Joe Pa could face criminal charges - per si.com | The Boneyard

Joe Pa could face criminal charges - per si.com

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,293
Reaction Score
4,657
Not sure if this is new news (in the past day) or not, so hard to keep track, but per si.com, Joe Pa could face criminal charges for perjury, obstruction of justice, and violating the state's child protective services law.

link
 

speedoo

Big Apple Big Dog
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,995
Reaction Score
674
Excellent article. I think Paterno is very much at risk for perjury and obstruction indictments.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
339
Reaction Score
121
Excellent article. I think Paterno is very much at risk for perjury and obstruction indictments.
Although I'm not a lawyer, I'd guess +1 on this.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,560
Reaction Score
19,988
When the attorney general says that you fulfilled your responsiblities under the law, I'm going to guess that this means you will not be charged for a crime.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,669
Reaction Score
2,364
When the attorney general says that you fulfilled your responsiblities under the law, I'm going to guess that this means you will not be charged for a crime.

When the attorney general says that you fulfilled your responsiblities under the law, I'm going to guess that this means you will not be charged for a crime.
Yeah, not like anymore facts will come out that could change the attorney generals attitude on this. Sure AD and VP Finance are going to go quietly and not try and bargain vs. serious jail time. 1998 was not the start of Sandusky's crimes and 2002 was not the 1st inkling JoePa had on this - bet on it and that it will come out. Serial homosexual pedophiles do not start acting at the age of 54, especially when for the previous 19 years they have been a major player in an organization designed to touch troubled boys. The start of this cover up was not 1998.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,560
Reaction Score
19,988
Yeah, not like anymore facts will come out that could change the attorney generals attitude on this. Sure AD and VP Finance are going to go quietly and not try and bargain vs. serious jail time. 1998 was not the start of Sandusky's crimes and 2002 was not the 1st inkling JoePa had on this - bet on it and that it will come out. Serial homosexual pedophiles do not start acting at the age of 54, especially when for the previous 19 years they have been a major player in an organization designed to touch troubled boys. The start of this cover up was not 1998.

Did you read the report? It had instances from well before 1998. Most of the victims were prior to 1998.
2002 wasn't the first inkling for JoePa. We already know that. How? Pasqualoni was reported to the campus police, who started the investigation that was subsequently punted to the town and state (an undercover sting operation and state children's protection).Sandusky was then forced out.
JoePa is getting heat for 2002 because he DIDN'T alert the authorities.
 

PWS

Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
86
Reaction Score
114
Did you read the report? It had instances from well before 1998. Most of the victims were prior to 1998.
2002 wasn't the first inkling for JoePa. We already know that. How? Pasqualoni was reported to the campus police, who started the investigation that was subsequently punted to the town and state (an undercover sting operation and state children's protection).Sandusky was then forced out.
JoePa is getting heat for 2002 because he DIDN'T alert the authorities.

Believe me, JoePa knew about Sandusky long before 2002. Why do you think they made Sandusky "retire" at age 55 at one of the top jobs in the country. Any minor incident on campus regarding the football team goes straight to JoePa. The 1998 incident would have wound up in his office. I am not sure when he first found out, but he knew about this in 1998 and negotiated Sandusky's removal from the program with a soft landing. Just because they haven't been able to prove this yet and put it in the report, doesn't mean it is not true.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,669
Reaction Score
2,364
Did you read the report? It had instances from well before 1998. Most of the victims were prior to 1998.
2002 wasn't the first inkling for JoePa. We already know that. How? Pasqualoni was reported to the campus police, who started the investigation that was subsequently punted to the town and state (an undercover sting operation and state children's protection).Sandusky was then forced out.
JoePa is getting heat for 2002 because he DIDN'T alert the authorities.

He may be getting heat but he is not being charged (as you noted) as there is not enough/any evidence to date as to how really knowledgeable he was (my assumption) of Sandusky's earlier acts (1998 and prior). This will come out, his description given to the grand jury for his conduct in 2002 will become more suspect and perjury and then obstruction charges will follow.
There is no way this is a Sandusky only deal there in Happy Valley. It just lasted too long and was too blatant. What is the deal with this non profit organization, is there a homosexual predator network at Happy Valley which includes key member of the PSU administration and is part of the culture there? Is the DA disappearing part of this? It doesn't make sense that JoePa took a heavy lead in hiding this all these years, somehow the power structure at PSU must have involved "we don't want to make homosexuals to look bad by playing into the "predator" stereotype and JoePa played along (with some assurances of WE took care of Sandusky). This is the only way I can make sense of the GA actions and then staying as a coach, JoePa not taking a bat to Sandusky, how the AD and VP Finance acted, how the President acted.

Maybe I should step away from this, I might be seeing another gunman on the grassy knoll.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
5,648
Reaction Score
4,976
When the attorney general says that you fulfilled your responsiblities under the law, I'm going to guess that this means you will not be charged for a crime.

This. I highly doubt Paternity gets charged.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 

junglehusky

Molotov Cocktail of Ugliness
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
7,208
Reaction Score
7,834
Feds getting involved...

