The Pedophile File

[Jeff]

Penn State May Seek Immunity After Skirting Public Laws

Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Pennsylvania State University, after years of skirting public-school rules, may claim protection from liability under commonwealth laws that shield government entities, if it faces suits related to a child-sex scandal.

Moody's Investors Service is examining the school's relationship with the state to see whether claims of sovereign immunity apply, analysts said yesterday. Fallout from abuse charges against an assistant football coach and perjury accusations against two administrators led to the dismissal of Joe Paterno, the head coach, and Penn State's president.

The commonwealth's flagship state-supported school has successfully claimed to be exempt from freedom-of-information laws that apply to most public institutions, including competitors such as Ohio State University and the University of Texas. Penn State's unusual position has for years shielded the school and its football program from public scrutiny.

...

And this exchange didn't make the cut for broadcast?

BOB COSTAS:

19:00:28:00: "But isn't what you're just describing the classic MO of many pedophiles? And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don't necessarily abuse every young person. There were hundreds, if not thousands of young boys you came into contact with, but there are allegations that at least eight of them were victimized. Many people believe there are more to come. So it's entirely possible that you could've helped young boy A in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy B, C, D, and E. Isn't that possible?"

JERRY SANDUSKY:

19:01:01:00: "Well -- you might think that. I don't know. (LAUGHS) In terms of -- my relationship with so many, many young people. I would-- I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and-- and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have-- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."

[IanEye]

"I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have-- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways." - Jerry Sandusky

"For every one person that comes forward with a false accusation, there are probably thousands who will say that none of that sort of activity ever came from Herman Cain." - Herman Cain

[Project Willow]

JERRY SANDUSKY:

And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have-- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."

Woah.

[Simulist]

Well that sounds pretty conclusive.

[The Consul]

Penn State May Seek Immunity After Skirting Public Laws

Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Pennsylvania State University, after years of skirting public-school rules, may claim protection from liability under commonwealth laws that shield government entities, if it faces suits related to a child-sex scandal.

Moody's Investors Service is examining the school's relationship with the state to see whether claims of sovereign immunity apply, analysts said yesterday. Fallout from abuse charges against an assistant football coach and perjury accusations against two administrators led to the dismissal of Joe Paterno, the head coach, and Penn State's president.

The commonwealth's flagship state-supported school has successfully claimed to be exempt from freedom-of-information laws that apply to most public institutions, including competitors such as Ohio State University and the University of Texas. Penn State's unusual position has for years shielded the school and its football program from public scrutiny.

...

And this exchange didn't make the cut for broadcast?

BOB COSTAS:

19:00:28:00: "But isn't what you're just describing the classic MO of many pedophiles? And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don't necessarily abuse every young person. There were hundreds, if not thousands of young boys you came into contact with, but there are allegations that at least eight of them were victimized. Many people believe there are more to come. So it's entirely possible that you could've helped young boy A in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy B, C, D, and E. Isn't that possible?"

JERRY SANDUSKY:

19:01:01:00: "Well -- you might think that. I don't know. (LAUGHS) In terms of -- my relationship with so many, many young people. I would-- I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and-- and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have-- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."

Just like Cain saying that for every woman who came forward and accused him of sexual harassment, there were hundreds, thousands, who did not! Consciousness of criminal denial can never see itself.

[compared2what?]

I'm going to be cautious before drawing too many conclusions from the vague locutions of this one or that one.

c2w wrote:
The cases against Curley and Schultz, on the other hand, are almost totally reliant on McQueary's testimony. So those may have just gotten somewhat less robust.

Seems so, but the grand jury presentment was as clear as it could be. They found Mike McQueary extremely credible, and Schultz and Curley considerably not-so. What did they find McQueary to be extremely credible about? His testimony to them that he witnessed Sandusky raping a young child and told this to Curley and Schultz in no uncertain terms.

