Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (2 Viewers)

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm guessing everyone's beyond defending Paterno after this blurb, right?

But he's done so much good.

 

[AmosMoses]

He was a good football coach. That has to count for something.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I'm all for a house cleaning, including Big Joe. But how come the pitch forks aren't after Spanier and McQueary on the same level as Joe? Just wondering.

When a general or a CEO gets fired no one hears about the people in the office who committed the fraud or drew up the faulty battle plan. We hear about the failure of the general or CEO. That guy is this scenario is JoePa. He worked for no one at Penn State, he could have prevented this from getting completely out of hand from a public relations/security/morality standpoint.ETA: sp

Good points. People did even less that Joe, and he's taking the brunt force for all of them. I guess that what comes with the responsibility of being the face and icon that Joe is. Which after thinking about it, makes even more sense that they're after him moreso than the others. When this first broke, I debated like others, that he did enough by reporting it to school admins, the chain of command argument. But the more I read, listen, learn and realize just how big he is and what he represents, then he failed miserably. His responsibility, arguably, is even greater than the school's president. I'm seeing the bigger picture now. What a shame. He's ruined a lifelong legacy with his inactions.

Sorry, but this feels like BS.He is in hot water directly because he passed the buck, when he should have done something. It has nothing to do with his "role" as a figurehead of the college. Any head coach in this situation shoudl have done more than Paterno did - he knows it.

His responsibility stems from learning that someone he knew was potentially using the Penn State facilities to fondle young boys.

Even under the best light, as noted above, GA came to visit him Saturday morning, he did not even call the AD until Sunday. What did he do from Saturday morning until Sunday that was so important that he thought this could wait?

I guess now we know why he waited, it being the weekend, and all.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Well, during the Fall there is college football on Saturdays so of course Paterno would wait.

All vile scum.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Well, during the Fall there is college football on Saturdays so of course Paterno would wait.All vile scum.

It wasn't during the Fall. It was early April, IIRC.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Well, during the Fall there is college football on Saturdays so of course Paterno would wait.All vile scum.

It wasn't during the Fall. It was early April, IIRC.

Saturday morning cartoons are important, too.

 

[joffer]

I'm guessing everyone's beyond defending Paterno after this blurb, right?

Really doesn't change my opinion of his actions in this at all

 

[pantherclub]

I havent read the past 20 or so pages but are people really defing Jopa?

 

[Apple Jack]

"Can't people have a nice quiet Saturday at the farmers market without all this one of our coaches was sodomizing children in our facility blah blah blah? I think I did the right thing. I love peaches."

 

[AmosMoses]

I havent read the past 20 or so pages but are people really defing Jopa?

One person suggested he is getting a bad rap. But I think it was just fishing. No one can seriously defend Paterno here.About McQueary: So when he said "I made sure it stopped" he really meant "I waited until Sandusky finished"? McQueary needs to serve some time here.

 

[Sea Duck]

I havent read the past 20 or so pages but are people really defing Jopa?

One person suggested he is getting a bad rap. But I think it was just fishing. No one can seriously defend Paterno here.About McQueary: So when he said "I made sure it stopped" he really meant "I waited until Sandusky finished"? McQueary needs to serve some time here.

Or maybe "I made sure that he knew I was there so that he would stop without me having to get involved."

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I havent read the past 20 or so pages but are people really defing Jopa?

One person suggested he is getting a bad rap. But I think it was just fishing. No one can seriously defend Paterno here.About McQueary: So when he said "I made sure it stopped" he really meant "I waited until Sandusky finished"? McQueary needs to serve some time here.

I don't think anyone is really defending Paterno in the sense that he did the right thing. But based on the testimony from yesterday I saw several national writers tweet that Paterno doesn't sound as bad as he did before. I think that's mainly based on the following statements:McQueary said Paterno was shocked when he was told (making you think maybe he really didn't know about the 1998 incident or about what was going on)Paterno told McQueary that he did the right thing telling someone (Paterno)McQueary saying that Paterno followed up with him, several times IIRC, in the following months to ask McQ if he was satisfied with the solution/response from Curley and Schultz. McQ said he was (which, frankly, was the wrong thing for McQ to say)Now for some reason the "weekend" quote is out recently on this thread. It certainly sounds callous. However that quote was part of the Grand Jury summary so I'm not sure why people are up in arms about it now. The way I think about Paterno's actions in this case are on a scale from 0 to 10. A zero is doing absolutely nothing and trying to cover it up. A ten is immediately grabbing a gun, going to Sandusky's house and shooting him. I think most people think Paterno is about a 1 on that scale. I now think it's closer to a 4 or 5. Still certainly could have done more and should have. Could have called the local cops himself or made sure Curley/McQ did. Could have insisted that Sandusky never be let on campus again. Could have made sure that not only did the Second Mile know, but they didn't let Sandusky work with young boys anymore. So lots of stuff he should have done. But after the initial Grand Jury summary, it seemed like he both possibly covered it up and like he never followed up at all, like he forgot about it. After yesterday it seems much less likely that he did any covering up and he did follow up with McQ at least. So moving from a 1-2 to a 4-5 on the scale. Don't think he could ever get above that value though unless we find out that he did independently call the cops or something. And he certainly can fall back down the scale if we find out more info in the future.

