Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

[ConstruxBoy]

I'll be 100% honest and admit that I haven't done much "research" into the side of the story that wasn't portrayed by the mainstream media. Guilty as charged on that one.

Honestly, I think my judgement will be forever clouded by the absurd "Joe couldn't possibly have done anything wrong" swell of support that the Penn state students, former players and alumni spewed for months after the story came out. Hell, in the very first press conference after Paterno got fired, some dopy student reporter asked the board of trustees if they were using this as an excuse to "get Joe out". The fact that ANYONE could seriously think that was the case makes anyone who takes a Pro-Paterno stance look like a lunatic by association. That's probably not fair, but that's how I feel. The students rioted after Paterno was fired. It was absolutely cultish and ridiculous.

Every Penn State alumni that I know (which is many) took this stance (No way Joe did anything wrong) immediately after the story broke. No questions asked. I saw a pretty funny GIF a couple of days after the whole thing broke. It was a picture of the stereotypical whitebread college student which read "Went to Penn state for one semester.....Joe Pa is pretty much my grandfather". That's pretty much how it came off to me. Total blind support. There are several people I no longer speak to (Penn State alums) because I just couldn't deal with them anymore over this issue.

The fact that stuff like the new statue (or the Paterno family funded "investigation" ) is still happening continues to make me angry. If this was any other couch (hell, any other public figure) in the country, there's no way there would be this kind of support. The only comparison I can draw is the lunatics in Europe and Asia who continued to worship the ground Michael Jackson moonwalked on despite all the evidence against him.

No matter what he knew, the fault is not 100% with Paterno. Maybe he was a senile old man who had no idea what was going on. But I still think he knew something, and as the God of that campus, he had the responsibility to do everything he could to stop it. I don't think he did that, which is why I can't respect him anymore (regardless of the many good things he did in his life) Maybe that's just me being blinded by a mainstream media with an agenda. I guess I'll never know.

Honestly GB, I think this is more your problem than theirs. But to each their own.

Its possible, but I don't think so. I think they're just lunatics. I won't bore you with all the details, but there was a lot of "Thank God we can finally get back to football" WAAAAAY too soon after the story broke. I was absolutely disgusted by it.

Read the article by the way. I get that child molesters are sociopaths and deceivers by trade, but when I read things like "exploratory bear hug" I just can't see how any could have let this guy walk free for another 15 years. I don't think "horseplay in the shower" can ever be dismissed as "generational" or "Jerry being goofy". That's a red flag the size of Beaver Stadium and I can't believe it was brushed aside. I'm not saying you throw the guy in jail without evidence, but how can you continue to let him take in foster kids and help run a kid's charity after such accusations? Its mind boggling.

Did you read this quote in the story?

“We weren’t really prepared to call the police and make it into a police investigation,” one of the mothers told van Dam. “It was an indiscretion, as far as we were concerned at this point. It was all vague: ‘Well, he put his hands down there.’ And, ‘Well, it was inside the pants, but fingers went to here.’ We were all still trying to protect Mr. Clay’s reputation, and the possibility this was all blown up out of proportion and there was a mistake.”

That's from a mother. "Vague". Like McQuery stumbling through his story to Paterno.

The red flags are not nearly as obvious in real time as they are in retrospect from armchair quarterbacks. But I don't think it's worth arguing with you about it, to be honest. Have a good night.

I know all too well that these creeps can hide in plain sight. This guy was my boss for 3 summers in high school. (I was a lifeguard) He was the varsity basketball coach at the next town over and I worked with him at numerous basketball camps. He would have been my HS coach if the classes that he taught had been available at my school (we hired a new coach my sophomore year. He was the runner up for the job).

As far as anyone know, his crimes were WAY after I graduated, but I certainly understand that these guys don't stick out like sore thumbs.

Nobody ever switches sides on this issue, and that's fine. But it just seems like the people on the Paterno side are Paterno/Penn state fans. The people on the other side couldn't care less that he won a bunch of football games. (I was never a Joe Paterno hater. How could anyone be prior to this happening?) It seems like that's the side more likely to be unbiased.

If by unbiased you mean lacking the full details or background to find gray instead of black and white in a situation, then I agree with you. But then again, I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think that Joe Paterno died with more sincere regret in his heart than he had ever experienced in his entire life.

"Sincere regret" isn't the way I'd describe lying to a grand jury.

LOL, not worth any more responses.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I consider myself fairly unbiased in the whole Penn State debacle, and I've followed the story as closely as anyone. My wife went to Penn State and I've spent a good amount of time in State College, but I'm a Michigan grad myself and have no hesitation ripping on Penn State when deserved.

My personal opinion is that Joe Paterno has been unjustly demonized for the horrible crimes of Jerry Sandusky. I do not believe they Paterno ever consciously believed or knew that Sandusky was sexually abusing children. There has been no evidence that has ever shown that. Do I think Paterno was innocent and blameless? No, of course not. I think he deserves blame for what was likely living in denial of seemingly unfathomable accusations against what he considered a long-time friend and co-worker that he thought he had known for nearly 30 years. If someone said that your long-time friend/co-worker was raping children, what would your reaction be? I know that it would be psychologically hard for me to accept or believe.

