Paterno and Penn St

[yvonne johnson]

Yvonne - one thing that should be pointed out is that a "Graduate Assistant" is really a coach in all but title. Its a loophole in NCAA regs concerning the permitted number (and salaries) of named coaches. He was probably taking whatever the minimum course load is in phys ed or something like that, but really he is just one of the more junior members of the staff. Often aspiring coaches will GA at multiple schools early in their career.

 

I don't really think that changes your argument much, but its probably wrong to think of him as a student.

Thanks, I don't follow American football hardly at all. (Just as I know diddly squat about fly fishing.)

 

So, was he an employee?

paid a "stipend" of 8-9k, probably spent 90% of his non-sleeping life in the football offices.

 

Article on how abused the rule is: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_staples/06/09/personnel-issues/index.html

Ok, so he's like an adjunct, as far as I can see. Still, the lowest of the low.

[ghostrider]

It was reported on Ch. 5 news here tonight that McQueary has said in an email regarding Sandusky in the shower that he "made sure it stopped" before he left the scene.

 

A quick search finds the story repeated here. The relevant bit -

 

Mcqueary... has sent an e-mail to former teammates clarifying his actions, NBC News reported Monday night.

 

In the e-mail the network said it obtained, McQueary told some former Penn State teammates: "I did the right thing ... you guys know me ... the truth is not out there fully ... I didn't just turn and run ... I made sure it stopped ... I had to make quick, tough decisions."

 

Apparently this puts a different slant on earlier reporting. I hope the truth will out eventually.

[hollywood]

Have there been a lot of sun spots lately? First, we have Conrad Murray and the bizarre fashion in which he behaved. Then, we have Herman Cain, seemingly being set up by Gloria Allred but denying everything (that he can remember). Now, Sandusky with his attorney's permission gives a detailed interview to Bob Costas denying virtually everything. Are you kidding me? Your client is accused of multiple counts of rape, molestation, sexual abuse of minors, and there are eye witnesses to some of these acts, and you are letting your client give a detailed interview denying the specifics to Bob Costas?

[Sneakeater]

I'm not sure if anyone has covered this, but is there a cultural divide (if you like) b/w parents and non-parents?

 

I can see why this might be so. Even from a stark evolutionary point of view, parents would be quick to get involved if one's off-spring (or imaginary off-spring, from an empathic point of view, if you will) were in harms way.

 

Just a thought.

 

It seems very clear to me that there is.

[Liza]

Um, wow: from Sports Illustrated:

Joe Amendola, the attorney for former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, impregnated a 17-year-old girl, according to the The Daily and the New York Post.

 

Amendola, 63, was the attorney for Mary Lavasile’s emancipation petition from Sept. 3, 1996, which was filed just weeks before her 17th birthday. Mary became pregnant with Amendola’s child approximately around that time, according to Janet Lavasile, Mary’s mother.

 

“At the time, I didn’t know the extent of the relationship,” said Janet.

 

Amendola seemed more like Mary’s “mentor,” according to Janet.

 

“She met him through the school district; she was interested in the law,” Janet said.

 

Mary and Amendola married in 2003 but have since split up, according to the report.

 

“Joe is a very good father and has loved his two children very much, and that’s the most important thing for me right now,” Janet said.

[Steve R.]

i find him culpable too*. but i can also believe that he could just have frozen in the moment, or been an utter coward. i don't think he's the only person out of a hundred who would have failed to try and stop the rape as it was happening; though if he was discussing on the internet someone else's failure to do so he might be very confident he would have intervened. i think i would intervene immediately too. but i've never been in a similar position and hope not to find out if that would be true in practice.

 

*for not calling the police after the initial shock, for not following up for years after, for being willing to continue in a position where he could see that same man still consorting with children.

