Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Penn State Child Molestation Case

More joy from Happy Valley

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204443404577052073672561402.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

STATE COLLEGE, Pa.—Legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno clashed repeatedly with the university's former chief disciplinarian over how harshly to punish players who got into trouble, internal emails suggest, shedding new light on the school's effort to balance its reputation as a magnet for scholar-athletes with the demands of running a nationally dominant football program.
Click to expand...
 
GlassHalfFull said:
More joy from Happy Valley

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204443404577052073672561402.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
Click to expand...
Paterno is a pathetic hypocritical pos. That football program deserves the death penalty.
In an Aug. 12, 2005, email to Pennsylvania State University President Graham Spanier and others, Vicky Triponey, the university's standards and conduct officer, complained that Mr. Paterno believed she should have "no interest, (or business) holding our football players accountable to our community standards. The Coach is insistent he knows best how to discipline his players…and their status as a student when they commit violations of our standards should NOT be our concern…and I think he was saying we should treat football players different from other students in this regard."

The confrontations came to a head in 2007, according to one former school official, when six football players were charged by police for forcing their way into a campus apartment that April and beating up several students, one of them severely. That September, following a tense meeting with Mr. Paterno over the case, she resigned her post, saying at the time she left because of "philosophical differences."

..."Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code," she wrote, "despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."
Click to expand...
In an email to Mr. Spanier on Sept. 1, Dr. Triponey wrote of Mr. Paterno: "I do not support the way this man is running our football program. We certainly would not tolerate this behavior in our students so I struggle with how we tolerate it in our coach."

That same fall, Dr. Triponey's office suspended Dan Connor, a Penn State linebacker, who had been accused of making harassing calls to a retired assistant coach. Shortly after the suspension was handed down, Mr. Paterno ordered the player to suit up, according to a person familiar with the matter. Dr. Triponey informed the player that if he suited up for practice, he would be in violation of his suspension and could face expulsion. Mr. Connor says he recalled being suspended only for games, not practice.

The incident prompted Mr. Spanier to visit Dr. Triponey at her home. Dr. Triponey confirms he told her that Mr. Paterno had given him an ultimatum: Fire her, or Mr. Paterno would stop fund-raising for the school. She says Mr. Spanier told her that if forced to choose, he would choose her over the coach-but that he did not want to have to make that choice.
Click to expand...
In 2007, as many as two dozen players broke into an off-campus apartment, sparking a melee that captured headlines and prompted the police to file criminal charges against six Penn State football players. "Pretty much the entire Penn State defense broke in and started swinging bar stools and stuff," says John Britt, then a third-year criminal-justice major who was beaten up in the incident. Mr. Britt says he took a beer bottle to the back of the head-and that players apparently continued to beat him after he'd lost consciousness. (Now 25, Mr. Britt serves warrants for state court in Philadelphia.)

Dr. Triponey's department began an inquiry. According to a Penn State employee's record of the proceedings, Mr. Spanier was involved in at least nine meetings with representatives of the judicial-affairs department, and Mr. Paterno was involved in at least six.

In a meeting with Messrs. Paterno and Spanier and others, Dr. Triponey complained that the players were stonewalling her and suggested that Mr. Paterno ought to compel them to be truthful, according to one person familiar with the meeting. Mr. Paterno angrily responded that his players couldn't be expected to cooperate with the school's disciplinary process because, in this case, they would have to testify against each other, making it hard to play football together, these people say.
Click to expand...
 
Vinny said:
Paterno is a pathetic hypocritical pos. That football program deserves the death penalty.
Click to expand...

What a piece of work............:facepalm:

FIRED-not-RETIRED.jpg
 
William Britt, a police sergeant in Philadelphia's homicide division, said he's not surprised by the alleged coverup. "I see how this happens (at Penn State). We lived it," Britt said.

In April 2007, as many as two dozen football players forced their way into a party at an off-campus apartment and assaulted several students at the party, including Britt's son, Jack, who was severely beaten. Six players faced criminal charges as a result of the brawl. In the end, many of the charges against the players were dismissed, and two players pleaded guilty to misdemeanor offenses.