I think that Joe Paterno died with more sincere regret in his heart than he had ever experienced in his entire life. I think Paterno was a good man who allowed the psychological pressures of denial and confirmation bias regarding the person that he had believed Sandusky to be for nearly 30 years to overlook what now seems obvious to us outsiders with the post hoc benefit of having all the facts that Paterno did not have at the time during which you are judging him.

Does Paterno deserve some judgment for failing to take more aggressive action when allegations were made against Sandusky? Sure.

Should that degree of judgment result in us treating Paterno as if he was complicit in child or have Penn State pretend that Paterno never existed? Absolutely not.

Nice reply. Nuance.

And I'll tell a quick story and then I'm done in this thread for awhile. I had always generally liked Ohio State fans more than Michigan fans, as far as B1G rivals go. I found the Michigan fans to generally be condescending and unreasonable. However, the Sandusky scandal really turned that around for me. In general, the Michigan fans/alum have been much more reasonable and able to find gray and read through details than the Ohio State fans/alum I've encountered since the scandal. I'm not going to suggest that it's because the Michigan fans/alum are likely more educated and intelligent enough to distinguish through facts and conjucture and find some reasonable middle ground, but...

This opinion has been strengthened by being a UNC basketball fan and seeing the Duke fans be much more reasoned and "thoughtful" about that academic scandal than the NC State fans. Of course there are shots from Michigan fans and Duke fans as well, but in a jovial, non-personal matter. So give me fans of excellent, high achieving schools over fans of some State U any day of the week.

And yes, I'm sure that can be applied to some of the Penn State fans you meet and their reaction to this scandal.

 

[fatness]

Joe Paterno knew about and "followed closely" allegations that Jerry Sandusky abused a boy in a shower in 1998, and participated in a cover up by "repeatedly concealing critical facts" even when similar allegations were reported to him three years later, according to a Penn State internal investigation.

That's the opposite of what the late coach testified to under oath when he went before a grand jury in 2011. He also denied knowing anything about the 1998 report days before he died in January, when he agreed to an interview with The Washington Post.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/joe_paterno_others_covered_up.html

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

The Paterno cult members are lunatics

 

[Chaka]

I'll be 100% honest and admit that I haven't done much "research" into the side of the story that wasn't portrayed by the mainstream media. Guilty as charged on that one.

Honestly, I think my judgement will be forever clouded by the absurd "Joe couldn't possibly have done anything wrong" swell of support that the Penn state students, former players and alumni spewed for months after the story came out. Hell, in the very first press conference after Paterno got fired, some dopy student reporter asked the board of trustees if they were using this as an excuse to "get Joe out". The fact that ANYONE could seriously think that was the case makes anyone who takes a Pro-Paterno stance look like a lunatic by association. That's probably not fair, but that's how I feel. The students rioted after Paterno was fired. It was absolutely cultish and ridiculous.

Every Penn State alumni that I know (which is many) took this stance (No way Joe did anything wrong) immediately after the story broke. No questions asked. I saw a pretty funny GIF a couple of days after the whole thing broke. It was a picture of the stereotypical whitebread college student which read "Went to Penn state for one semester.....Joe Pa is pretty much my grandfather". That's pretty much how it came off to me. Total blind support. There are several people I no longer speak to (Penn State alums) because I just couldn't deal with them anymore over this issue.

The fact that stuff like the new statue (or the Paterno family funded "investigation" ) is still happening continues to make me angry. If this was any other couch (hell, any other public figure) in the country, there's no way there would be this kind of support. The only comparison I can draw is the lunatics in Europe and Asia who continued to worship the ground Michael Jackson moonwalked on despite all the evidence against him.

No matter what he knew, the fault is not 100% with Paterno. Maybe he was a senile old man who had no idea what was going on. But I still think he knew something, and as the God of that campus, he had the responsibility to do everything he could to stop it. I don't think he did that, which is why I can't respect him anymore (regardless of the many good things he did in his life) Maybe that's just me being blinded by a mainstream media with an agenda. I guess I'll never know.

Honestly GB, I think this is more your problem than theirs. But to each their own.

Its possible, but I don't think so. I think they're just lunatics. I won't bore you with all the details, but there was a lot of "Thank God we can finally get back to football" WAAAAAY too soon after the story broke. I was absolutely disgusted by it.

Read the article by the way. I get that child molesters are sociopaths and deceivers by trade, but when I read things like "exploratory bear hug" I just can't see how any could have let this guy walk free for another 15 years. I don't think "horseplay in the shower" can ever be dismissed as "generational" or "Jerry being goofy". That's a red flag the size of Beaver Stadium and I can't believe it was brushed aside. I'm not saying you throw the guy in jail without evidence, but how can you continue to let him take in foster kids and help run a kid's charity after such accusations? Its mind boggling.

Did you read this quote in the story?