By Michael Isikoff
NBC News National Investigative Correspondent
Federal officials are examining whether Penn State officials violated federal law by failing to report sexual abuse allegations by the school's former football defense coordinator Jerry Sandusky.


Josh Hamilton, a spokesman for Education Secretary Arne Duncan, confirmed to NBC News that the department was looking into whether there were possible violations of a federal law called the Clery Act. It requires colleges and universities to publish and distribute information about criminal offenses -- including sex offenses -- that are reported to school authorities.
 

speedoo

Big Apple Big Dog
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,995
Reaction Score
674
When the attorney general says that you fulfilled your responsiblities under the law, I'm going to guess that this means you will not be charged for a crime.
That's a reasonable conclusion to come to if you interpret the AG's comment in a broad way. However, my recollection is that she made the comment specifically with regard to Paterno's reporting responsibilities. IMO she never said anything that precludes an indictment for lying to the GJ about the GA's report to him and hlw detailed it was.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,701
Reaction Score
23,507
This. I highly doubt Paternity gets charged.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Don't be so sure of this. Facts and circumstances can change during the course of an investigation. As the investigation, continues forward, more may come out that Paterno or others knew more than they let on or went to lengths to hide what they knew and when they knew it. You've already seen conflicting statements between what McQueary allegedly told Paterno, and then Paterno denying he knew what actually happened and that he thought it was some "horsing around" in the shower. In some ways, this situation resembles situations that have happened with the Catholic Church, where Archbishops knew of a priest assaulting boys, and their answer was to move them to another Parish. In this situation, and incident is reported in 1998, Sandusky "retires" in 1999, but is allowed to have free access to the campus and facilities, an incident is reported in 2002, by a Grad assistant. Sandusky gets "his keys" taken, and eventually the Grad Assistant becomes a full time member of the staff. Look for details to get a lot worse.

Honestly i feel bad for everyone except Sandusky (soon enough he will be on the receiving end of having his hands up against a shower stall, if he doesn't off himself first). Paterno is a frigging dinosaur. I'm sure he thought Sandusky could "stop" this with a stern talking to and he did not want to see a colleague dragged off to jail. I have to imagine that others took their marching orders from Paterno on how to handle this. Paterno is old enough to be a great grandfather, in some instances i'm sure he has some outdated thinking that goes on in that head of his. Child sex abuse in older generations wasn't something that was openly discussed, that is a relatively new development, that is no longer taboo to discuss in large part because of what has happened with the Catholic Church.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,560
Reaction Score
19,988
That's a reasonable conclusion to come to if you interpret the AG's comment in a broad way. However, my recollection is that she made the comment specifically with regard to Paterno's reporting responsibilities. IMO she never said anything that precludes an indictment for lying to the GJ about the GA's report to him and hlw detailed it was.

Right, perjury is something entirely different.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,560
Reaction Score
19,988
Believe me, JoePa knew about Sandusky long before 2002. Why do you think they made Sandusky "retire" at age 55 at one of the top jobs in the country. Any minor incident on campus regarding the football team goes straight to JoePa. The 1998 incident would have wound up in his office. I am not sure when he first found out, but he knew about this in 1998 and negotiated Sandusky's removal from the program with a soft landing. Just because they haven't been able to prove this yet and put it in the report, doesn't mean it is not true.

That's what I wrote. 2002 wasn't the first inkling for Joe.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,560
Reaction Score
19,988
He may be getting heat but he is not being charged (as you noted) as there is not enough/any evidence to date as to how really knowledgeable he was (my assumption) of Sandusky's earlier acts (1998 and prior). This will come out, his description given to the grand jury for his conduct in 2002 will become more suspect and perjury and then obstruction charges will follow.
There is no way this is a Sandusky only deal there in Happy Valley. It just lasted too long and was too blatant. What is the deal with this non profit organization, is there a homosexual predator network at Happy Valley which includes key member of the PSU administration and is part of the culture there? Is the DA disappearing part of this? It doesn't make sense that JoePa took a heavy lead in hiding this all these years, somehow the power structure at PSU must have involved "we don't want to make homosexuals to look bad by playing into the "predator" stereotype and JoePa played along (with some assurances of WE took care of Sandusky). This is the only way I can make sense of the GA actions and then staying as a coach, JoePa not taking a bat to Sandusky, how the AD and VP Finance acted, how the President acted.

Maybe I should step away from this, I might be seeing another gunman on the grassy knoll.

Sounds very conspiracy theorish, but it's not the DA. The DA gave the investigation over to the AG years ago because--and we don't know why--there was a conflict of interest. Now, that might be where a conspiracy comes in, but the conflict could go back to the 1998 investigation and the fact that they didn't prosecute Sandusky though there might be an argument that they should have. Maybe that's the conflict, that the Centre county DA dropped the ball in 1998.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
40,726
Reaction Score
38,330
When the attorney general says that you fulfilled your responsiblities under the law, I'm going to guess that this means you will not be charged for a crime.