..."The coach was literally telling his players that they couldn't cooperate with judicial affairs or they would get kicked off the team. So we were going nowhere in getting to the bottom of things," Triponey said. "I said to the coach, 'This would be so much easier if you would tell your players just to tell the truth.' He was livid, and the message to me was, 'I can't do that. They have to play for me and I can't ask them to rat on each other.' The president also chimed in and said, 'Vicky, the coach is right. We can't expect the players to tell the truth.' So that's the environment that was underlying this whole debate about who's in charge."
Click to expand...
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...-11-22/11-22-11-Paterno-Discipline/51346682/1
 
Vinny's link said:
Mr. Paterno had given him an ultimatum: Fire her, or Mr. Paterno would stop fund-raising for the school.
Click to expand...

Wow!....just....WOW! :dontknowa

His entire personae was just a charade. Dude is a fake! Instead of being a standard of excellence and integrity by which to judge college coaches, he's the poster-boy for unscrupulous abuse of power.

What a pathetic individual.
 
keyser said:
Hmmm. I didn't know there was a distinction. Most of what I've seen says that police have jurisdiction in the county in which they're employed (even if employed by a city). So, a College Station police officer could not arrest (except as a citizen's arrest) in Austin, for instance. Whereas an A&M police officer would have jursidiction in most if not all of the state.
Click to expand...

Well, most of what you've seen and what people consider common knowledge is wrong and reinforced by television and movies. That "Get across the county line and they can't touch you" plot device is very convenient but in Texas it's just not true. Texas Peace Officer means exactly what it says. Your authority is derived from the state, your paycheck from the agency that pays you. I used to do this and that's what we were taught. I don't believe anything has changed in that regard.
 
I personally would like to apologize to those offended for my comments in this thread. I understand that my comments in this thread were quite insensitive considering many of you are parents and my comments were probably confused for speaking on the behalf of Paterno. I wasn't and I was only speaking from the legal side of things which is the only thing that matters to the judicial system, no matter how much common sense is there. One reason why the system is flawed.

I won't be here often (which is probably the best) becauser thankfully the NBA and the players have agreed to a tentative deal and hopefully both parties ratify it and get the season going. Again I say, I sincerely apologize for offending anyone. I will not apologize for my comments because I thoroughly believed I was misunderstood and when I was banned I had no chance to clarify (or properly defend) myself views. If you accept my apology then fine, if not that's ok as well as I could see why you wouldn't. I noticed many personal insults spewed at me and though it did not affect me (I have been called worse). I did notice that I really must have gotten under many people's skin even though it was totally unintentional. I wasn't here to make enemies or to make friends. I just wanted to state my views and then depart.

Again I say, I'm sorry.
 
BETTER than the TWINKIE DEFENSE.

Sandusky attorney launches ‘proper shower technique’ defense
Posted by John Taylor on December 15, 2011, 1:37 PM EST


With each passing day, this Jerry Sandusky rabbit hole continues to get deeper and darker. And a whole helluva lot more disturbing.

In an interview with WHTM-TV, attorney Karl Rominger, the newest member of the former Penn State defensive coordinator’s defense team, offered up an interesting — and creepy — explanation as to why Sandusky showered alone with boys as young as 10 years old he had met through his Second Mile charity.

“Some of these kids don’t have basic hygiene skills,” Rominger told the television station, presumably with a straight face throughout. “Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body.”

(In the interest of fairness, we’re going to assume Mr. Rominger is a real attorney with a degree and everything and not a well-executed plant from The Onion.)

In an apparent effort to bolster this latest defense tactic, Rominger noted during the interview that his college cross-country coach often showered with the team. Of course, Rominger was neither 10 years old nor alone when these showers took place, so it’s unclear what his college experience has to do with his client’s situation.

Sandusky has admitted in previous interviews that he showered with boys and engaged in horse-play with them while showering, although he did concede that he “shouldn’t have showered with those kids.” In the original 40-count indictment against Sandusky, a witness alleged to have seen the retired assistant sodomizing a 10-year-old boy in the shower of Penn State’s football building in 2002.