“We weren’t really prepared to call the police and make it into a police investigation,” one of the mothers told van Dam. “It was an indiscretion, as far as we were concerned at this point. It was all vague: ‘Well, he put his hands down there.’ And, ‘Well, it was inside the pants, but fingers went to here.’ We were all still trying to protect Mr. Clay’s reputation, and the possibility this was all blown up out of proportion and there was a mistake.”

That's from a mother. "Vague". Like McQuery stumbling through his story to Paterno.

The red flags are not nearly as obvious in real time as they are in retrospect from armchair quarterbacks. But I don't think it's worth arguing with you about it, to be honest. Have a good night.

I know all too well that these creeps can hide in plain sight. This guy was my boss for 3 summers in high school. (I was a lifeguard) He was the varsity basketball coach at the next town over and I worked with him at numerous basketball camps. He would have been my HS coach if the classes that he taught had been available at my school (we hired a new coach my sophomore year. He was the runner up for the job).

As far as anyone know, his crimes were WAY after I graduated, but I certainly understand that these guys don't stick out like sore thumbs.

Nobody ever switches sides on this issue, and that's fine. But it just seems like the people on the Paterno side are Paterno/Penn state fans. The people on the other side couldn't care less that he won a bunch of football games. (I was never a Joe Paterno hater. How could anyone be prior to this happening?) It seems like that's the side more likely to be unbiased.

If by unbiased you mean lacking the full details or background to find gray instead of black and white in a situation, then I agree with you. But then again, I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.

Does the pro Jo Pa side have access to details or background that the anti Jo Pa side doesn't?

 

[greenroom]

Joe Paterno knew about and "followed closely" allegations that Jerry Sandusky abused a boy in a shower in 1998, and participated in a cover up by "repeatedly concealing critical facts" even when similar allegations were reported to him three years later, according to a Penn State internal investigation.

That's the opposite of what the late coach testified to under oath when he went before a grand jury in 2011. He also denied knowing anything about the 1998 report days before he died in January, when he agreed to an interview with The Washington Post.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/joe_paterno_others_covered_up.html

How about coming with something new? The Freeh report was discussed what about 60 pages ago. Like the Mitchell Report, it is based on some eveidence and some assumptions of what happened. They did not have the chance to speak to JoPa, so when it comes to him, it is very hard to say 100% what he did or didnt do.

We both know things on paper can be taken out of context very easy, and it does not explain the full situation of what was going on or what other actions that JoPa may have done.

And yes JoPa could of done and should of done more, but then you could also say that about police department, the court system in the 1998 case, Penn St Univ, and the entire community of State College that could/should of stopped this monster.

But lets put all the blame on JoPa and ignore all the great things he did for his life. Who was the real monster Sandusky or JoPa? With some posters on this board you would have to wonder.

 

[fatness]

How about coming with something new?

Paterno supporters and depending on people to forget events --- like lying to a grand jury, like knowing about a problem with Sandusky back in 1998 --- to somehow rehab Paterno's image to what it used to be.

That's not going to happen. Try again in 10 years.

 

[Joe Summer]

I think that Joe Paterno died with more sincere regret in his heart than he had ever experienced in his entire life.

If only he had actually said something to that effect before he died.

 

[Koya]

Once again, this is about the abuse of children. Many many children. Over years and decades.

It's an oversight if you have some reason to be concerned about a coach fraternizing a bit inappropriately with players. Or maybe you have reason to question something they put on a resume.

When you have MORE than enough evidence (circumstantial as it may be, questionable on the surface as it may be) about even the POSSIBILITY of sexual exploitation of kids by your own coach, in your own facility... doesn't anyone with half a heart dig a little deeper, rather than "ignore" it (and that's being kind).

Now, I can understand how ambiguous it might be when part of the concern is as "minor" as an old guy showering with a kid - you know, just a little naked intergenerational horseplay...

Come on, let's stop protecting someone who at best ignored signs that this was happening, and acted more like he at the LEAST had inklings of such horrific acts and did nothing to even see if they were true and quite the opposite, shielded his buddy, his program, and his (now pathetic) legacy because those were his priorities, not the kids.

The evidence, imo, with no axe to grind against PS, is pretty clear that Paterno did this. At the least.

 

[E-Z Glider]

Once again, this is about the abuse of children. Many many children. Over years and decades.

It's an oversight if you have some reason to be concerned about a coach fraternizing a bit inappropriately with players. Or maybe you have reason to question something they put on a resume.

When you have MORE than enough evidence (circumstantial as it may be, questionable on the surface as it may be) about even the POSSIBILITY of sexual exploitation of kids by your own coach, in your own facility... doesn't anyone with half a heart dig a little deeper, rather than "ignore" it (and that's being kind).

Now, I can understand how ambiguous it might be when part of the concern is as "minor" as an old guy showering with a kid - you know, just a little naked intergenerational horseplay...

Come on, let's stop protecting someone who at best ignored signs that this was happening, and acted more like he at the LEAST had inklings of such horrific acts and did nothing to even see if they were true and quite the opposite, shielded his buddy, his program, and his (now pathetic) legacy because those were his priorities, not the kids.