 

[Sea Duck]

based on the testimony from yesterday I saw several national writers tweet that Paterno doesn't sound as bad as he did before. I think that's mainly based on the following statements:

McQueary said Paterno was shocked when he was told (making you think maybe he really didn't know about the 1998 incident or about what was going on)

Paterno told McQueary that he did the right thing telling someone (Paterno)

McQueary saying that Paterno followed up with him, several times IIRC, in the following months to ask McQ if he was satisfied with the solution/response from Curley and Schultz. McQ said he was (which, frankly, was the wrong thing for McQ to say)

Good lord. I'd like to know which writers think this makes Paterno look better. What kind of coward follows up with "Are you satisfied with the solution" instead of "Why haven't you called child protective services?"

 

[ConstruxBoy]

based on the testimony from yesterday I saw several national writers tweet that Paterno doesn't sound as bad as he did before. I think that's mainly based on the following statements:

McQueary said Paterno was shocked when he was told (making you think maybe he really didn't know about the 1998 incident or about what was going on)

Paterno told McQueary that he did the right thing telling someone (Paterno)

McQueary saying that Paterno followed up with him, several times IIRC, in the following months to ask McQ if he was satisfied with the solution/response from Curley and Schultz. McQ said he was (which, frankly, was the wrong thing for McQ to say)

Good lord. I'd like to know which writers think this makes Paterno look better. What kind of coward follows up with "Are you satisfied with the solution" instead of "Why haven't you called child protective services?"

I honestly don't remember who, although I'm pretty sure Dan Wetzel at Yahoo was one of them. I also follow Staples, Mandel, Feldman and couple of others.

 

[CrossEyed]

I havent read the past 20 or so pages but are people really defing Jopa?

One person suggested he is getting a bad rap. But I think it was just fishing. No one can seriously defend Paterno here.About McQueary: So when he said "I made sure it stopped" he really meant "I waited until Sandusky finished"? McQueary needs to serve some time here.

I don't think anyone is really defending Paterno in the sense that he did the right thing. But based on the testimony from yesterday I saw several national writers tweet that Paterno doesn't sound as bad as he did before. I think that's mainly based on the following statements:McQueary said Paterno was shocked when he was told (making you think maybe he really didn't know about the 1998 incident or about what was going on)

Paterno told McQueary that he did the right thing telling someone (Paterno)

McQueary saying that Paterno followed up with him, several times IIRC, in the following months to ask McQ if he was satisfied with the solution/response from Curley and Schultz. McQ said he was (which, frankly, was the wrong thing for McQ to say)

Now for some reason the "weekend" quote is out recently on this thread. It certainly sounds callous. However that quote was part of the Grand Jury summary so I'm not sure why people are up in arms about it now.

The way I think about Paterno's actions in this case are on a scale from 0 to 10. A zero is doing absolutely nothing and trying to cover it up. A ten is immediately grabbing a gun, going to Sandusky's house and shooting him. I think most people think Paterno is about a 1 on that scale. I now think it's closer to a 4 or 5. Still certainly could have done more and should have. Could have called the local cops himself or made sure Curley/McQ did. Could have insisted that Sandusky never be let on campus again. Could have made sure that not only did the Second Mile know, but they didn't let Sandusky work with young boys anymore. So lots of stuff he should have done.

But after the initial Grand Jury summary, it seemed like he both possibly covered it up and like he never followed up at all, like he forgot about it. After yesterday it seems much less likely that he did any covering up and he did follow up with McQ at least.

So moving from a 1-2 to a 4-5 on the scale. Don't think he could ever get above that value though unless we find out that he did independently call the cops or something. And he certainly can fall back down the scale if we find out more info in the future.

It was part of his GJ testimony, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't included in the summary report. This is new info to the public.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Two letters. O. J. Criminal trials don't often turn out the way we expect.

The OJ verdict was pretty obvious from the start, wasn't it? Were you really shocked by the jury verdict?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I havent read the past 20 or so pages but are people really defing Jopa?

One person suggested he is getting a bad rap. But I think it was just fishing. No one can seriously defend Paterno here.About McQueary: So when he said "I made sure it stopped" he really meant "I waited until Sandusky finished"? McQueary needs to serve some time here.