Right. That must be why they started with two relative small fry like the AD and the business manager and then outed the whole scandal. Those two must be freaking out right now. It is just as likely that the AG said that publicly to put pressure on the two small fry. Basically, they got to flip on JoePa, or they will be holding the bag on this s***show.
 

junglehusky

Molotov Cocktail of Ugliness
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
7,208
Reaction Score
7,834
Honestly i feel bad for everyone except Sandusky (soon enough he will be on the receiving end of having his hands up against a shower stall, if he doesn't off himself first). Paterno is a frigging dinosaur. I'm sure he thought Sandusky could "stop" this with a stern talking to and he did not want to see a colleague dragged off to jail. I have to imagine that others took their marching orders from Paterno on how to handle this. Paterno is old enough to be a great grandfather, in some instances i'm sure he has some outdated thinking that goes on in that head of his. Child sex abuse in older generations wasn't something that was openly discussed, that is a relatively new development, that is no longer taboo to discuss in large part because of what has happened with the Catholic Church.
Some good points noeynox. Ivan Maisel had a similar point that in the past these things were "unspeakable". I don't know, but I imagine that people like my grandmother, raised Catholic in western PA, would percieve this as such a pernicious evil that it would be heinous to even bring up the subject at all. And that may also be part of why McQueary didn't report to the cops (I would also think he would be in a state of shock after witnessing that, not that it excuses his responsibilities), and when you're in an authority based organization like a football team (or a church, or a Boy Scouts troop) you can be conditioned to keep these kinds of things in-house and not go to an external authority like the cops. Universities have mechanisms like counseling and maybe ombudspersons, but obviously more needs to be done, and of course the leadership and administrators in this case should absolutely be held responsible to the fullest extend of the law.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
40,726
Reaction Score
38,330
I don't feel bad for Paterno. What is happening now is exactly what he thought would happen if Sandusky's crimes ever went public. So he buried them. He made a calculated decision to save his own hide and leave a predator to assault more children. He can rot in hell for eternity.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,560
Reaction Score
19,988
Right. That must be why they started with two relative small fry like the AD and the business manager and then outed the whole scandal. Those two must be freaking out right now. It is just as likely that the AG said that publicly to put pressure on the two small fry. Basically, they got to flip on JoePa, or they will be holding the bag on this s***show.

Uh, no. I'm convinced now that you didn't read the report. Last time you said there were guaranteed to be incidents prior to 1998, when the report was about incidents prior to 1998. The report also detailed where Curley and Schultz told lies about heir knowledge of the problem. Paterno testified that he told Curley, he didn't say he was unaware of it.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,560
Reaction Score
19,988
I don't feel bad for Paterno. What is happening now is exactly what he thought would happen if Sandusky's crimes ever went public. So he buried them. He made a calculated decision to save his own hide and leave a predator to assault more children. He can rot in hell for eternity.

Then why didn't this happen to the university when they went public a while back?

Even DEADSPIN had an article on it in 2010, they made a joke out of it (citing Sandusky's book TOUCHED).
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,701
Reaction Score
23,507
I don't feel bad for Paterno. What is happening now is exactly what he thought would happen if Sandusky's crimes ever went public. So he buried them. He made a calculated decision to save his own hide and leave a predator to assault more children. He can rot in hell for eternity.
You speak with such authority on this, but the reality is if Paterno/PSU had addressed this upon first learning of Sandusky's behavior (whenever it was they FIRST learned of this, which may have been before 1998), then the "Program" would not be going through what it is going through because it would have been an isolated cancer (Sandusky) that could be cut from the program.

The only thing that makes sense to me, and I work in law enforcement, is that someone knew of Sandusky's transgressions prior to 1998, and they thought he "wouldn't do it again" based on discussions they had with Sandusky. I'm guessing he tearfully told them of abuses he had experienced and they bought in hook line and sinker. Problem is, it is just like the downing the duck syndrome, once you let it happen once, he has you by the short curly ones. Sandusky grew pretty bold about some of the places he committed these indiscretions. A shower, a weight room, both places that someone could walk in, why not just in his office at PSU with the door locked?

I could be way off but its the only thing that makes sense to me, though I WANT to believe that Paterno was really that ignorant and he had no clue due to his advanced age.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
5,648
Reaction Score
4,976
Right. That must be why they started with two relative small fry like the AD and the business manager and then outed the whole scandal. Those two must be freaking out right now. It is just as likely that the AG said that publicly to put pressure on the two small fry. Basically, they got to flip on JoePa, or they will be holding the bag on this s***show.

I am an attorney, and I will say the chances of Joe Paterno being indicted are about 5,000,000 to 1. DA stated that Joe Paterno would not be charged. Pretty much the end of it. Legally, Joe PAterno did everything he was required to do. Morally, he did not do everything he could. That is not a crime.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,560
Reaction Score
19,988
Sandusky grew pretty bold about some of the places he committed these indiscretions. A shower, a weight room, both places that someone could walk in, why not just in his office at PSU with the door locked?

And, a high school's conference room!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
40
Guests online
417
Total visitors
457

Forum statistics

Threads
170,533
Messages
4,221,616
Members
9,128
Latest member
nilesa


Top Bottom