Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Fan123, Jun 21, 2012.
Graham Spanier was President of PSU, I believe since fired.
Gary Schultz was VP in charge of Athletics and Police. He voluntarily went back into retirement.
Tim Curley was Athletic Director. He was put on administrative leave.
The latter two are going to be up for Perjury in the State of Pa. court system.
I don't know if all 3 Penn State executives can be held liable for other charges. Spanier apparently didn't lie, but was part of the coverup. It would seem that others than Sanduskey should also be held responsible.
I hope none of the victims settle for cheaper than they are due: the moon.
Don't know if the estate of Joe Paterno can be charged for some kind of financial compensation to the victims.
Don't know if the individuals or the state can go after Sanduskey's savings. Do know that he will be allowed to collect his retirement while in jail, GAH, for presumably the rest of his life, I guess it will be given to his wife.
There may be charges additional to the Clery state ones, in federal court.
But the other 3, if not charged and/or convicted in either state or federal systems, should pay for the rest of their lives, if only financially.
I'm not sure if there are criminal penalties for violating the Clery Act. It is over 25K per violation for the institution, but I haven't found anything showing that prison time can be imposed for failing to report.
Good point. And I don't know what the mandated reporting laws are in PA so I don't know if they fall under that.
http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/...ries (TIME: Top Stories)&utm_content=My Yahoo
According to this article, there is the possibillity of state charges on things that I didn't consider, like child endangerment:
I seriously don't get people repeating that "this is not a football scandal" crap. (Not you, attyfan, obviously you were quoting) Of course this is a football scandal! This would never have happened if this weren't for football. He would never have been protected, his victims would never have been swept under the rug, if the people who could have stopped this hadn't prioritized football over the lives and safety of children.
There was a Washington Post story the day after the conviction in which at least one neighbor said that there had been rumors about him for years. I heard a sports reporter from Altoona, PA, yesterday say that more than one student and campus worker said to him when the story broke that jokes about Sandusky and little boys had been common in Happy Valley for many years prior to the story breaking.
If your neighbor "creepy Jerry" who worked at that one office downtown and you didn't really know what he did had a thing for little boys...well, suspicious behavior by him likely would have been reported long ago. But when "creepy Jerry" is Penn State Assistant Football Coach Jerry instead...that's a whole different thing in a place that (per Louis Freeh) reveres the football program over everything else.
That makes this a football scandal no matter what Paterno made himself and his family believe.
I wish they'd actually pursue those types of charges.
I saw a news report with Paterno's entire letter. Call me cynical, but I don't believe FOR ONE SECOND that it was written by him before his death. If it was, why wait until the night before the results of the investigation were revealed. It should have been released way earlier.
To me, it reads like a calculated statement prepared by lawyers to shift any blame away from Paterno and protect his legacy.
It really annoys me that the Paterno's are so focused on protecting Joe's name and are not including any statements about their sorrow for the victims. At least make it look good by including SOMETHING about their thoughts and prayers being with the victims and their families.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, it was revealed that Joe Paterno had put his assets in his wife's name, essentially giving everything to her. The timeline is very suspect because the transfers occurred only a few months before the Sandusky news broke. At that time, JoPa was still the head coach, presumably healthy, and PUBLICLY not being investigated for anything. Why turn over assets? Bottom line is he had to know what was about to come and he was trying to keep somethings (house, etc.) from being taken away from his family. JMHO
One of his sons, the one who spoke for him when the scandal broke is a lawyer. I suspect he authored that letter.
And I believe that the family had rights set up to market Paterno's image and name for profit long before the scandal. I know I read that somewhere but couldn't find it right now. I'm sure they are heavily interested in protecting that income source.
Paterno was not the soft spoken "grandpa"/ old school football coach hero people liked to make him out to be. Here's just one other perspective that doesn't have to do with the Sandusky case:
Penn State could pay $100 million in civil damages to Sandusky's victims and lose public funding
I hope Penn State pays, and they pay dearly. And I hope the Paternos do not earn money off of JoePa. I hope they fade into obscurity and that Joe Paterno's legacy is forever tarnished. He was no hero and a very poor idol.
He was in his 80s and had lung cancer? Regardless of the validity of the rest of your speculations, on this one I'd go with the obvious explanation here.
FWIW, he was not diagnosed until after he was fired.
I also hope Penn State pays. It was hidden because of the football and power of that organization. In a regular world, regular scenario, if people had witnessed children being raped, they would've gone directly to the police or even charged into that shower to stop it. Instead, because of who was involved and how much clout they had, the witnesses were in fear for their jobs and everyone who was told tried to cover it up.
I hope they get as much money out of that school and the people involved as they can.
Wouldn't his wife inherit everything anyway? Tax free unless the estate is over $5M?