I don't think anyone is really defending Paterno in the sense that he did the right thing. But based on the testimony from yesterday I saw several national writers tweet that Paterno doesn't sound as bad as he did before. I think that's mainly based on the following statements:McQueary said Paterno was shocked when he was told (making you think maybe he really didn't know about the 1998 incident or about what was going on)

Paterno told McQueary that he did the right thing telling someone (Paterno)

McQueary saying that Paterno followed up with him, several times IIRC, in the following months to ask McQ if he was satisfied with the solution/response from Curley and Schultz. McQ said he was (which, frankly, was the wrong thing for McQ to say)

Now for some reason the "weekend" quote is out recently on this thread. It certainly sounds callous. However that quote was part of the Grand Jury summary so I'm not sure why people are up in arms about it now.

The way I think about Paterno's actions in this case are on a scale from 0 to 10. A zero is doing absolutely nothing and trying to cover it up. A ten is immediately grabbing a gun, going to Sandusky's house and shooting him. I think most people think Paterno is about a 1 on that scale. I now think it's closer to a 4 or 5. Still certainly could have done more and should have. Could have called the local cops himself or made sure Curley/McQ did. Could have insisted that Sandusky never be let on campus again. Could have made sure that not only did the Second Mile know, but they didn't let Sandusky work with young boys anymore. So lots of stuff he should have done.

But after the initial Grand Jury summary, it seemed like he both possibly covered it up and like he never followed up at all, like he forgot about it. After yesterday it seems much less likely that he did any covering up and he did follow up with McQ at least.

So moving from a 1-2 to a 4-5 on the scale. Don't think he could ever get above that value though unless we find out that he did independently call the cops or something. And he certainly can fall back down the scale if we find out more info in the future.

It was part of his GJ testimony, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't included in the summary report. This is new info to the public.

Hmm...swear I read that somewhere before yesterday. Maybe not.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Two letters. O. J. Criminal trials don't often turn out the way we expect.

The OJ verdict was pretty obvious from the start, wasn't it? Were you really shocked by the jury verdict?

I wasn't shocked when it came time to read the verdict because of the stupid glove. But I thought it was pretty obvious he was guilty and would be found guilty when the trial started. Maybe I'm not cynical enough?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...But I do think that the Prosecution lost a little bit if McQ isn't an iron clad eyewitness. ...

There has never been a point where McQuery's been considered an "iron clad eyewitness". The moment he ran and hide his credibility took a hit.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

...But I do think that the Prosecution lost a little bit if McQ isn't an iron clad eyewitness. ...

There has never been a point where McQuery's been considered an "iron clad eyewitness". The moment he ran and hide his credibility took a hit.

I guess my point is that the testimony of a third party, who was in his twenties, a Grad Asst and is now a Asst coach, is better than the testimony of a 10-12 year old boy from a pretty poor background. It may not be fair, and I don't think any of these kids are lying, but McQueary was a better witness than they are for a jury, IMHO.

 

[CrossEyed]

The thing that I always think about in cases like this is ("he said, she said"), who has more incentive to be lying? I don't see what McQueary has to gain by lying about what he saw, then or now. Why would he make it up?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The thing that I always think about in cases like this is ("he said, she said"), who has more incentive to be lying? I don't see what McQueary has to gain by lying about what he saw, then or now. Why would he make it up?

Oh I agree 100%. My point is more that you could make a case that the kids have an incentive to lie (get back at a guy they didn't really like, fame, money, etc). So any credibility hit that McQueary takes is a hit to the prosecution's case. They should still have more than enough ammo. Just saying that if we think these things really happened (and I do) and if we want Sandusky punished to the full extent of the law (and I do), then we want McQueary to be an outstanding and credible witness for the prosecution.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The thing that I always think about in cases like this is ("he said, she said"), who has more incentive to be lying? I don't see what McQueary has to gain by lying about what he saw, then or now. Why would he make it up?

Sure but in McQueary's case is the two sides are what he said he saw versus what he did. This thread already contains these questions. If he was so certain of what he saw how could he quietly go to work for almost a decade knowing that the chain of command you report to did nothing? Is there really a credible answer to this question other than Mr Tough Football guy is ultimately a coward and/or has a skewed sense of priorities? You know everyone is not as forgiving as me of these types of human frailties. Some people consider this kind of behavior as evil. Is the testimony of self centered evil cowards compelling?

 

[CrossEyed]

The thing that I always think about in cases like this is ("he said, she said"), who has more incentive to be lying? I don't see what McQueary has to gain by lying about what he saw, then or now. Why would he make it up?

Sure but in McQueary's case is the two sides are what he said he saw versus what he did. This thread already contains these questions. If he was so certain of what he saw how could he quietly go to work for almost a decade knowing that the chain of command you report to did nothing? Is there really a credible answer to this question other than Mr Tough Football guy is ultimately a coward and/or has a skewed sense of priorities? You know everyone is not as forgiving as me of these types of human frailties. Some people consider this kind of behavior as evil. Is the testimony of self centered evil cowards compelling?