If McQueary is a coward, and I'm not saying he is or isn't, how do we explain a coward making something like this up? Why? All it does is make potential problems for him. Does a coward make something like this up and then claim to a grand jury with the power to indict him for perjury or worse, that he repeated the story to his coach, who happens to be the most powerful public man in that part of the state? Again, why? And if he's not a coward, why make it up then? No reason I can think of. Only makes problems again.

The most reasonable explanation for his GJ testimony is: McQueary saw rape. After consulting with his father [and either intervening or not - I have no opinion on that part of this], he reported that rape to Paterno, and then also to Curley and Schultz. Could Paterno have convinced him to fudge the details in his telling of the story to Paterno's superiors? Not at all hard to believe. Would McQueary have done that? I can't know at this point.

I didn't make what I was saying as unvaguely locuted as I should have, my apologies.

I totally agree with you that his testimony about having seen Sandusky raping a young child is most reasonably explicable by that being what he saw. But the GJ presentment rather pointedly doesn't ever make it clear in exactly what terms he told Paterno about it. It just says that the next day he reported to Paterno "what he had seen," after which Paterno reported to Curley that McQueary had seen Sandusky "fondling" or "doing something of a sexual nature" to a child in the shower.

Okay. So, bearing in mind that the prosecution is both strongly motivated and professionally obligated to do its level best from start to finish to put together a strong enough case to convict the people they've charged with felonies at trial, it seems more than reasonable to assume thatneither McQueary nor Paterno ever testified to anything that bears directly on the question of what Paterno knew and when he knew it that significantly differs from the account given in the GJ presentment.

Because (among other things) if McQueary -- a witness whom the GJ found extremely credible -- had testified to them that he'd told Paterno he witnessed Sandusky raping a young child, immediately after which Paterno merely reported to Curley having received an account of fondling or something of a sexual nature from that witness, there would be no reasonable explanation that I can think of for their not having hit Paterno with the same charges as they did Curley and Schultz.

I mean, why would hearing McQueary's eye-witness account of a child being anally raped by Sandusky be any more credibly forgettable for Paterno than it would for Curley and Schultz? And if he did hear such an account, why would he have any more of an excuse for having ignored legally mandatory reporting requirements than they've got? Or any less of a reason to prevaricate under oath about his knowledge of a rape that McQueary had testified to telling him in no uncertain terms?

In short: I wasn't suggesting McQueary might be impeachable because I think there is a reasonable (or innocent) explanation for Curley and Schultz having known as little as they claim, but because I think there isn't a reasonable (or innocent) explanation for Paterno having known as little (or less than) they did.
__________

(I also think that there is a reasonable (non-innocent but technically defensible) explanation that accounts for Paterno's nevertheless not having been indicted. But that's a much, much longer story, so I'll spare you the details. But: Prosecutorial trade-off, basically.)

[seemslikeadream]

New judge assigned in Penn State sex-abuse case


Former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky is accused of abusing eight boys over 15 years.
AP

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) -- A new judge was assigned to handle Jerry Sandusky's child sex-abuse charges on Wednesday as a lawyer for a boy who accuses the former Penn State assistant football coach of abuse took aim at his televised defense.

Harrisburg attorney Ben Andreozzi said he represents a client who will testify against Sandusky, who is accused of abusing eight boys over 15 years.

"I am appalled by the fact that Mr. Sandusky has elected to re-victimize these young men at a time when they should be healing," Andreozzi said in a statement released by his office. "He fully intends to testify that he was severely sexually assaulted by Mr. Sandusky."

Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola, appeared with him on NBC's "Rock Center" Monday night and cast doubt on the evidence in the case.

"We anticipate we're going to have at least several of those kids come forward and say `This never happened. This is me. This is the allegation. It never occurred,"' Amendola said.

Sandusky, 67, appeared on the show by phone and said he had showered with boys but never molested them.

Andreozzi said he has his "finger on the pulse" of the case and knows of no accusers changing their stories or refusing to testify.

"To the contrary, others are actually coming forward, and I will have more information for you later this week," Andreozzi said.

