Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
They must have elected prosecutors.
“This was not a mistake by these men, this was not an oversight,” said state Attorney General Linda Kelly. “It was not misjudgment on their part. This was a conspiracy of silence by top officials to actively conceal the truth.”Now, apply the same standard to Benghazi.
Of course now some schools are so afraid of having a Penn State occuring, that they are going to the police over non-issues.Minnesota-Mankato football coach was accused of having kiddy-porn on his phone...his own kids.The final story was a bit different and most likely the charges will be dropped.
You cannot expect 20/20 vision even if you're looking back with 20/20 vision.
MM,I disagree. Spanier’s lawyers have called the Freeh report a myth, and said he would have acted in 1998, 2001 or any time if he knew a predator like Sandusky was on campus.a 60 year old man, showering with a non-related minor (of either gender) is wrong. Add to that the witness statement that it was sexual activity, and siren's should have gone off. This was 2001. They had the same charge in 1998. both times it involved Unibversity staff, and once it was on university property. They knew, but refused to believe and act. Now that they've been charged in 2012, they wish they had acted in 1998.
No good comes of naming a place Happy Valley.
Is this the same Spanier who cleared Michael Mann in ClimateGate?
Good. This is one of the rare times where "something should be done" neatly lines up with actual things that are being done.
After all, Joe's dead.
@Drill, my comment was a reaction to the quote by the DA: It was not misjudgment on their part. This was a conspiracy of silence by top officials to actively conceal the truth.I suspect no one knew that the Truth was, and it's only known now, in hindsight.I agree a whole lot more should have been done. Spanier in particular, because of his background, should have been more alert.
No one may have known what the truth was, but there is no doubt that they seem to have taken as many steps as possible to keep not knowing what the truth was.
“This was not a mistake by these men, this was not an oversight,” said state Attorney General Linda Kelly. “It was not misjudgment on their part. This was a conspiracy of silence by top officials to actively conceal the truth.”Even more reason that Penn State as an institution along with it's football program should have been shuttered. Cowardice.
MadisonMan said... You cannot expect 20/20 vision even if you're looking back with 20/20 vision.It's easy to claim 20/20 hindsight when the ability to do the right thing is in front of you and you you willfully choose not to do it. Even when no one is looking.
In this case the crime is worse than the cover up.He deserves whatever he gets and worse the better.
Speaking of being traumatized by indifference...Protecting the program - they didn't want to know. What they were told had to be dismissed to protect the program. Mother speaks up, assistant coach speaks up, janitor speaks up - but, the program must be protected.A lot of money in football games. And oddly enough, now that the damage is done, the football stadium is still full and the team on TV every weekend. Seems they didn't really need to protect the program when they should have been protecting the kids. I am sure there is a lesson that can be taken from this unholy mess.
Penn State should close down it's football program.It is the only decent thing to do.
This is another of those situations where the defendant would not want me on his jury.
Is this the same Spanier who cleared Michael Mann in ClimateGate?Yes, now that you mention it.
Even more reason that Penn State as an institution along with it's football program should have been shuttered. Cowardice.Exactly. Football empowered individuals to do things they would never have gotten away with under other circumstances. You can keep the school open, but dismantle the football program. See how many other schools get scared straight.
College football and basketball should be shuttered anyway.It is just a big scam to set up minor leagues for the pros. Let the pros in football and basketball do it like baseball and have minors.It is just a big scam.
Boob bait for the Bubba's.
What will happen to the then CEO of BBC who failed in a bigger scandal there. Will he be new CEO of NYTimes?
Keeping up their reporting of hard hitting investigative news, the WaPo, is doing an in depth series on Iran Contra. General Ham, pick up the white courtesy phone.
And Michael Mann, too!
I hope they don't try to convict him on Mike McQueary's testimony. He has proven to be a less than credible witness.There is no solid evidence that Spanier, Curley, Schultz or Paterno covered up anything.The Freeh Report made a lot of allegations but presented no evidence. Freeh's job was to protect the governor and his cronies on the Penn State Board of Trustees and in the Second Mile Foundation.
"There is no solid evidence that Spanier, Curley, Schultz or Paterno covered up anything."Inaction = coverup
Spanier is also the same PSU president who supported the disgusting Sex Fairs on main campus. As an alumna of Penn State, I make all my contributions exclusively to Worthinton Scranton Campus.
"Inaction = coverup"If there is nothing to act on, then it isn't inaction. It is not at all certain that McQueary reported a sexual assault or sexual activity of any sort.
"If there is nothing to act on, then it isn't inaction. It is not at all certain that McQueary reported a sexual assault or sexual activity of any sort."You can't be serious... Tell Sandusky, he will be glad to hear from you.
Drill sgt wrote:a 60 year old man, showering with a non-related minor (of either gender) is wrong. Add to that the witness statement that it was sexual activity, and siren's should have gone off. This was 2001. They had the same charge in 1998. both times it involved Unibversity staff, and once it was on university property. No they didn't have the same charge in 1998. The charge in 2001 intimated some potential behavior that was innapropriate and of a potentially sexual nature. (And this is dependent on what Mcqueary saw and what he said he saw. He did not tell Paterno the specifics. He said he told Spanier the specifics. They deny it. That is the crux of the case of course,As to the incident in 1998, it was deemed innapropriate, but no chares were brought because the victim claimed nothing happened. Tat it was completely innocent. Granted, he said later that he was too young to realize the innapropriate ness of what Sandusky did at the time so thought he was just being friendly, but the point is because he said nothing happened o charges were brought.And there is little evidence that Spanier or Paterno head the specifics of the earlier case. If anything they may have hea the outcome (that no charges were brought) and that it was deemed innocent but innapropriate (whatever IT was(.We know the extent of what Sandusky did, but that doesn't mean that they knew at the time.I think Paterno is largely innocent in the one incident that they did know about (the one mCqueary reported). Shutz and Spanier are more culpable for the response to the reported incident, but I'm still not sure that they were aware of the earlier incidents at the time they made their decision to not bring the authorities into it.I'm just not sure if they are we're aware of the extent of sanduskys crimes, only the one incident. It will come out at trial though, so we should get more evidence either way.
John wrote:Mother speaks up, assistant coach speaks up, janitor speaks up - but, the program must be protected. this is evidence we have NOW. But we don't know that just because the mother spoke up that they spoke up to Spanier or that he heard of it t the time.Their was an investigation in 1998, and the prosecutor never brought charges because the "victim" said, AT THE TIME, that nothing occurred.since no charges were brought what did the higher ups KNOW? we're they involved in the investigation? we're they told of the specifics or the outcomes? do You KNOW this? Or are ou only offering conjecture. If so, please provide a citation or two,As to the janitor speaking up, he spoke p to his superior (in the janitorial services) and was told to write up a report. He never did. As such this evidence probably never made it up the chain.Not saying that this proves Sandusky is somehow innocent. Oly that we are responding to known things that we only know in totality because we are privy to all of the info brout forth by the grand jury in the present time.But that doesn't mean that said info,was known to the various parties in the past.For example, if it was KNOWN that the janitor reported something to Spanier, where's the police report? Where's the testimony that such an action w actually performed.You're looking at the case in hindsight and judging Spanier in hindsight as if he knew the totality of sandusky's crimes in total and covered all those up.There is little evidence that this is in fact the case.Again, not arguing that Sandusky was somehow innocent or that Spanier is not culpable for the actions he did or did not take in regards to the incident reported by Mcqueary. Only, that is the incident he should be judged on, not all the incidents he didn't know of at the time.
Post a Comment