Yeah, I haven't heard a good explanation for that either. But I still don't know why he'd make it up.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The thing that I always think about in cases like this is ("he said, she said"), who has more incentive to be lying? I don't see what McQueary has to gain by lying about what he saw, then or now. Why would he make it up?

Sure but in McQueary's case is the two sides are what he said he saw versus what he did. This thread already contains these questions. If he was so certain of what he saw how could he quietly go to work for almost a decade knowing that the chain of command you report to did nothing? Is there really a credible answer to this question other than Mr Tough Football guy is ultimately a coward and/or has a skewed sense of priorities? You know everyone is not as forgiving as me of these types of human frailties. Some people consider this kind of behavior as evil. Is the testimony of self centered evil cowards compelling?

Honestly no idea on this. When this story first broke, I was thinking it was some random Grad Asst that had left the program soon after it happened. The fact that he's been there the whole time is almost disturbing. Especially since it doesn't SEEM like he was promoted to keep quiet. He had the same general career path and time to move up the ladder as Major Applewhite at Texas and some other asst coaches. And most PSU fans felt like he was a good coach and it was a deserved promotion. It wasn't like we were wondering how the heck he had a job or anything. So if he really wasn't given the job because of that but he was a good coach and hard worker, why didn't he just go to some other program and distance himself from the whole situation? And yes, I agree that still is "running away". Very odd.

 

[grateful zed]

 

[Short Corner]

Two letters. O. J. Criminal trials don't often turn out the way we expect.

The OJ verdict was pretty obvious from the start, wasn't it? Were you really shocked by the jury verdict?

I wasn't shocked when it came time to read the verdict because of the stupid glove. But I thought it was pretty obvious he was guilty and would be found guilty when the trial started. Maybe I'm not cynical enough?

I think the evidence gave more than a reasonable doubt

 

[CrossEyed]

Just saw this on Twitter:

Joe Amendola told me Dottie and Jerry #Sandusky want to talk to Oprah, 60min, Rock Center or Barbara Walters after Jan.1

That should be interesting. What is this attorney thinking?

 

[culdeus]

Local Sports Person Discusses This

This may or may not be relevant here. It is getting some amount of discussion locally.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=7368256&i=TWT&w=1bb2h&wjb

Ex-Second Mile officials: CEO to blame?

Associated Press

December 19, 2011

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Former board members of Jerry Sandusky's charity say its CEO never told them about a 2002 shower incident that is the focus of child sexual abuse charges against the retired Penn State assistant coach. If they knew Sandusky had been banned from bringing kids on campus, they say they could have taken steps to better protect children a decade ago.

"Not one thing was said to us," said Bradley P. Lunsford, a Centre County judge who served on the Second Mile board between 2001 and 2005. "Not a damn thing."

If more information had been given to board members, they "would have asked the follow-up question: Why? You don't know? Who knows? Who can we talk to? Has this been reported to the police?" Lunsford said. "I guarantee you there would have been a competition among all those people to be the first to ask the question, 'Why is he not allowed on campus?' "

Lunsford and four other former board members at The Second Mile point the finger at Jack Raykovitz, a close friend of Sandusky's who ran the charity until resigning following the former coach's Nov. 5 arrest.

A former prosecutor, Lunsford said Raykovitz had an obligation to tell the board. "There are a number of people around that table who have been involved with children's charities for years and there's a very good chance that if given accurate information about what the allegation was, there's a lot of people around that table who could have done something about it."

One of Raykovitz's vice presidents said Raykovitz also shared little information with his managers about a 2008 sexual abuse complaint that led to the current criminal charges against Sandusky.

And the head of Clinton County's child welfare agency, where the 2008 investigation began, said he told Raykovitz's wife in November 2008 that Sandusky had been spoken to about getting "too close" to children involved with the charity. Gerald Rosamilia said Raykovitz's wife, Katherine Genovese, who helped run The Second Mile, did not define what was meant by "too close" or give a timeframe.

Raykovitz defended himself in a telephone interview, saying he acted appropriately at all times. "There have always been steps in place to protect kids," he said.

The grand jury that charged Sandusky with 52 sexual abuse-related counts involving 10 boys said the former coach "found his victims" through The Second Mile and committed many of his offenses inside Penn State football buildings.

The nonprofit had thrived since its creation in 1977 because of Sandusky's prominence as a defensive coach at Penn State, its close ties to university donors and leaders, and its use of Penn State's athletic fields for its camps serving at-risk children. Then-coach Joe Paterno often served as master of ceremonies at The Second Mile fundraisers.

Paterno, 84, led Penn State football for more than 45 years until early November, when the sexual abuse charges against Sandusky shook the entire university and claimed the jobs of major college football's winningest coach and the school's president, Graham Spanier.

Now, with The Second Mile's future in doubt, it is unclear whether Raykovitz properly handled the charity's response to the 2002 case.