The evidence, imo, with no axe to grind against PS, is pretty clear that Paterno did this. At the least.

 

[Buckfast 1]

I think that Joe Paterno died with more sincere regret in his heart than he had ever experienced in his entire life.

If only he had actually said something to that effect before he died.

Well, Paterno did say the following:

"This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

I think my statement basically paraphrases Paterno's sentiment.

http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-paterno-statement-2011-11

 

[Koya]

Once again, this is about the abuse of children. Many many children. Over years and decades.

It's an oversight if you have some reason to be concerned about a coach fraternizing a bit inappropriately with players. Or maybe you have reason to question something they put on a resume.

When you have MORE than enough evidence (circumstantial as it may be, questionable on the surface as it may be) about even the POSSIBILITY of sexual exploitation of kids by your own coach, in your own facility... doesn't anyone with half a heart dig a little deeper, rather than "ignore" it (and that's being kind).

Now, I can understand how ambiguous it might be when part of the concern is as "minor" as an old guy showering with a kid - you know, just a little naked intergenerational horseplay...

Come on, let's stop protecting someone who at best ignored signs that this was happening, and acted more like he at the LEAST had inklings of such horrific acts and did nothing to even see if they were true and quite the opposite, shielded his buddy, his program, and his (now pathetic) legacy because those were his priorities, not the kids.

The evidence, imo, with no axe to grind against PS, is pretty clear that Paterno did this. At the least.

Why do you laugh? Seriously? Can the facts I point out have you only conclude that I am a PS basher?

As I've stated before, I have nothing at all against the school nor program. I've always loved the attitude, the straight forward uniforms, playing football the right way, raising and leading young men to becoming adults and role models? The tough love no nonsense do the right thing the right way Paterno.

I admit I used to hold a little bit of animosity when they stopped playing Syracuse annually, but I'd root for PS long before most big time schools.

But this, from the very top and the administration through the over the top alumni , the blind and misguided support, shelling their guys but really their program all the way to Paterno's behavior and choices over the course of years let's just say there's no respect left (especially since all the above players who are still alive want to build more statues, whitewash history, not really make any significant administration led changes that mean something even if it's at the expense of football).

So, if I have an ax to grind its BECAUSE of these very actions and decisions. Can't blame me for being at worst neutral, and honestly a very mild random supporter of what PS represented and AFTER the actions and lack of accepting responsibility ( to this very day) despising everything they really did, and to a degree still do represent, today.

 

[Koya]

I think that Joe Paterno died with more sincere regret in his heart than he had ever experienced in his entire life.

If only he had actually said something to that effect before he died.

Well, Paterno did say the following:

"This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

I think my statement basically paraphrases Paterno's sentiment. http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-paterno-statement-2011-11

"Oops my bad" is not enough.

 

[Fat Nick]

I get those two responses. I figured some would prefer it just not be brought up again and some wouldn't care. One thing I'll say is even though I've disagreed with some of the PSU Alums it's been impressive how supportive they've been of the school and each other. I would call it almost loyal to a fault though as I think that is why some still defend Paterno or have a don't care attitude. They don't want to turn on one of their own out of loyalty. I get it but also understand why others can find it appalling.

PSU grad here...I think the bold sums it up best. I've been waiting for this issue to die...for a while. The Paterno family, and to some extent, the folks fighting the consent decree, won't let that happen. I think most alumni just want to move on. There's no good in bringing it up. Even if they lift the consent decree...even if Paterno's family gets his records reinstated...the damage is long done.

As for Paterno and the Paterno statue...You can ask for opinions all you want. I'm not allowed to have mine without being flamed here and called every name under the sun by people who's simple argument is that it's unfathomable to support someone who enabled a child rapist. If it was that black and white, I'd agree...but -I- don't think it is. Regardless, nobody here has been able to even mention anything pro-Paterno without being completely lambasted here for some time, and what frustrates me is that 80% of the people really have very little idea of his impact on Penn State culture, beyond football, and just write it off to being a cult of crazy yahoos who blindly march to the beat of his drum. That's a very easy statement to make, and I completely see why some folks see it that way...but the flip side is that it's a very hard thing to argue any other way to someone not tied to the school...

I can understand why people would want to support him, he had a tremendous legacy. That said, for many of us, his legacy is now that of a child-abuser enabler, and that is such a horrific reality, even the immense amount of good he may have accomplished is far overshadowed by his putting himself and his program ahead of children - at the time, past, present and sadly, future. So much more pain could have been avoided, and it's hard for many of us to reconcile how some wish to reconcile that his past legacy overshadows the pain he did not try to stop and allowed to continue.

Don't disagree with your view point...and if I felt as strongly about his unequivocal guilt, I might feel differently. I guess my biggest area of dissent lies in his guilt...do we KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, that he was at fault here? I know there's evidence that he turned a blind eye...but there's also evidence that he may not have known all the facts. There's also evidence that he did send it to his superiors, which was his legal/professional duty (but as argued, not the extent of his moral duty).