 

I fully agree with this &, unfortunately, it's based on too much knowledge of this type of crime, its victims, the perpetrators & those who know about the abuse. Of this, my own greatest continued amazement (and disappointment) is with the part of Mongo's post after the *. I will never understand how someone can continue to live day to day after the fact around someone who exhibits all the signs of being a continuous abuser and do almost nothing. So many more victims exist because of this. Sad.

 

I'm not sure if anyone has covered this, but is there a cultural divide (if you like) b/w parents and non-parents?

 

I can see why this might be so. Even from a stark evolutionary point of view, parents would be quick to get involved if one's off-spring (or imaginary off-spring, from an empathic point of view, if you will) were in harms way.

 

Just a thought.

 

It seems very clear to me that there is.

 

I'm too close to the situation to be a good unbiased sample, but I'm sure I'm closer to the parent perspective on this even though I dont have kids (or children). However, as Yvonne probably knows as well as anyone, data unfortunately suggests that much sexual abuse of minors is committed by family, not strangers, so it's not that clean cut there either. Equally unfortunate is is fact that pedophilia is far from uncommon in our society and, as that "To Catch A Predator" TV series found out, you dont have to shake the tree very hard for a bunch of predators (or wanabees) to come falling out. And that was just the tip of the iceburg.

 

Killing (or castrating) them all might have great appeal, but it just ain't going to be so simple. And I do think talking about it helps in many ways.

[Wilfrid]

Stop being so sensible.

 

As Ghostrider already pointed out, we now have several sources, including McQueary, saying that he intervened and stopped the assault, rendering arguments about how difficult it would have been for him to do so somewhat moot.

 

As Steve points out, dividing the world into parents and non-parents hardly helps in this case - anyone watch the video of the teenage girl being whipped by her judge father with her mother egging him on? - but sure, as the father of a 10 year old, persistently surrounded by her noisy 10 year old friends, I can't imagine not intervening if one of them was threatened (no matter who by). It borders on the inconceivable.

 

But anyway, we're now talking about hypotheticals.

[Wilfrid]

Have there been a lot of sun spots lately? First, we have Conrad Murray and the bizarre fashion in which he behaved. Then, we have Herman Cain, seemingly being set up by Gloria Allred but denying everything (that he can remember). Now, Sandusky with his attorney's permission gives a detailed interview to Bob Costas denying virtually everything. Are you kidding me? Your client is accused of multiple counts of rape, molestation, sexual abuse of minors, and there are eye witnesses to some of these acts, and you are letting your client give a detailed interview denying the specifics to Bob Costas?

 

Worse than that, if the Times account is accurate. Getting Sandusky "on the phone" seems to have been his lawyer's suggestion, and a last minute one too. Get a different lawyer.

[splinky]

a fellow pedophile may not be the very best source of advice, for making important judgment calls.

[hollywood]

Have there been a lot of sun spots lately? First, we have Conrad Murray and the bizarre fashion in which he behaved. Then, we have Herman Cain, seemingly being set up by Gloria Allred but denying everything (that he can remember). Now, Sandusky with his attorney's permission gives a detailed interview to Bob Costas denying virtually everything. Are you kidding me? Your client is accused of multiple counts of rape, molestation, sexual abuse of minors, and there are eye witnesses to some of these acts, and you are letting your client give a detailed interview denying the specifics to Bob Costas?

 

Worse than that, if the Times account is accurate. Getting Sandusky "on the phone" seems to have been his lawyer's suggestion, and a last minute one too. Get a different lawyer.

and to think Costas didn't even give Sandusky his Miranda warnings!

[splinky]

Have there been a lot of sun spots lately? First, we have Conrad Murray and the bizarre fashion in which he behaved. Then, we have Herman Cain, seemingly being set up by Gloria Allred but denying everything (that he can remember). Now, Sandusky with his attorney's permission gives a detailed interview to Bob Costas denying virtually everything. Are you kidding me? Your client is accused of multiple counts of rape, molestation, sexual abuse of minors, and there are eye witnesses to some of these acts, and you are letting your client give a detailed interview denying the specifics to Bob Costas?