Penn State athletic director Tim Curley testified that a graduate assistant had told him in 2002 only that he had seen "inappropriate conduct" that made him feel uncomfortable, and nothing of a sexual nature. But Mike McQueary, now an assistant coach, testified to the grand jury that he told Curley he saw what he believed to be Sandusky raping the boy, who he said was about 10.

Curley, who has been charged with perjury and failure to report a sex crime, testified he told Raykovitz of inappropriate conduct and that Sandusky was prohibited from bringing youth onto the Penn State campus.

Asked what Curley told him, Raykovitz cited a Nov. 6 Second Mile statement that referred only to inappropriate conduct: "At no time was The Second Mile made aware of the very serious allegations contained in the Grand Jury report."

The statement also said Curley, who has been placed on leave, told Raykovitz the shower incident "had been internally reviewed and that there was no finding of wrongdoing."

But Lunsford said the charity's board couldn't take action in 2002 that might have prevented other assaults of children "if there's a cover-up from the source."

Even if Raykovitz had only limited information, he still should have acted more aggressively in 2002 when contacted by Curley and should have viewed Curley's ban on Sandusky bringing Second Mile kids to campus as "a red flag," Lunsford said.

As the person in charge, Raykovitz was legally required to provide the board all available information whether he believed it was true or suspected it was false, Lunsford said.

"We still need to know. That's our job," he added. "By not telling us, it essentially rendered us ineffective and we had no chance to help those children."

Informed of Lunsford's comments, Raykovitz said, "He can feel anything he wants to feel."

Charles Markham, retired president of Uni-Marts Inc. and a Second Mile board member from the late 1990s until about 2004, said that Raykovitz never discussed the 2002 case with him personally or at board meetings. "If I'd known anything in 2002, I would have had a hard time keeping it under my hat," Markham said.

Two other former board members -- Larry Snavely, who runs a State College-based higher education marketing firm, and Donald Cross, a retired Centre County school employee -- said Raykovitz never mentioned the 2002 allegation. Another former member said he was not told, but asked that he not be publicly identified.

David Woodle, acting CEO, refused to address concerns raised by board members about Raykovitz's handling of information regarding the 2002 shower incident, saying to do so would be a distraction from the goal of helping serve children.

The board of directors of a children's charity is responsible for making sure that it operates under reasonable policies and procedures to protect children, according to Daniel Borochoff, president of Chicago-based Charity Watch. Individual board members can face lawsuits for failing in their oversight duties, and The Second Mile insures its board members against such claims.

The Second Mile has been named in two civil complaints, including one that seeks to preserve the charity's assets.

David Marshall, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who represents other accusers, said: "It may have been only Sandusky who laid his hands on these children, but it is clear that a number of other individuals and agencies placed the children in harm's way by knowingly taking actions that allowed the abuse to continue even after they became fully aware of it."

Raykovitz also is facing questions about his handling of the 2008 complaint.

Rosamilia, the Clinton County youth services chief, said he had informed Raykovitz's wife in November 2008 that his office was terminating its relationship with The Second Mile because of an abuse complaint. He said he had not identified the target of that complaint, but that Genovese eventually guessed correctly that it was Sandusky.

Rosamilia, who said he mentioned his conversation with Genovese to investigators working on the current prosecution, also recalled Genovese saying that a member of The Second Mile board planned to speak with Sandusky about staying away from Second Mile events involving children.

Raykovitz said Rosamilia's description of the conversation with his wife is incorrect. He would not elaborate. Attempts to reach Genovese were unsuccessful.

Raykovitz referred questions about what he did in 2008 to a prior statement, which said that when Sandusky told The Second Mile he was being investigated because of allegations made "by an adolescent male," the organization separated him from "all of our program activities involving children." The Second Mile statement makes no mention of the sexual nature of the 2008 complaint.

He said in the interview last week some staff at The Second Mile were informed in 2008 that the complaint was the reason Sandusky was not participating in programs serving children, but only on an "as-needed basis."

Bonnie Marshall, the charity's vice president for development, said Raykovitz described the 2008 complaint to her and other senior staff as a general abuse complaint, not one of a sexual nature.

She said Raykovitz explained that Sandusky would be taking a break from programs with children but would continue fundraising.

She said she also was unaware of Genovese's conversation with Rosamilia, and was not aware that anyone at the charity had ever spoken to Sandusky about getting too close to The Second Mile children.

In 2009, when Sandusky left the charity's board, Raykovitz told the staff that child welfare officials had issued a finding of abuse against Sandusky, Marshall said. But, she added, Raykovitz described it only as a general complaint being pursued by an angry mother who had accused Sandusky of wrongdoing, not a complaint of sexual abuse.

"I thought he would have told me that this was something really bad," Marshall said. "And he didn't."