There's just so much grey area as to where you draw the line, and I think that's what makes this so polarizing. If you consider anything but complete and 100% devotion to making sure Sandusky was prosecuted, then yes...he was guilty of enabling. If you consider him to have done his part as outlined by his job description, and feel that's all he was obligated to do, then he wasn't...and if you feel he did some things, but should have done more, you're in the grey area. I'm in the grey area...and I guess I have difficulty reconciling past that in either direction. Because of this, I see the good AND the bad in the man...I don't automatically turn my nose in disgust at the great things he did for many many people, but I'm also aware of the bad things he at least to some grey level, helped enable.

There are many famous people in history who have good and bad associated with them. The levels vary...but it's kind of short-sighted to ignore ALL the good someone has done because of the bad...no matter the magnitude. JoePa was a PSU institution...but he wasn't THE PSU institution. It's just far too easy to place the blame on a deceased figurehead than it is to actually investigate the full truth. I think the end result of this would have been different had JoePa not passed away in the midst of it.

I'm happy to allow everyone their opinions here. I can't disagree with how any of you feel, and you're entitled to feel that way. I feel a lot better about this thread than I did when this was front page news. At least now I can express my views without being attacked. That's really all I ever hoped for here...We can all agree that this is one of the worst stories to come out in terms of human suffering. Regardless of our views on Paterno, we're all aligned on Sandusky, and hopefully the lessons learned here will help prevent this in the future.

 

[Raider Nation]

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Jerry Sandusky's adopted son Matthew says his sexual abuse at the former Penn State coach's hands consisted of oral sex, a more serious allegation than he made to detectives two years ago.

Matthew Sandusky spoke Thursday on "Oprah Prime" about abuse he says occurred when Jerry Sandusky would tuck him in during overnight stays at the Sandusky home in State College. His claims of abuse arose during the 2012 trial that resulted in a 45-count conviction, but Jerry Sandusky has never been charged with any crime in relation to his adopted son.

Matthew Sandusky previously told investigators Sandusky had rubbed along or against his genitals but that he did not recall any penetration or oral sex.

Jerry Sandusky maintains his innocence. Matt Sandusky settled a civil claim with Penn State.

Jerry is a real peach.

 

[MC Gas Money]

Just ordered his book "touched" on amazon

 

[Billy Bats]

Too bad this guy didn't walk in on Sandusky instead of that fairy ginger.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/26054502/daytona-dad-beats-man-he-found-allegedly-raping-his-son-report-says?clienttype=generic&smartdevicecgbypass

"I just walked in a grown man molesting...and I got him in a bloody puddle for you, officer."

"He is nice and knocked out on the floor for you," the dad reportedly told police.

 

[Raider Nation]

Good to put this thing behind us.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

The victims will never be able to put this behind them.

 

[Tom Servo]

The victims will never be able to put this behind them.

That's understood. IMO RN was talking about the players...you know, the ones who had zero to do with it?

 

[culdeus]

So are the rest of them going to get away with it?

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

So are the rest of them going to get away with it?

I think the general belief is that they will not get away with it.

 

[culdeus]

So are the rest of them going to get away with it?

I think the general belief is that they will not get away with it.

How has there been no trial or progress in these years? They either have the goods on them or they don't at this point.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

So are the rest of them going to get away with it?

I think the general belief is that they will not get away with it.

How has there been no trial or progress in these years? They either have the goods on them or they don't at this point.

I honestly can't tell you that. I know that the three are awaiting trial, but I don't know what's taking so long. I haven't been following the delays that closely.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

So are the rest of them going to get away with it?

I think the general belief is that they will not get away with it.

How has there been no trial or progress in these years? They either have the goods on them or they don't at this point.

I honestly can't tell you that. I know that the three are awaiting trial, but I don't know what's taking so long. I haven't been following the delays that closely.

I thought I read somewhere that they don't really have a good case. Something about it being harder to prove perjury than it would seem.

 

[dparker713]

The victims will never be able to put this behind them.

That's understood. IMO RN was talking about the players...you know, the ones who had zero to do with it?

That's a silly viewpoint. Organizational punishments always effect more than just the perpetrators. How are those USC sanctions effecting Pete Carroll?

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

The victims will never be able to put this behind them.

That's understood. IMO RN was talking about the players...you know, the ones who had zero to do with it?

Yeah, I get that. They had zero to do with it, but putting something behind you means that you suffered or were harmed. I don't think that's the case with the players as what they went through was trivial.

 

[Tom Servo]

The victims will never be able to put this behind them.

That's understood. IMO RN was talking about the players...you know, the ones who had zero to do with it?

Yeah, I get that. They had zero to do with it, but putting something behind you means that you suffered or were harmed. I don't think that's the case with the players as what they went through was trivial.

No one is saying it is. In the realm of college footbaw, it is several orders of magnitude below that of the molestation victims. In that realm which is a much lower level of things, the team had obstacles placed in front of it that most other athletes will ever see. The fact that they mostly stuck together, went through 2 head coaches and were playing shorthanded scholarship-wise, proved that hurdles can be cleared.