His answer to — or more specifically, the hesitation in answering — the question posed during his interview with Bob Costas of whether he was sexually attracted to young boys was the final nail in the coffin of public opinion.

Rominger seems to think Sandusky’s lack of eloquence, rather than his alleged actions, is working against his client.

“The problem is if you’re an innocent person who’s not articulate, you’re not going to come across well, but you’re still innocent,” Rominger said. “A guilty person who is very articulate might come across innocent. So it’s not a fair fight.”

Earlier this week, Sandusky waived his right to a preliminary hearing in which he likely would’ve faced at least some of his 10 alleged victims.

UPDATED 5:57 p.m. ET: If backpedaling were an Olympic event, Rominger would be the prohibitive gold-medal favorite at the 2012 London games. The following is comes from the Associated Press.

“Rominger said in a statement Thursday that he only was giving a hypothetical example of why a person might shower with an adolescent. He noted he never said Sandusky touched boys in a shower.”
Click to expand...

I’m no lawyer, and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but my legal advice to the lawyer would be to shut the hell up on all fronts. His mileage may vary, however.
Click to expand...



Rominger, caught in a deeply pensive moment

stupid.jpg
 
Sandusky Trial Rocked When Adopted Son Says He Was Abused Too

Jerry Sandusky's sex abuse trial ended today with an emotional plea from the prosecutor to convict the former Penn State football coach and then a bombshell revelation that his adopted son had told prosecutors he was willing to testify against Sandusky.

The jury of seven women and five men were sequestered this afternoon to begin deliberating Sandusky's guilty or innocence on 48 charges of sex absue.

While they met behind closed doors, Matt Sandusky -- who had defended the man who adopted him throughout the investigation -- issued a statement saying that he had been prepared to tell the jury that he had been sexually abused too.

"Matt Sandusky, one of Jerry Sandusky's adopted children, asked us to confirm with you... that he was prepared to testify truthfully as a Commonwealth witness," said the statement issued by lawyers Andrew Shubin and Justine Andronici.

"During the trial, Matt Sandusky contacted us and requested our advice and assistance in arranging a meeting with prosecutors to disclose for the first time in this case that he is a victim of Jerry Sandusky's abuse. At Matt's request, we immediately arranged a meeting between him and the prosecutors and investigators," the statement said.

"This has been an extremely painful experience for Matt... There will be no further comment at this time," the lawyers said.

Sources close to the case said that Matt Sandusky, one of six children adopted by the Sanduskys, contacted prosecutors late last week to say that he was willing to testify. Prosecutors couldn't call him to the stand for direct questioning because he was not included in the charges against his father.

But they could have called Matt Sandusky to the stand as a rebuttal witness if Jerry Sandusky took the stand, sources said.

Lawyers for Jerry Sandusky said they were considering allowing him to testifyup until the last day of testimony Wednesday when the changed their mind.
Click to expand...

The bolded answers why Sandusky didn't take the stand. I was wondering, since he was expected to.
 
2012Champs said:
Interesting to see this morning that the prosecution didnt really want to use him as a witness since he said over and over again that Jerry did nothing to him and that the reversal would open him up to strong cross examination
Click to expand...

I would think it's extremely hard to go relive all that .
 
2012Champs said:
No doubt. Not to mention the mind warp of supporting your "dad" and your "mother" all the while knowing they arent telling the truth
Click to expand...

The ex daughter in law knew what was up . She filed a restaining order on Sandusky really fast . I think it's called Stockholm Syndrome when you ptotect the guilty .
 
Texan_Bill said:
GUILTY!! Or so I heard... No links as of yet!
Click to expand...

I would think so . I think the issue is how many counts but one is way to many .

I hope that they took into consideration that the Second mile was Sandusky's Neverland ranch ( whatever Jackos home was called ) designed to lure boys in .
 
Honoring Earl 34 said:
I would think so . I think the issue is how many counts but one is way to many .