 

[noNeo]

Like almost anything having to do with this that makes the mainstream media, Jerry Sandusky is just the tip of the iceberg of the real problem and the real powers in this country will fight until death to keep it that way. Everyone involved from Paterno to Graham Spanier to Jerry's Second Mile cohorts hem and haw that if they only knew more, they would have done something, oh yes they are all so sorry, that's why Jerry suddenly resigns in 1999 when they find out they still let him run football camps for kids...they are all more SICK than you'd ever wish to imagine.

It's an onion with 100 layers meant to obscure the truth, if you want to start peeling it back check out The Franklin Cover-Up by former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp. Here's the foreward:

" 'What do Ronald Reagan, President George Bush, former CIA Director William E, Colby, Democratic presidential candidate Bob Kerry, billionaire and second richest man in America and now head of Saloman Brothers - Warren Buffet, and Ronald Roskens, the current administrator of the Agency for International Development, all have in common?' I asked my close friend and advisor William Colby one day in 1991.

'I give up,' former head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Colby said. 'What could that group have in common?'

'Three things,' I replied, 'All of them a burden at times for those who have to carry them. The three things are me (John DeCamp), a case called Franklin and a man named Larry King.

'Are you serious?' Colby asked.

'Dead serious,' I responded. 'And I hope that word 'dead' does not turn out to be a prophetic pronouncement, as it has for at least fifteen other Franklin-related personalities.'

My statement to Bill Colby was not made lightly. Colby and his wife, Sally Shelton Colby, a United States ambassador under President Jimmy Carter, were at that very moment warning me to get away from the Franklin child abuse investigation, Larry King, and anybody else linked with Franklin, as quickly as possible for the sake of my own life and safety.

Sally and Bill had never talked to me like this before. They sat me down, made it clear that this was not one of our routine discussions about life and health and happiness, and emphasized to me the serious nature of what and whom I was dealing with.

'What you have to understand, John, is that sometimes there are forces and events too big, too powerful, with so much at stake for other people or institutions, that you cannot do anything about them, no matter how evil or wrong they are and no matter how dedicated or sincere you are or how much evidence you have."

That's a hell of a quote for someone as high up as head of the CIA isn't it?! Any surprise he mysteriously "committed suicide" in 1996? William Colby "suicide"A couple more quotes from the book...

"I was cautioned by an unknown person by telephone, that I was advised not to pursue the investigation, because it would lead, I was told, to the highest levels of the Republican Party. And I responded, that the investigation would go where it went." p.164

"A former security guard for (Larry) King has sworn that he saw (Oliver) North attend at least one of King's parties, a party at which children were also present." p.174

"Larry King adored Bill Casey, but what about one of Casey's predecessors at Central Intelligence - George Bush? Ever since July 23, 1989, when the lead editorial in the World-Herald said that 'one child...is said to believe that she saw George Bush at one of King's parties," King's connection with Bush has been a frequently asked question about the Franklin case. Anxiety on this account has run especially high in Omaha's black community, where in December 1990, one young lady stood up at a public meeting and proclaimed, 'I think George Bush is involved in this child abuse case, and that is why all these people have been dying.' " p.175

GEE, I WONDER WHY PATERNO DIDN'T DO MORE TO OUT SANDUSKYThe Second Mile might have been pimping boys out to rich donors but the mainstream media won't touch it!

What's really going on here??? Sandusky was so stupid he couldn't even keep it in his pants long enough to rape boys in private with his pedophile network, he did it right there in the locker room and got caught...they couldn't keep it quiet any longer so now the push is on to hang him and cover up everything else. Will "they" succeed? Depends on us. Do you care? Will you spread this information? Don't expect to see it on TV anytime soon.

Peace, Love and Truth to all of you

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

^^

Cool man.

 

[JZilla]

BGP?

 

[Mario Kart]

Where is Mulder when you need him?

 

[noNeo]

Paterno hires lawyer that represented GHW Bush during Iran Contra...http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-11/news/30389180_1_joe-paterno-legendary-penn-state-jerry-sandusky Do an image search for "George Bush and Paterno", these guys go way back

BGP?

Haha, no. I used to hang out here awhile back, but I'm a nobody. Just had a hell of a ride since I left.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Not even sure what to say.

 

[Mario Kart]

Not even sure what to say.

Could that be Mr. Ham?

 

[CrossEyed]

Starting to sound like Schultz was the biggest (but certainly not the only) culprit regarding the failure to investigate Sandusky more thoroughly.