 

[Tom Servo]

It's not hit the national news yet, but get ready for Sandusky 2: Electric Boogaloo. Sandusky went to court yesterday seeking a new trial, but instead the judge hearing the appeal dropped a bomb. He wants proof from AG Kathleen Kane (in a scandal of her own and is currently serving with her law license suspended) that leaked information prompted more victims to come forward:

But late in the hearing, Judge John Cleland began asking questions about a Kane news release issued Wednesday that suggested Judge Barry Feudale, who supervised the Sandusky investigative grand jury, played a role in leaking secret material to help prosecutors. Kane cited emails attributed to Feudale in her investigation of an ongoing larger email scandal.

"Judge Feudale's overriding concern was how to leak sealed Supreme Court documents without getting caught," Kane said in her news release Wednesday.

Cleland, who will decide whether to toss out Sandusky's conviction, then ordered Kane to provide a written explanation filed under seal explaining her comments. If she does not satisfy the order by next Wednesday, she is ordered to testimony under oath in a closed court session next Thursday. That would happen if the judge determines that she hasn't complied with the order to provide, under seal, information about "who, what, when and how this information was released."

 

[AAABatteries]

So, they are saying that they could potentially throw out his verdict because some victims came forward because of leaked information? I need a lawyer to explain this - I could see how the person who leaked the information gets in trouble but is this like evidence from an illegal search and gets tossed? Seems odd to me.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Opened this up hoping he had died

 

[Tom Servo]

So, they are saying that they could potentially throw out his verdict because some victims came forward because of leaked information? I need a lawyer to explain this - I could see how the person who leaked the information gets in trouble but is this like evidence from an illegal search and gets tossed? Seems odd to me.

From what I understand, the prosecution felt the case was weak and needed more witnesses. Kane (allegedly) leaks grand jury testimony to help reel in more witnesses to testify against JS.

It's something that when she ran for AG, she campaigned on being different than the boys in Harrisburg. In reality, she's been in hot water from the jump.

 

[Tom Servo]

Opened this up hoping he had died

And I want the Indians to win theWorld Series, so....

 

[dhockster]

So, they are saying that they could potentially throw out his verdict because some victims came forward because of leaked information? I need a lawyer to explain this - I could see how the person who leaked the information gets in trouble but is this like evidence from an illegal search and gets tossed? Seems odd to me.

Fruit from the poisonous tree!

See, I watch law and order.

 

[glock]

Opened this up hoping he had died

I'm thinking should he get sprung he'll get "died."

 

[mquinnjr]

It's not hit the national news yet, but get ready for Sandusky 2: Electric Boogaloo. Sandusky went to court yesterday seeking a new trial, but instead the judge hearing the appeal dropped a bomb. He wants proof from AG Kathleen Kane (in a scandal of her own and is currently serving with her law license suspended) that leaked information prompted more victims to come forward:

But late in the hearing, Judge John Cleland began asking questions about a Kane news release issued Wednesday that suggested Judge Barry Feudale, who supervised the Sandusky investigative grand jury, played a role in leaking secret material to help prosecutors. Kane cited emails attributed to Feudale in her investigation of an ongoing larger email scandal.

"Judge Feudale's overriding concern was how to leak sealed Supreme Court documents without getting caught," Kane said in her news release Wednesday.

Cleland, who will decide whether to toss out Sandusky's conviction, then ordered Kane to provide a written explanation filed under seal explaining her comments. If she does not satisfy the order by next Wednesday, she is ordered to testimony under oath in a closed court session next Thursday. That would happen if the judge determines that she hasn't complied with the order to provide, under seal, information about "who, what, when and how this information was released."

If Sandusky gets out on a technicality of this nature, I don't even know what to say. I wouldn't want someone to commit an act of violence on him, but if he were to have a heart attack or get hit by a bus I wouldn't feel too terribly about it.

 

[Fat Nick]

It's not hit the national news yet, but get ready for Sandusky 2: Electric Boogaloo. Sandusky went to court yesterday seeking a new trial, but instead the judge hearing the appeal dropped a bomb. He wants proof from AG Kathleen Kane (in a scandal of her own and is currently serving with her law license suspended) that leaked information prompted more victims to come forward:

But late in the hearing, Judge John Cleland began asking questions about a Kane news release issued Wednesday that suggested Judge Barry Feudale, who supervised the Sandusky investigative grand jury, played a role in leaking secret material to help prosecutors. Kane cited emails attributed to Feudale in her investigation of an ongoing larger email scandal.

"Judge Feudale's overriding concern was how to leak sealed Supreme Court documents without getting caught," Kane said in her news release Wednesday.

Cleland, who will decide whether to toss out Sandusky's conviction, then ordered Kane to provide a written explanation filed under seal explaining her comments. If she does not satisfy the order by next Wednesday, she is ordered to testimony under oath in a closed court session next Thursday. That would happen if the judge determines that she hasn't complied with the order to provide, under seal, information about "who, what, when and how this information was released."

If Sandusky gets out on a technicality of this nature, I don't even know what to say. I wouldn't want someone to commit an act of violence on him, but if he were to have a heart attack or get hit by a bus I wouldn't feel too terribly about it.

