Judge throws out 3 of 51 counts against Sandusky

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Fan123, Jun 21, 2012.

  1. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    4,873
    823
    113
    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:

    http://content.usatoday.com/communi...nn-state-dean-not-surprised-by-freeh-report/1
     
  2. Tesla

    Tesla Whippet Good

    1,903
    172
    63
  3. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,801
    2,391
    113
    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.
     
  4. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    4,873
    823
    113
    FWIW, he was not diagnosed until after he was fired.
     
  5. liv

    liv Well-Known Member

    1,702
    132
    63
    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.
     
  6. milanessa

    milanessa engaged to dupa

    18,917
    2,870
    0
    Wouldn't his wife inherit everything anyway? Tax free unless the estate is over $5M?
     
  7. Twizzler

    Twizzler Well-Known Member

    1,231
    87
    48
  8. Twizzler

    Twizzler Well-Known Member

    1,231
    87
    48
    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.
     
  9. attyfan

    attyfan Well-Known Member

    7,480
    810
    113
    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.
     
  10. BelleBway

    BelleBway a monkey stole my title

    9,016
    2,993
    113
    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.
     
  11. barbk

    barbk Well-Known Member

    6,024
    556
    113

    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.
     
  12. Jayar

    Jayar Well-Known Member

    8,648
    2,182
    113
    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.
     
    Gazpacho and (deleted member) like this.
  13. milanessa

    milanessa engaged to dupa

    18,917
    2,870
    0
    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.
     
  14. Twizzler

    Twizzler Well-Known Member

    1,231
    87
    48
    That was exactly my point- you just phrased it much better. Thank you!
     
  15. Lacey

    Lacey Well-Known Member

    8,999
    869
    113
    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.
     
  16. agalisgv

    agalisgv Well-Known Member

    24,039
    4,400
    113
    I don't think insurance would cover this.
     
  17. snoopy

    snoopy Team St. Petersburg

    6,175
    1,023
    113
    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.
     
  18. Seregil

    Seregil Active Member

    307
    31
    28
    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.
     
  19. attyfan

    attyfan Well-Known Member

    7,480
    810
    113
    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.
     
  20. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    Sandusky's also so old that he isn't going to see enough years in jail, IMO.
     
  21. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    4,873
    823
    113
  22. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    5,575
    1,823
    113
    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.
     
  23. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    4,891
    585
    113
    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"? :eek: WTF
     
  24. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    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.
     
  25. Desperado

    Desperado Active Member

    591
    75
    28
    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.
     
  26. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,021
    3,518
    113
    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.
     
  27. Sparks

    Sparks Well-Known Member

    7,243
    2,005
    113
    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...
     
  28. numbers123

    numbers123 Well-Known Member

    30,765
    5,026
    113
    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.
     
  29. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,021
    3,518
    113
    I agree with you both as well.

    :D
     
  30. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    4,891
    585
    113
    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.