Focus of public argument about moral responsibility turns to former Penn State official Gary SchultzPublished: Tuesday, December 20, 2011, 12:00 AM By SARA GANIM, The Patriot-News It was fairly clear to those listening to testimony on Friday in Dauphin County court that many people knew about child sex abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky in 2002.Mike McQueary. His father, John McQueary. State College doctor Jonathan Dranov.Penn State’s revered football coach Joe Paterno. Athletic Director Tim Curley. Vice President Gary Schultz. President Graham Spanier. Jack Raykovitz, the former CEO of Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile.But during the hearing on perjury and failure-to-report charges against Curley and Schultz, it also became very clear that just one of those figures knew this wasn’t the first time that someone made accusations against Sandusky.And that was Schultz.One of the little-mentioned witnesses during the preliminary hearing was Tom Harmon, the former Penn State University police chief, whose sole purpose on the stand was to link Schultz to the 1998 case and explain that his department was kept in the dark about the similar 2002 allegation.It’s becoming obvious that Schultz is now a focus of the public argument about moral responsibility to do more — the same that led to the ousters of Paterno and Spanier.In the court of law, the felony perjury charge is a much bigger deal — it carries a seven-year sentence.But in the court of public opinion, the summary failure to report — which has the same consequences of a traffic ticket — has been much more of a focus.Schultz, the only official to admit to knowing about two alleged incidents instead of one, is emerging as a key figure of blame in the prosecution’s case.What Schultz knew, saidHarmon, now retired and living in Pittsburgh, took the stand as the second witness Friday and testified that he remembers four phone calls with Schultz in 1998 about allegations that Sandusky hugged a boy during a shower in the Penn State football locker room.During the last conversation, Harmon said, he told Schultz that former District Attorney Ray Gricar reviewed the facts and determined no charges would be filed.Harmon also said Schultz, who was his boss, never told him about what was reported in 2002, but if he would have known, “We would have investigated and notified the DA,” he testified.By contrast, only a small portion of the testimony was about the perjury case against his co-defendant, Curley. McQueary testified that Curley and Schultz sat down with him and listened to him recount what he had seen in the shower that night — Sandusky standing with his front pressed up against the back of a boy about 10 years old. It’s McQueary’s word against theirs about the extent of the detail.A Dauphin County district judge ruled Friday after the daylong hearing that the state has enough evidence to go to trial against Curley and Schultz.The hearing testimony seemed lopsided, weighed heavily against Schultz.Only Schultz sat down with John McQueary and Dranov, weeks after the 2002 incident was reported by graduate assistant Mike McQueary, now an assistant coach, and was told for a second time that something very sexual happened, according to testimony.Only Schultz, head of the campus police department, knew about a weeks-long investigation four years prior, involving Sandusky, a boy and the same locker room as the one where McQueary told him he witnessed a sexual assault.Only Schultz told the grand jury that state Children and Youth Services was involved in the 2002 case, when there is no record that the agency was ever told.Only Schultz told grand jurors that he believed Sandusky had grabbed the boy’s genitals during some kind of horseplay.McQueary testified that by talking to Schultz, he believed he had notified police of what he’d seen in 2002, because Schultz was in charge of campus police.Why no follow-ups?After deciding that Sandusky should be banned from bringing kids to campus following the 2002 report by McQueary, Curley is the one who made the call to The Second Mile, telling Raykovitz that there had been an internal investigation into Sandusky.Raykovitz apparently did not tell the charity’s board, and former members became the latest to publicly defend themselves Monday.Police detective Ronald Schreffler and Pennsylvania Children and Youth Services investigator Jerry Lauro, both involved in the 1998 case, have blamed Gricar for not pursuing that case.No one can ask Gricar why the case wasn’t prosecuted, because he has been missing for seven years and has been legally declared dead.Schreffler listened in as Sandusky gave a seeming confession to the mother of a boy who was allegedly touched by Sandusky during a shower in 1998, according to a grand jury report. Schreffler said Monday he would never question Gricar’s judgment.However, Schreffler would not discuss why he didn’t revisit the case after Gricar left office.McQueary, when testifying Friday, was asked a similar question about the 2002 incident he reported.He said, absolutely, he believed he observed a crime.So, why didn’t he follow up? His answer was that he quietly disagreed with Penn State’s decision.The inaction is sure to be a big part of Sandusky’s defense. Sandusky is facing more than 50 charges of child sex abuse involving 10 victims. He waived a preliminary hearing last week and faces trial in Centre County Court. He has maintained his innocence and plans to fight the charges.While McQueary’s graphic testimony about seeing a boy being assaulted in a shower late at night in March 2002 was compelling, Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, has pointed out that his reaction doesn’t match the description of what he saw.“If anyone is naive enough to think for a minute that Tim Curley, Joe Paterno and Gary Schultz and Spanier, the university president, were told by Mike McQueary that he, Jerry Sandusky, was having anal sex with a 10-year-old looking kid in a shower room on Penn State property and their response was simply to tell Sandusky ‘don’t go in the shower anymore with kids,’ I suggest you dial 1-800-REALITY.”Schultz’s attorney: It makes no senseA similar argument was made by Schultz’s attorney, Tom Farrell, at the preliminary hearing.It makes no sense, he argued, that McQueary, his father, Paterno, Schultz and Curley would all decide not to call police if something so heinous was really described back in 2002.And, through questioning of Harmon, he showed that Schultz did nothing to shape the 1998 investigation.“He never gave you instructions as to how to enforce the law?” Farrell asked Harmon.“He did not.”“Did he ever interfere with you enforcing the law?”“He did not.”He continued.“And he let the investigation run its course?”“Yes.”“The investigation was closed because it was determined that no crime had occurred?”“Correct.”Curley was never told about the 1998 investigation, Harmon testified. So far, there’s no indication Spanier knew about it, either.Scott Paterno, the son of the legendary former coach, has said he’s been assured by university counsel that his father knew nothing about the 1998 report.Earlier, on the stand, Harmon said he talked to Schultz once a week or so.“Did Schultz ever talk to you about this incident?” prosecutor Bruce Beemer asked.“He did not,” Harmon said.© 2011 PennLive.com. All rights reserved.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Talked to a couple of other PSU alum this weekend about all this (so take the opinion with a grain of salt), but we really started to think that Schultz is the "nexus" of the non-action/cover-up. He's the only one that absolutely knew about 1998 since it was his Dept helping to investigate (hard to believe he didn't tell Curley or Paterno, but if he was trying to protect Sandusky, maybe he didn't). I think he also is the one that convinced everyone else that it wasn't a crime in 2002 and there wasn't a need for more action. I think he used his position as Head of Dept of Campus Police to make himself seem like an informed law enforcement officer, which I would guess he was not. But it was likely enough to convince Spanier, Curley and Paterno. You'll also see him in pictures with Sandusky's lawyer and at some Second Mile events. So maybe he was "in on it" the whole time or maybe he used his power/position to cover up for a friend. I find it interesting that it was Curley, not him, who informed Second Mile. Of course the Second Mile CEO didn't bother to tell anyone else there or do anything. Just maddening.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Local pittsburgh priest arrested on child porn charges.