Truthfully, if he didn't live in protective custody for the rest of his life, I think somebody would at least try and take him out.

 

[grateful zed]

he is just, misunderstood.

 

[squistion]

It's not hit the national news yet, but get ready for Sandusky 2: Electric Boogaloo. Sandusky went to court yesterday seeking a new trial, but instead the judge hearing the appeal dropped a bomb. He wants proof from AG Kathleen Kane (in a scandal of her own and is currently serving with her law license suspended) that leaked information prompted more victims to come forward:

But late in the hearing, Judge John Cleland began asking questions about a Kane news release issued Wednesday that suggested Judge Barry Feudale, who supervised the Sandusky investigative grand jury, played a role in leaking secret material to help prosecutors. Kane cited emails attributed to Feudale in her investigation of an ongoing larger email scandal.

"Judge Feudale's overriding concern was how to leak sealed Supreme Court documents without getting caught," Kane said in her news release Wednesday.

Cleland, who will decide whether to toss out Sandusky's conviction, then ordered Kane to provide a written explanation filed under seal explaining her comments. If she does not satisfy the order by next Wednesday, she is ordered to testimony under oath in a closed court session next Thursday. That would happen if the judge determines that she hasn't complied with the order to provide, under seal, information about "who, what, when and how this information was released."

If Sandusky gets out on a technicality of this nature, I don't even know what to say. I wouldn't want someone to commit an act of violence on him, but if he were to have a heart attack or get hit by a bus I wouldn't feel too terribly about it.

He won't get out. Worst case scenario is that there is a new trial - but the evidence is so overwhelming against him that the prosecution would have no problem getting another conviction.

 

[Zow]

So, they are saying that they could potentially throw out his verdict because some victims came forward because of leaked information? I need a lawyer to explain this - I could see how the person who leaked the information gets in trouble but is this like evidence from an illegal search and gets tossed? Seems odd to me.

Admittedly, this is a weird scenario that I've never seen before (and I'd defer to any PA attorneys on the issue). In my jurisdiction, the grand jury is essentially reactive to what is presented to them by the prosecutor. So, usually, a prosecutor is going to know the same as a grand jury (if not more). Therefore, while the GJ proceedings are "secret," they really aren't earth shattering and the transcripts are available upon indictment.

It sounds like PA's grand jury rules run differently and they have an investigative function that includes a judiciary and not the prosecutor. It sounds like the judge overseeing the grand jury got this evidence to the state. The argument then may not be as much of an exclusionary rule issue, but more so what is called a procedural due process violation. Although, I could see the argument that the exclusionary rule applies because the actions do still involve state actors not following the procedural due process rights of the defendant.

Weird. I'm curious as to how this plays out. It's also somewhat telling to me that since this issue arose so late in the hearing, that the defense may not have even raised it. Just strange.

 

[culdeus]

So, they are saying that they could potentially throw out his verdict because some victims came forward because of leaked information? I need a lawyer to explain this - I could see how the person who leaked the information gets in trouble but is this like evidence from an illegal search and gets tossed? Seems odd to me.

Admittedly, this is a weird scenario that I've never seen before (and I'd defer to any PA attorneys on the issue). In my jurisdiction, the grand jury is essentially reactive to what is presented to them by the prosecutor. So, usually, a prosecutor is going to know the same as a grand jury (if not more). Therefore, while the GJ proceedings are "secret," they really aren't earth shattering and the transcripts are available upon indictment.

It sounds like PA's grand jury rules run differently and they have an investigative function that includes a judiciary and not the prosecutor. It sounds like the judge overseeing the grand jury got this evidence to the state. The argument then may not be as much of an exclusionary rule issue, but more so what is called a procedural due process violation. Although, I could see the argument that the exclusionary rule applies because the actions do still involve state actors not following the procedural due process rights of the defendant.

Weird. I'm curious as to how this plays out. It's also somewhat telling to me that since this issue arose so late in the hearing, that the defense may not have even raised it. Just strange.

Could you break this down for someone a little dumber than me?

 

[Fat Nick]

So, they are saying that they could potentially throw out his verdict because some victims came forward because of leaked information? I need a lawyer to explain this - I could see how the person who leaked the information gets in trouble but is this like evidence from an illegal search and gets tossed? Seems odd to me.

Admittedly, this is a weird scenario that I've never seen before (and I'd defer to any PA attorneys on the issue). In my jurisdiction, the grand jury is essentially reactive to what is presented to them by the prosecutor. So, usually, a prosecutor is going to know the same as a grand jury (if not more). Therefore, while the GJ proceedings are "secret," they really aren't earth shattering and the transcripts are available upon indictment.

It sounds like PA's grand jury rules run differently and they have an investigative function that includes a judiciary and not the prosecutor. It sounds like the judge overseeing the grand jury got this evidence to the state. The argument then may not be as much of an exclusionary rule issue, but more so what is called a procedural due process violation. Although, I could see the argument that the exclusionary rule applies because the actions do still involve state actors not following the procedural due process rights of the defendant.