Again- presumably healthy at the time of the transfers. I suspect he did it not realizing he was sick, and thinking he was in for a big fight. Maybe I'm wrong, but if something is solely in his wife's name, it wouldn't be able to be touched in a civil suit, right?
Timeline: he put everything in his wife's name, scandal broke publicly a few months later, within a few days he was fired, diagnosed with lung cancer a few weeks after that. Death within 2 months of firing.
Depending upon state law, they may well be able to set aside any transfers that were made with the specific intent to defraud creditors. His wife will probably claim that, even though he wasn't formally diagnosed, he still suspected something like cancer -- if the transfer was not intended to defraud creditors, then they can't touch it.
According to this article, PA law says the house would not have been subject to creditors even if he had not transferred his share to his wife because the house had been jointly owned.
Not a lawyer or an accountant...but three of the six homes in our HOA are owned only by one of the couple; two of them (who are clearly very well off) mentioned that it was for estate planning purposes.
The football team, yes. But not the university. This is the MAIN university for so many who live in that area which has ALWAYS struggle in terms of education and economy. The people who live there-- of which I am part-- deserve to have a quality educational institution in their backyard.
And there could be many reasons for that. Blended families, disinherited children, very large estates, etc. I was only responding to gkelly's post. If he thought he might be sued because he thought he was culpable then transferring the assets would be a financially sound choice; if his conscience was completely clear then there would not be a likely reason for the transfer of assets.
That was exactly my point- you just phrased it much better. Thank you!
I would be very glad if the university takes a bath on this, however I am sure that they might have some kind of insurance which covers just this type of occurrence.
I will hold my breath on the president, and two VPs seeing some kind of punishment.
I don't think insurance would cover this.
Yeah, if the actions of the officials are found to be fraudulent or criminal, insurance would not cover the settlement. It might be paying their defense costs, however.
Man, did Paterno ever get off easy. I'm angry he died before seeing his image in complete ruins. I wonder if he didn't commit suicide. You know, a little extra morphine for the pain.
An insurance company may also handle the case with a reservation of rights. This lets the insurance company deal with the victims, reserving their right to recover from the Penn State people what they pay. The Penn State people will have input into whether or not to settle (since they can get hit for the money, eventually), and they may have their own attorneys involved.
Sandusky's also so old that he isn't going to see enough years in jail, IMO.
Paterno's retirement deal, paid to his family in April:
It's been said that the NCAA has been hesitant to impose the death penalty on another school after seeing how it affected SMU football. But this case is so extreme that they may finally feel compelled to go beyond the usual penalties. That would probably mean the end of Penn State football - if not forever, at least for a very long time.
As for the university, obviously the victims deserve substantial damages; however, I do share Jayar's concerns about the impact on students, faculty and staff who had nothing to do with the actions of Sandusky, Paterno, or anyone else involved in this case.
Is there such a thing as enough years in jail for what he did? He'll die in prison, as he should; at this point I don't think it doesn't matter how long it takes. Obviously he should have been there long ago.
this is what I don't get:
Um.. did they take Don Draper's time machine back to 1960? How can anyone with a tv and a newspaper subscription in 2001 claim to have zero awareness and or empathy for molestation victims?! Seriously, who are these men? "A striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims"? WTF
I would rather have seen him do several decades in jail and also die in jail. But, better later than never, since it wasn't so long ago that society completely ignored this issue.
I always wonder if old men in authority who condone child sexual abuse like this through their cover-up actions, like in the Catholic Church for example or in this situation don't also have pedophile tendencies. It would make sense that they don't see it as a horrific crime, just something to hide from the outside world.
I just can't understand what else would make people protect the attacker instead of the children.
I think it has a lot to do with society having hangups about sex. There seems to be this assumption that the victims must be willing participants if they don't fight tooth and nail against their attacker. And people don't want to talk about sex so they also don't want to talk about sexual abuse. Not talking about it let's these attitudes fester because they don't get challenged.
Some people do not want to believe that they know (and maybe like/admire) a person who is a child molester. It is pure denial. I've seen it first hand...
I think that beyond what MacMadame says - which I also believe to be true, it is human nature to want to believe the your friends couldn't really do something really horrific. Even in the face of some evidence that the person has done something so horrifying - you still want to believe that they didn't.
I agree with you both as well.
Interesting. My gut reaction was to assume they'd been victims themselves, had convinced themselves it was no big deal, didn't ruin their lives and was just something they had to get over, so their whole attitude towards other victims was more of a Cher "Snap out of it!" impatience, like any kid nowadays whining because he has to walk to school, etc... In generations past people seemed to be more obsessed with not being a "rat" and whistle blowers were seen as scum.
Separate names with a comma.