 

[CrossEyed]

Local pittsburgh priest arrested on child porn charges.

Couple other stories in the last few days:Four say Philly Daily News writer Bill Conlin sexually abused them as children

Dale Hansen: 'Thank God for Kids'

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Jay Gray, the NBC News reporter covering the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal in State College, Pennsylvania, was arrested on drunk driving charges after he attended a drunken football-watching party at Sandusky's lawyer's house, reports say.The Pennsylvania State Police arrested Gray just before 2am December 12 during a traffic stop.He was allegedly at the home of Joe Amendola, the eccentric lawyer defending Sandusky against allegations he molested 10 boys over the course of several years.Jay GrayHobnobbing: NBC News correspondent Jay Gray was reportedly at a party at Jerry Sandusky's lawyer's houseAccording to TMZ, Mr Amendola invited Gray and several other reporters over to his house to watch the New York Giants-Dallas Cowboys game.The reporters, reportedly, were all vying for exclusive interviews with Sandusky, who has only further raised public suspicious about himself in two awkward media appearances, says TMZ.Sandusky, the former defensive coach for the Penn State Nittany Lions football team, rocked the nation when he was arrested and accused of molesting 10 boys, most of whom he met through his charity, the Second Mile.During the party at Mr Amendola's State College house, TMZ claims Gray got 'really drunk.'Joe AmendolaAround midnight, he got in his car to drive back to his hotel and was stopped by police.He was released on bail after his arrest.NBC has not commented on the case and neither has Gray.Gray is a national correspondent for the network who has covered stories across the country.According to a report in the Harrisburg Patriot-News, Mr Amendola wants Sandusky and his wife, Dottie, to appear in an exclusive network interview.Gray and the other reporters were likely trying to win favors to get them the air time, TMZ says.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[culdeus]

Local pittsburgh priest arrested on child porn charges.

Couple other stories in the last few days:Four say Philly Daily News writer Bill Conlin sexually abused them as children

Dale Hansen: 'Thank God for Kids'

i think ce has me on ignore

 

[joffer]

a drunken football-watching party

 

[CrossEyed]

Local pittsburgh priest arrested on child porn charges.

Couple other stories in the last few days:Four say Philly Daily News writer Bill Conlin sexually abused them as children

Dale Hansen: 'Thank God for Kids'

i think ce has me on ignore

Nope, sorry, I thought I had read that Hansen story in a different thread.

 

[AmosMoses]

Happy Birthday Joe Paterno. You made Penn State a better place.

 

[Polar Dude]

MoP Bump

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Penn State could do themselves a favor and really concentrate their coaching search to guys with impecable reputations who would take the job.

I'll tell you who to hire right now:

Spoiler

Troy Calhoun

Hire that guy, and you can start thinking about the future of football in Happy Valley again.

 

[Joe Summer]

Here's a new little tidbit: Sandusky watched game from PSU President's Box just days before his arrest

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Interview with Paterno: Link