 

Worse than that, if the Times account is accurate. Getting Sandusky "on the phone" seems to have been his lawyer's suggestion, and a last minute one too. Get a different lawyer.

and to think Costas didn't even give Sandusky his Miranda warnings!

his lawyer would have waived his rights. every predator deserves a bad lawyer. is the costas interview admissible?

[TaliesinNYC]

I am finding a lot of this self-righteous indignation very hard to take.

 

Take it as (un)pleantly as you prefer.

 

David, It seems incomprehensible that straight-thinking folks can rationalize anyone not intervening on such an ugly event.

 

 

Kitty Genovese predated Jerry Sandusky by over 30 years, except in her case, it was murder and not pedophilia.

 

Happens all the time.

[hollywood]

Have there been a lot of sun spots lately? First, we have Conrad Murray and the bizarre fashion in which he behaved. Then, we have Herman Cain, seemingly being set up by Gloria Allred but denying everything (that he can remember). Now, Sandusky with his attorney's permission gives a detailed interview to Bob Costas denying virtually everything. Are you kidding me? Your client is accused of multiple counts of rape, molestation, sexual abuse of minors, and there are eye witnesses to some of these acts, and you are letting your client give a detailed interview denying the specifics to Bob Costas?

 

Worse than that, if the Times account is accurate. Getting Sandusky "on the phone" seems to have been his lawyer's suggestion, and a last minute one too. Get a different lawyer.

and to think Costas didn't even give Sandusky his Miranda warnings!

his lawyer would have waived his rights. every predator deserves a bad lawyer. is the costas interview admissible?

why not? as long as the audio is not altered, what's the objection? it's not hearsay. it could well be an admission against interest--showering and engaging in horseplay with underage boys. certainly Costas and/or his sound man could lay the foundation. could Sandusky say that it wasn't him speaking? i don't think so. is it prejudicial? absolutely, but it's highly probative. i wouldn't be surprised if the prosecution asks the judge to let them play it during opening statement.

[Wilfrid]

I agree. Although he doesn't admit guilt, I can recall on one hearing that some of his answers are terrible. I wonder if this attorney likes to have his clients deposed without notice or preparation?

[SethG]

Have there been a lot of sun spots lately? First, we have Conrad Murray and the bizarre fashion in which he behaved. Then, we have Herman Cain, seemingly being set up by Gloria Allred but denying everything (that he can remember). Now, Sandusky with his attorney's permission gives a detailed interview to Bob Costas denying virtually everything. Are you kidding me? Your client is accused of multiple counts of rape, molestation, sexual abuse of minors, and there are eye witnesses to some of these acts, and you are letting your client give a detailed interview denying the specifics to Bob Costas?

 

Worse than that, if the Times account is accurate. Getting Sandusky "on the phone" seems to have been his lawyer's suggestion, and a last minute one too. Get a different lawyer.

and to think Costas didn't even give Sandusky his Miranda warnings!

his lawyer would have waived his rights. every predator deserves a bad lawyer. is the costas interview admissible?

why not? as long as the audio is not altered, what's the objection? it's not hearsay. it could well be an admission against interest--showering and engaging in horseplay with underage boys. certainly Costas and/or his sound man could lay the foundation. could Sandusky say that it wasn't him speaking? i don't think so. is it prejudicial? absolutely, but it's highly probative. i wouldn't be surprised if the prosecution asks the judge to let them play it during opening statement.

 

It absolutely is hearsay under the conventional meaning of hearsay. However, in New York, and I imagine most other places, a statement such as Sandusky's comes in anyway as an admission of the defendant, if the prosecutor wishes to introduce it. Often the prosecutor chooses not to introduce these kinds of self-serving, exculpatory statements. If the prosecutor does not introduce it the defense is not allowed to put it into evidence.