The answering machine at Amendola's State College office was full and not accepting messages on Wednesday.

The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts announced Wednesday that it was bringing in a Westmoreland County senior district judge to preside over Sandusky's preliminary hearing. Robert E. Scott is taking over the hearing from Centre County District Judge Leslie Dutchcot.

Dutchcot has donated money to The Second Mile, a charity established by Sandusky for at-risk children and the place where authorities say he met his victims.

The office said Scott has no known ties to Penn State or The Second Mile. The hearing is scheduled for Dec. 7.

Some plaintiffs' lawyers are starting to advertise on their websites for potential Sandusky victims, vowing to get justice.

Jeff Anderson, a St. Paul, Minn., attorney, has long represented clergy-abuse victims and told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he has been retained by several people he described as Sandusky victims.

"There's a great deal of fury and confusion," particularly because Sandusky is free on bail, Anderson said. "Getting (them) help and cooperating with law enforcement is our first priority."

The "time for reckoning," in the form of civil suits, will come later, Anderson said.

Anderson declined to say whether his clients are among the eight boys who were labeled as victims in the grand jury report.

Likewise, Berks County lawyer Jay Abramowitch, who has represented about 150 child-sex victims, many of them in clergy-abuse cases, said he is following the Penn State case closely. He declined to say if he was representing anyone accusing Sandusky of abuse.

"The real significance of what happened in the Sandusky situation is that people are beginning to understand the cover-up that goes on in any structural organization that employs a pedophile. And that's why these pedophiles are running wild," he said.

"What's the answer? One of the answers is to allow these victims the right to go to court and file suit against not only the pedophile, but the group that employed them ... and didn't do anything," Abramowitch said.

Abramowitch long fought to have the state extend the time limit for victims to file civil suits, a change made only after a 2005 grand jury report described years of abuse within the Philadelphia archdiocese.

In State College, Penn State announced a physician and member of its board of trustees who played football and wrestled for the school would serve as acting athletic director. The school named Dr. David M. Joyner, an orthopedic surgeon who specializes in sports medicine and a business consultant, as the interim replacement for Tim Curley.

Curley is on leave as athletic director as he defends himself against criminal charges that he failed to properly alert authorities when told of an alleged sexual assault by Sandusky against a child, and that he lied to a grand jury.

Joyner's position on the board, where he has been a trustee since 2000, is being suspended as he takes on the new duties.

Also Wednesday, a central Pennsylvania police chief said his department did not receive reports from a then-Penn State graduate assistant who said he saw Sandusky raping a boy on campus in 2002.

The assistant, Mike McQueary, wrote in an email to a friend that was made available to The Associated Press that he had discussions with police about what he saw. In the email, McQueary did not specify which police department he spoke to.

State College borough police chief Tom King said McQueary didn't make a report to his department.

The university also has its own police force. Penn State administrators said they were looking into whether McQueary contacted campus police.

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., introduced a bill that would require all adults to report child abuse and neglect to police or local child protective agencies.

And new details were emerging about how the case ended up in the hands of the state attorney general's office.

Former Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira told The Associated Press that his wife's brother - who he declined to name - was Sandusky's adopted son.

"I reviewed it and I made the decision it needed to be investigated further," Madeira said. "But the apparent conflict of interest created an impediment for me to make those kinds of decisions."

The scandal's fallout extended to former Pittsburgh Steelers great Franco Harris, whose relationship with a southwestern Pennsylvania racetrack and casino was put on hiatus after he chastised Penn State's trustees for showing "no courage" for firing Paterno, who has not been charged with a crime and is not considered a target of prosecutors.

Harris, who played for Paterno from 1968 to 1971, had recently signed on to be a spokesman for The Meadows Racetrack and Casino, located in Washington, Pa., about 30 minutes south of Pittsburgh. The track said it was a mutual decision.

[compared2what?]

Anyway, Schultz and Curley very, very likely knew about the 1998 report as well.

I agree. So did Paterno, though.

