fact, nobody has to report it. There are two reasons for this. First off, the child wasn't in Paterno's care or being dealt with in his employed capacity. Second, the mandated report is to be made to the "... person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency...".

It appears that JoPa made the report which we wasn't strictly required to make and in the way that the statute specifically requires it to be made.

The head of the school is then supposed to report it to the Department of Public Welfare (notifying the police is neither required nor sufficient, though nothing precludes them doing so).

Frankly, in my opinion Paterno is the victim of a witch hunt and being thrown under the bus by the institution he served for over half a century rather than even being allowed to fade away with dignity.
Click to expand...

do you believe Paterno had a moral obligation to do more for the kids?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top