I hope that they took into consideration that the Second mile was Sandusky's Neverland ranch ( whatever Jackos home was called ) designed to lure boys in .
Click to expand...

At least enough to put him away!! My only hope is that he isn't sentenced to some "mental institution" and rather serves time in 'GEN-POP'!!!!
 
Penn State football needs the death penalty. This is way, way worse than anything SMU did. And Paterno needs to be posthumously castigated.
 
No way in hell hes going to gp. He'll be placed ad seg for years. Put your fantasies of shanks in his neck and "retaliatory rapes" by 100's of inmates away.
 
I've seen interviews with this guy. He HONESTLY doesn't see anything he did wrong. He's a sick, sick man. He's going to prison and they should make him see the prison shrink whenever possible. The fact that he spent decades doing this is the saddest part of all. Only 8 of his victims came forward. We'll never know how many of them refused to speak out because of how embarrasing and humiliating they would have found it.
The sad thing here is there ARE no winners. This sick, sick fool stole the innocence of young boys he was supposed to have been HELPING and there are now young men who are emotionally scarred for the remainder of their lives because of his actions. His wife and family have to live with the shame of what he did and society as a whole will now be even MORE suspicious of ANY adult who works with kids.

Sandusky will be in prison for the rest of his life, but right now as you're reading this some other "adult" is probably taking advantage of a position of trust and obliterating the mental health of a boy or girl.
 
powda said:
No way in hell hes going to gp. He'll be placed ad seg for years. Put your fantasies of shanks in his neck and "retaliatory rapes" by 100's of inmates away.
Click to expand...

I do not advocate life sentences of any kind. They are not going to be given the opportunity to rehabilitate so there's no point... but if you're going to do it, there's no better place for it than Colorado.
 
Dread-Head said:
I've seen interviews with this guy. He HONESTLY doesn't see anything he did wrong. He's a sick, sick man.
Click to expand...

I agree. And that is exactly why I want the Penn State football program to die. Sick bastards do what sick bastards do. It's an unfortunate part of reality. The fact that supposedly upstanding, Christian men covered for and/or turned their head to this is actually worse IMO, because they are NOT sick. JoePa was perfectly sane and still let this happen. The AD chose not to pursue it because of the potential black eye. Even the assistant coach that stumbled upon it didn't do everything he should have done.

The failure in the system was not that a mentally deranged bastard did what he did, but rather that perfectly sane and supposedly moral protectorates of young men let it go unchecked.
 
Jerry Sandusky is on suicide watch at the county jail and is being held in protective custody.

It may not be politically correct to say this, but why is it important to keep him from committing suicide if he wants to? He is almost certainly going to die in prison. The only question remaining is when. So, it is just a matter of timing. And when he eventually does die in prison, it his hard to imagine very many people being saddened by his passing.

I just don't get this. Of course it would be wrong to encourage him to kill himself or to put him in a situation where another prisoner was likely to kill him. But if he really was dead set on ending his own life, why should anyone feel compelled to interfere with that?

Jerry Sandusky on Suicide Watch, Undergoing Evaluations

Jerry Sandusky is on suicide watch at the local jail after being convicted on 45 counts of sexually abusing young boys, the former Penn State coach's defense attorney said today.

....

Defense attorney Karl Rominger told CNN today that Sandusky is being held on suicide watch in protective custody, away from other inmates. The jail would not comment on Sandusky's condition to ABC News.

Sandusky will be held at the county jail for approximately 90 days, until he is sentenced by Cleland to what will likely amount to life in prison.

After that, he will likely spend the rest of his days in a state prison in Pennsylvania, living among the general population of 18- to 79-year olds until he ages out of the system and is transferred to a facility for older prisoners.
Click to expand...
 
ckhouston said:
Why?

If they offered me five minutes alone with that man he would no longer be an issue.
Click to expand...

I suspect that some of his future fellow inmates are likely to share your perspective on that. In fact, if he survives to see his first anniversary in state prison, I will be surprised.
 