Whether or not they did, the fact of it makes McQueary's contentions all that much more credible to a jury. If they had knowledge of it, they look that much worse for their actions in 2002.

I agree. So does Paterno, though.

Lastly, GJ presentments leave lots of stuff out. It's not at all clear Mcqueary lied (or even left key stuff out) yet.

In a high-profile case against well-to-do defendants, it's a pretty safe bet that the prosecution wouldn't leave out anything major that was both potentially discoverable and potentially exculpatory at this stage of the game, though. That's an elementary part of their job, as is keeping stuff of that nature from ever making it into the record to begin with.

But, you know. It's not like they just have to wait until their cooperating witnesses are under oath to find out how they're going to answer certain questions. And nor is it like they have to worry about any information that might be elicited by questions asked on cross making it into the grand jury proceedings. Because there is no cross-examination in grand jury proceedings, to cite just one of the features that former NY-State Justice Sol Wachtler probably had in mind when he so famously said that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecution so requested.

So I very much doubt that McQueary and/or Paterno either would or could have demonstrably lied to the GJ about any key stuff. And I'd be very much surprised if there were any key stuff favoring the defense that got totally left out of the GJ presentment.

Seriously. The whole thing reads as if that kind of thing has been very thoroughly considered already. Take that very careful enumeration of phone calls exchanged between Sandusky and Victim One, for example. In context, that reads as a [blah blah blah blah blah blah]

Here are some rather eye-opening excerpts from the blog of a man named Matt Paknis, a graduate assistant during the years of 1987-88 when Sandusky was defensive coordinator and McQueary was 14 years old, dreaming of playing for Notre Dame.

Hey! The website of Matt Paknis is in part responsible for my thinking wrt how McQueary and Paterno ended up testifying, as it happens.

It's a very small but neverthless very diverse world that we here in the realm of thought are inhabiting, isn't it?

I just love that about it, sometimes.

[Peachtree Pam]

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... 3_mil.html

Gov. Tom Corbett suspends $3 million state grant to Sandusky's charity, Second Mile

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett approved a $3 million state grant to The Second Mile, the charity founded by Jerry Sandusky, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is reporting. The money is on hold, the paper says. It was to be used toward a project with classrooms and a gym for the charity for underprivileged children.

Sandusky, a former Penn State assistant football coach, has been charged with sexually abusing boys. Corbett, as Pennsylvania's attorney general, was involved in the investigation that led to charges being filed against Sandusky this month.

Sandusky founded The Second Mile in 1977 and retired from it last year. Prosecutors have said he used the charity to find victims.

One of the questions surrounding the scandal has been whether anyone at The Second Mile suspected anything. The Patriot-News has learned that, in 2008, Second Mile executive Katherine Genovese told a person in authority that the charity had concerns about Sandusky and certain boys.

Corbett has said the attorney general’s grand jury investigation is looking at what The Second Mile did and didn’t do.

The Centre Daily Times says that Penn State University sold land to The Second Mile in 2002.

Katherine Genovese is the wife of the CEO of Second Mile.

[seemslikeadream]

Report: Key files from Jerry Sandusky's charity are missing

By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY
Updated 1h 27m ago

CAPTION
By Gene J. Puskar, AP
Some key records from the charity founded by former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky are missing and investigators worry that this could limit their ability to get to the bottom of allegations that the assistant football coach engaged in sexual abuse of young boys over several years, The New York Times reports.

The material could show if Sandusky used resources of Second Mile, a charity for at-risk children, to allegedly recruit new victims or buy their silence, the Times says, quoting two unidentified people with knowledge of the case.

The newspaper says select members of the charity's board of directors were alarmed when they found out recently that records from about 2000 to 2003 were missing.

The newspaper says Lynne Abraham, a lawyer for Second Mile, did not return a call requesting comment and a spokesman for the state's attorney general declined to comment.

The report appears in a lengthy article in the Times on why the investigation into allegations against Sandusky languished for years.