Weird. I'm curious as to how this plays out. It's also somewhat telling to me that since this issue arose so late in the hearing, that the defense may not have even raised it. Just strange.

Could you break this down for someone a little dumber than me?

PA is strange.

 

[Zow]

So, they are saying that they could potentially throw out his verdict because some victims came forward because of leaked information? I need a lawyer to explain this - I could see how the person who leaked the information gets in trouble but is this like evidence from an illegal search and gets tossed? Seems odd to me.

Admittedly, this is a weird scenario that I've never seen before (and I'd defer to any PA attorneys on the issue). In my jurisdiction, the grand jury is essentially reactive to what is presented to them by the prosecutor. So, usually, a prosecutor is going to know the same as a grand jury (if not more). Therefore, while the GJ proceedings are "secret," they really aren't earth shattering and the transcripts are available upon indictment.

It sounds like PA's grand jury rules run differently and they have an investigative function that includes a judiciary and not the prosecutor. It sounds like the judge overseeing the grand jury got this evidence to the state. The argument then may not be as much of an exclusionary rule issue, but more so what is called a procedural due process violation. Although, I could see the argument that the exclusionary rule applies because the actions do still involve state actors not following the procedural due process rights of the defendant.

Weird. I'm curious as to how this plays out. It's also somewhat telling to me that since this issue arose so late in the hearing, that the defense may not have even raised it. Just strange.

Could you break this down for someone a little dumber than me?

PA is strange.

Yeah, I mean this is my job and I really don't entirely grasp what is happening here (and, frankly, haven't followed this case that closely at all other than to monitor Sandusky's physical health because he's on my death pool team).

Culdues, dumbing it down, basically:

1. It sounds like maybe the judge in the case did some underhanded stuff to get information to the prosecutor that maybe she wouldn't have otherwise had. There are likely procedural rules put in place that say the judge can't do this. It sounds like the prosecutor is saying he did.

2. When a person is charged with a crime, he has a right to essentially a fair procedure of his case (we call this "procedural due process"). This includes things like the right to a speedy trial, the right to an attorney, the right to have time to challenge evidence, the right to see any meaningful evidence the state has, etc. If these rights aren't follow the defendant might be able to complain about it later and have the process done again. Here, the defendant may have had the right to a secret grand jury investigation (again, I don't know this and it may be PA specific). It may not have been followed because the judge broke the rules. So, he may be entitled to a new trial.

3. There is something in law called the "exclusionary rule." While it's caselaw is lengthy and complicated and many scholars argue against its existence, the idea of the rule is simple: if the state violates a person's rights in obtaining the evidence then the state doesn't get to use the evidence at trial. Usually this rule applies to Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights (e.g. if the police search a house without a warrant any evidence they find might get thrown out) but it does apply to fifth amendment procedural rights too (e.g. if a defendant is interrogated while in handcuffs without being read his rights and makes a confession, that confession likely gets thrown out). Here, it sounds like the state may have gotten additional evidence (in the form of more victims) by the judge's alleged breaking of the GJ rules. So, the issue arises, in addition to whether Sandusky gets a new trial, whether the State can use this alleged leaked evidence at that trial.

Dumbing it down even more, this sounds like a huge mess and I don't necessarily trust a media report to get it right or for somebody to rely on to really give a good outlook and what is happening.

 

[Tom Servo]

Maybe this story will shed some background for you lawyers out there.

It's unclear from the emails what, if anything, Feudale gave to the newspaper days before it reported on his removal as supervisor of a statewide investigative grand jury. On Tuesday, the Inquirer reported that Kane had the emails and that they had been offered to reporters.

Two emails involve contacts with two reporters from the Inquirer in July 2013, days before the newspaper reported Kane had initiated a process removing Feudale from supervising the Harrisburg-based jury that investigated public corruption cases and the Jerry Sandusky child-molestation scandal. Kane was critical of Feudale's role in them.

 

[Tom Servo]

Also, this:

Judge John Cleland was reacting to a press statement released by Kane's office Wednesday.

In it, she accused the judge who supervised the Sandusky grand jury, Barry Feudale, of leaking sealed matters to a pair of Philadelphia Inquirer reporters who were investigating his removal as a grand jury judge.

Feudale was removed after Kane took office in 2013, and the leaks Kane referred to Wednesday did not pertain to the Sandusky child sex abuse investigation directly.

But the Attorney General has alleged in the past that Feudale may have been too cozy with some of her predecessor's prosecutors, including Frank Fina, who led the Sandusky probe.

An earlier, internal review of the Sandusky prosecution conducted by a specially-appointed deputy to Kane was able to draw no conclusions about leaks from the Sandusky grand jury.

 

[Fennis]

Part of his and Penn State's probation should be that if Sandusky is ever released he is required to be Penn State HC.

 

[McGarnicle]

I hope he's getting violated with a broomstick right now.

 

[Zow]

I'm even more confused now.

 

[The General]

Clicked on this thinking it would be a story of how he died in the shower in prison.