MojoMan said:
I suspect that some of his future fellow inmates are likely to share your perspective on that. In fact, if he survives to see his first anniversary in state prison, I will be surprised.
Click to expand...

Maybe he will get the Dahmer special in the shower.
 
NitroGSXR said:
I do not advocate life sentences of any kind. They are not going to be given the opportunity to rehabilitate so there's no point... but if you're going to do it, there's no better place for it than Colorado.
Click to expand...

I believe in rehabilitation especially for young offenders who make dumb choices and still have a chance to do something with their lives. BUT, I also stongly believe in life sentences and the death penalty. Some crimes are so disturbing a person uses up ALL of their chances to ever mingle with society again. To me this is clearly one of those instances. There is no death penalty violent or painfull enough to make amends for this man's actions.
 
MojoMan said:
Jerry Sandusky is on suicide watch at the county jail and is being held in protective custody.

It may not be politically correct to say this, but why is it important to keep him from committing suicide if he wants to? He is almost certainly going to die in prison. The only question remaining is when. So, it is just a matter of timing. And when he eventually does die in prison, it his hard to imagine very many people being saddened by his passing.

I just don't get this. Of course it would be wrong to encourage him to kill himself or to put him in a situation where another prisoner was likely to kill him. But if he really was dead set on ending his own life, why should anyone feel compelled to interfere with that?
Click to expand...

In my case, I think that he gets out of having to live with his guilt, if he is truly able to do that, if he kills or even if society kills him or places him in a situation to be killed. Death is an easy way out on the human level. I am guessing that every person he molested over the years did not come foward and those that did had to re-live a terrible secret that shaped who they were. Sandusky got to live (falsely) as a well-respected, well-connected member of the community. Honestly, I believe that he is never really going to pay properly.
 
powda said:
I believe in rehabilitation especially for young offenders who make dumb choices and still have a chance to do something with their lives. BUT, I also stongly believe in life sentences and the death penalty. Some crimes are so disturbing a person uses up ALL of their chances to ever mingle with society again. To me this is clearly one of those instances. There is no death penalty violent or painfull enough to make amends for this man's actions.
Click to expand...

I am opposed simply because I do not want to feed and clothe them for the rest of their lives. Off with their heads and be done with them since society has no intent on ever letting them out. Thin the herd, if you will.
 
ArlingtonTexan said:
In my case, I think that he gets out of having to live with his guilt, if he is truly able to do that, if he kills or even if society kills him or places him in a situation to be killed. Death is an easy way out on the human level. I am guessing that every person he molested over the years did not come foward and those that did had to re-live a terrible secret that shaped who they were. Sandusky got to live (falsely) as a well-respected, well-connected member of the community. Honestly, I believe that he is never really going to pay properly.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty compelling answer. However, I doubt that is the justification that the legal authorities are using for establishing a suicide watch over Sandusky and placing him in protective custody.

What your argument amounts to is that allowing him to die is an act of mercy for Sandusky at this point. I can see that. Nevertheless, I do not believe the legal authorities should be responsible for this beyond taking some minimal, reasonable precautions.

It is not desirable for anyone to commit suicide, but it is also should not be the responsibility of any other person or institution to make sure another person refrains from killing themselves.
 
MojoMan said:
That is a pretty compelling answer. However, I doubt that is the justification that the legal authorities are using for establishing a suicide watch over Sandusky and placing him in protective custody.

What your argument amounts to is that allowing him to die is an act of mercy for Sandusky at this point. I can see that. Nevertheless, I do not believe the legal authorities should be responsible for this beyond taking some minimal, reasonable precautions.

It is not desirable for anyone to commit suicide, but it is also should not be the responsibility of any other person or institution to make sure another person refrains from killing themselves.
Click to expand...