The article, by Jo Becker, says a key to breaking the case was a random reference in an Internet chat room about Penn State athletics that hinted that a football coach years earlier "might have seen something ugly, but kept silent."

Investigators narrowed the reference down to Mike McQueary, a coach at Penn State who, as a graduate student, had allegedly witnessed Sandusky sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy in a Penn State shower in 2002.

Because Penn State is a tight-knit community, investigators chose to meet McQueary in an out-of-the-way parking lot. McQueary, a key witness in the case, eventually unburdened himself, the article says, giving investigators the lead they were seeking.

[Avalon]

Report: Key files from Jerry Sandusky's charity are missing

By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY
<snip>The report appears in a lengthy article in the Times on why the investigation into allegations against Sandusky languished for years.

The article, by Jo Becker, says a key to breaking the case was a random reference in an Internet chat room about Penn State athletics that hinted that a football coach years earlier "might have seen something ugly, but kept silent."

Investigators narrowed the reference down to Mike McQueary, a coach at Penn State who, as a graduate student, had allegedly witnessed Sandusky sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy in a Penn State shower in 2002.

Somebody listened to their gut instincts that a little snippet of information in an out of a way place could be an important thing. Remember that. Listen to that.

[bks]

Anyway, Schultz and Curley very, very likely knew about the 1998 report as well.

I agree. So did Paterno, though.

Whether or not they did, the fact of it makes McQueary's contentions all that much more credible to a jury. If they had knowledge of it, they look that much worse for their actions in 2002.

I agree. So does Paterno, though.

Lastly, GJ presentments leave lots of stuff out. It's not at all clear Mcqueary lied (or even left key stuff out) yet.

In a high-profile case against well-to-do defendants, it's a pretty safe bet that the prosecution wouldn't leave out anything major that was both potentially discoverable and potentially exculpatory at this stage of the game, though. That's an elementary part of their job, as is keeping stuff of that nature from ever making it into the record to begin with.

But, you know. It's not like they just have to wait until their cooperating witnesses are under oath to find out how they're going to answer certain questions. And nor is it like they have to worry about any information that might be elicited by questions asked on cross making it into the grand jury proceedings. Because there is no cross-examination in grand jury proceedings, to cite just one of the features that former NY-State Justice Sol Wachtler probably had in mind when he so famously said that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecution so requested.

So I very much doubt that McQueary and/or Paterno either would or could have demonstrably lied to the GJ about any key stuff. And I'd be very much surprised if there were any key stuff favoring the defense that got totally left out of the GJ presentment.

Seriously. The whole thing reads as if that kind of thing has been very thoroughly considered already. Take that very careful enumeration of phone calls exchanged between Sandusky and Victim One, for example. In context, that reads as a [blah blah blah blah blah blah]

Here are some rather eye-opening excerpts from the blog of a man named Matt Paknis, a graduate assistant during the years of 1987-88 when Sandusky was defensive coordinator and McQueary was 14 years old, dreaming of playing for Notre Dame.

Hey! The website of Matt Paknis is in part responsible for my thinking wrt how McQueary and Paterno ended up testifying, as it happens.

It's a very small but neverthless very diverse world that we here in the realm of thought are inhabiting, isn't it?

I just love that about it, sometimes.

I do to. It goes without saying but I'll say it: I love the sense-making that happens here; on subjects like this it's among the best anywhere short of being on the inside. I'm always grateful for it. I just wish there was less occasion for it

As for Paterno:

If Paterno deserves to be arrested, let's have him arrested by all means. But there are at least a few potentially crucial differences between Paterno's positioning in all of this and that of Schultz and Curley:

1. Curley is Paterno's superior (as silly as that sounds, since Paterno practically hired the guy). Curley is the Director of Athletics, and therefore it could be argued that he has a responsibility to report that no underling of his has, since the departmental buck stops with him. Thus his telling to Spanier what he learned was insufficient;. I have no idea if this is in fact the basis for the "failure to report" charge against him (more on this below). i'm oinclined to think that any provision allowing for Curley to be charged with failure to report would work for charging Paterno as well. However:

2. There is a significant difference between what the grand jury says McQueary reported to Paterno and what McQueary reported to Curley and Schultz. It is potentially a huge difference. The GJ is specific is saying that Mcqueary told C&S that McQueary witnessned "Sandusky having anal sex with a boy". Nowhere does it say that McQueary told this to Paterno, only that he told Paterno he witnessed "fondling or something of a sexual nature".