In the broadest sense, I don't really know what 'suicide watch' entails in that state (see below) so I can't say if the precautions are reasonal beyond what another prisoner gets. A cell with a camera and somebody walking by a couple more times a day sounds reasonable, so of the more extreme suicide watches are animalistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_watch
 
ArlingtonTexan said:
In the broadest sense, I don't really know what 'suicide watch' entails in that state (see below) so I can't say if the precautions are reasonal beyond what another prisoner gets. A cell with a camera and somebody walking by a couple more times a day sounds reasonable, so of the more extreme suicide watches are animalistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_watch
Click to expand...

I don't either, but I think in Jerry Sandusky's case it goes something like this....

suicidewatch.jpg
 
A tactic for the purpose of leaving an appeal (or plea deal) open in a virtually hopeless defense case?? Even if not, may waste a heck of a lot more tax payer money.

Damaging comments by Sandusky's lawyer could help on appeal, experts say
Jun 24, 2012 12:25 PM CDT

Source: New York Post
NEW YORK -- Damaging comments by a lawyer for Jerry Sandusky could help the convicted Penn State child molester on appeal, according to veteran New York defense lawyers.

"He had an ethical obligation to represent his client as zealously as possible," said Manhattan defense lawyer Lori Cohen. "It's hard to reconcile a zealous defense with his public comments."

In a shocking statement before the verdict Friday, defense attorney Joe Amendola said he would "die of a heart attack" if his client were acquitted of all charges.

"That's just crazy," said Douglas Burns, a defense lawyer with 26 years in the courtroom. "A lawyer has got to keep his cards close to his vest and not make comments like that."

Hours after the football coach's conviction on 45 counts of child sexual abuse, Amendola praised the prosecution for handling the case in an "exemplary manner" and said he didn't "have any problem with the jury's verdict."

If Sandusky, 68, hires another attorney, claiming Amendola was ineffective could benefit him on appeal.

Burns said there's a 60 percent chance a claim of "ineffective counsel" could help Sandusky.

The new lawyer would have to prove that Amendola's defense of the case was below legal standards, and that an effective defense could have resulted in a not-guilty verdict.

Sandusky, who was on suicide watch Saturday, faces a sentence of up to 442 years when he is sentenced in three months. Amendola has already promised to appeal.

He and Sandusky's other attorney, Karl Rominger, said Saturday that they requested to withdraw from the case before the trial but were turned down.

"We told the trial court, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court we were not prepared to proceed to trial in June due to numerous issues," Amendola said.
 
MojoMan said:
Jerry Sandusky is on suicide watch at the county jail and is being held in protective custody.

It may not be politically correct to say this, but why is it important to keep him from committing suicide if he wants to? He is almost certainly going to die in prison. The only question remaining is when. So, it is just a matter of timing. And when he eventually does die in prison, it his hard to imagine very many people being saddened by his passing.

I just don't get this. Of course it would be wrong to encourage him to kill himself or to put him in a situation where another prisoner was likely to kill him. But if he really was dead set on ending his own life, why should anyone feel compelled to interfere with that?
Click to expand...

I understand your question and have raised the same one myself. I am having problems understanding how his wife could have been clueless for years, especially after their own adopted son came forth as a victim. I can't say she approved, but I don't believe that she didn't know or question the behavior or rumors.
 
StarStruck said:
I understand your question and have raised the same one myself. I am having problems understanding how his wife could have been clueless for years, especially after their own adopted son came forth as a victim. I can't say she approved, but I don't believe that she didn't know or question the behavior or rumors.
Click to expand...

Da Nile isn't just a river in Egypt. She (while may have not known intimate deals) certainly had to suspect something was amiss.
 
Dutchrudder said:
Anyone who watched the Bob Costas interview should have realized Sandusky's lawyer was a buffoon. He clearly was not coached for that interview. This snippet was just ridiculous: http://youtu.be/bbSaFP_oNEc?t=58s

I hope prison is just the beginning of hell for this guy.
Click to expand...

His attorney was a buffoon for not denying the interview or strongly suggesting to his client to not to do the interview altogether. If I was the attorney and Sandusky adamantly wanted to the interview after my advice not to, I would've removed myself from the case, citing attorney-client differences.

I'm no attorney, nor do I play one on TV, but this seems like "Law 101".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top