Of course both are problematic and should be reported immediately. But saying the former rather than the latter certainly eliminates any and doubt that something should immediately be done (what i mean is: some would argue that McQueary's description of events to Paterno was sufficiently vague not to absolutely necessitate immediate action, given he could be interpreting things erroneously and blah blah blah (I don't agree with this position, but see how it could be made). This would further assume Paterno had never heard something like this about Sandusky before, which as you rightly point out is almost certainly false.

2. While Paterno failed to report just as Curley and Schultz failed to report, I haven't heard anyone with knowledge of the case say that the "failure to report" charge against Curley and Schultz is likely to stick. It's not at all clear that they had a legal obligation to report, and I would be willing to bet it doesn't stand up. The perjury charge is another matter. They have them dead to rights on that it seems [more on this below].

Should Paterno have been charged, then, with failure to report? For the reasons stated I can't say for sure, but in a fair world, yes, he should have if Curley was .(As a practical matter it's easy to see why he wasn't, though. If you charge Paterno with something that doesn't stick, any DA with political aspirations will understand that she would always have that on her record. Thus any would be very, very careful before doing something like that)

3. Curley and Schultz are charged with perjury because of their performance before the grand jury. Apparently, Paterno's performance did not earn him the same suspicion. The fact that Curley and Schultz met with McQueary directly means they were therefore not dependent on Paterno's characterization of events. Of course Paterno could have still lied to the grand jury about the specifics of what McQueary told him, but apparently they didn't think he did. Unless we have some reason for believing the GJ wanted to protect Paterno? All ears.

[compared2what?]

That charity needs a closer look.

Also, Katherine Genovese, wife of Second Mile CEO, was BA, Penn State, class of '78 and MA, Penn State, class of 84, which is interesting because the MA was in education, and:

Man claims sexual abuse was ignored by Penn State

A Phoenix, Ariz., man is alleging that he tried, without success, in 2001 and 2002 to reach someone at Penn State who would act on his claims he had been abused for years by a Penn State professor.

Paul McGlaughlin, 45, of Phoenix, Ariz., alleged in a news release issued by the National Center for Victims of Crime that he was 11 years old in 1977 when he began to be abused by Penn State professor John T. Neisworth and two other men. He said the abuse occurred over a period of four years in several states, including at Neisworth's home in Julian and at his Penn State office, McGlaughlin said.

Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/17/2 ... z1dzMrIbWF

Neisworth (Emeritus in the Education Department) is a national name in the special ed field, known for his work on/with autistic children.



http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/17/2 ... nored.html

[compared2what?]

I forgot to say that Katherine Genovese is/was also active with (and maybe ex-executive director of?) the Penn State Alumni Association.

IOW: She is/was directly active in a branch of their fundraising machine. So that's suggestive.

________________

"Genovese" is a crime-family name with roots in that part of Pennsylvania, fwiw. But it's also not an uncommon name. So that's inconclusive but suggestive!

[compared2what?]

And (almost) finally:

The Patriot-News is a great resource for research on this case, imo. They got lots of backstory. For example, this story on The Second Mile's big donors, which reveals that the Merck guy who's heading the Penn State internal review (IIRC) was one of them, among other things.

It sure looks like a super-mobbed up little world, at least figuratively speaking. That real-estate deal SLAD posted about had some little related-party-transaction-type quirks that one associates with such things, for instance.

Details on that are in the story linked to above. And more. Plus more stories!