Showing posts with label Jerry Sandusky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jerry Sandusky. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
McQueary's GJ Testimony Proves Prosecutor Lied in Presentment
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/Sandusky%20Amended%20Petition%20for%20Post%20Conviction%20Relief.pdf for PROOF that the author of the Sandusky Grand Jury presentment lied about McQueary actually seeing a sexual assault on a minor. I will re-file the professional misconduct complaint I filed in February 2012 (on the basis of McQueary's testimony in the Curley/Schultz hearing) this week, as soon as I can get more information.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Discrepency between McQueary Testimony in Sandusky Trial, Curley/Schultz Hearing
Their View: Michael Jackson’s lawyer thinks Sandusky case merits second look at the Centre Daily Times contends that Jerry Sandusky deserves another trial. The following reinforces that conclusion.
Here is what McQueary (the witness answering the questions) said at Sandusky's trial.
Here, however, is what McQueary told the Curley/Schultz hearing
A Never said anything, no.
Q On that night, did you have a cell phone with you?
A I can’t recall if I had a cell phone with me or not on that night
Q Do you know if you called your father from a cell phone or a phone in the Lasch Building?
A I called him from a landline at my desk.
Q And your desk, you say, was on the second floor?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the shower on the first floor?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you went up to the second floor after the third time, you say you saw Mr. Sandusky and the boy, you left the boy with Mr. Sandusky, did you not?
A Yes, they were separated and he was still with Mr. Sandusky when I left that locker room. yes.
Q When you say separated, they were still side by side, right?
A No, not side by side. To me side by side is six inches or closer. They were four or five feet in between them.
Q Still in the shower?
A But in the shower room together, yes.
Q Naked?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that’s how you left the boy?
A Yes.
Q And did not call the police?
A I did not call the police.
Q Prior to this occasion, had you ever had any contact with the Penn State University Police?
A Have I ever had contact with them?
Q Yes. Talked to any of them?
A I’m sure I had on the street hello or something, sir, yes, but I was not a part of a criminal investigation at Penn State. I mean, not in detail conversation, I guess if that’s what you’re asking.
Q Yes. You knew Penn State had uniformed police officers?
A Yes, absolutely.
Q Carry guns?
A Yes.
Q You know the town of State College has uniformed police officers?
A Yes, absolutely.
Q Carry firearms?
A Yes.
Q You never saw Mr. Schultz in a uniform, did you?
A Not in a uniform.
Q Never saw him carrying a firearm?
A Not a firearm, no.
Q And during your time at Penn State, did you ever have occasion to report -- let’s put aside this incident. Did you ever have occasion to report any incident to either the Penn State Police or the State College Police?
A No, I’ve never reported incidents.
Q Never had your car broken into?
A No, sir.
Q Or home burglarized?
A No.
Q But had that happened, it would have been one of these uniformed police officers you reported it to, right?
A Yes, for a home burglary, yes, not for Jerry Sandusky doing what he was doing to a boy, just to address your point.
Q Well, tell us why would you not report that.
A Because it was delicate in nature in my opinion, sir, and I tried to use my best judgment.
Q And, as you say, your best judgment included leaving the boy with Mr. Sandusky,right?
A Yes, I was sure the act was over.
Q You don’t know what happened after you left?
A I do not know what happened for sure after I left.
Q Never made any effort to find that boy, did you?
A I did not. [Joe Paterno was, however, supposed to have tried to find the boy according to Lanny Davis, whom the Trustees hired as their spin doctor after they fired Paterno.]
Q Did you ever ask anyone at the Second Mile about a boy who might have been with Mr. Sandusky on this night? [Tim Curley did, but was nonetheless accused of participating in a coverup.]
MR. BEEMER [prosecutor]: Your Honor, objection. He just answered the question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Here is what McQueary (the witness answering the questions) said at Sandusky's trial.
Here, however, is what McQueary told the Curley/Schultz hearing
Starting
on Page 13. Compare this to the Grand Jury presentment's statement that McQueary
saw the boy “with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal
intercourse by a naked Sandusky."
A Jerry is Coach Sandusky
Q And you indicated upon this first glance, you indicated that there was another individual in the shower with Jerry Sandusky?
A Yes.
Q And you described a particular position that you observed him in.. Could you describe that again, please?
A Yes. The boy was up against the wall , facing the wall, his hands maybe shoulder height on the wall. And Jerry was directly behind him in a very, very, very close position with Jerry’s hands wrapped around his waist or midsection. I couldn’t see his actual hands, but his arms were wrapped around. And it appeared upon looking the second time, I said to myself, they’re in a very sexual oriented -- a very sexual position.
Q What did you believe they were doing?
A I believed Jerry was sexually molesting him and having some type of intercourse with him.
Q And that was based on what you observed in terms of the positioning?
A Yes, based on the positioning. I did not see insertion nor was there any verbiage or protest, screaming or yelling, so I can’t sit here and say that I know 100 percent sure that there was intercourse, but that’s what I said to myself and that’s truly what I believed was happening.
Q That’s what you believed was occurring?
A Yes.
Starting
on Page 71. Compare this to the Grand Jury presentment's statement that McQueary
saw the boy “with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal
intercourse by a naked Sandusky."
BY MS. ROBERTO:
Q So a decision was made to call Mr. Paterno the next morning?
A [McQueary] Yes, ma’am.
Q And you did that, I think you said, and then you went to Mr. Paterno’s home, correct?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q And approximately what time did you arrive?
A 8a.m.
Q And how long did you spend with Mr. Paterno?
A Ten minutes.
Q And when you explained what you saw to Mr. Paterno, you did not use the term anal sodomy?
A I’ve never used that term.
U You’ve never used that term?
A Anal sodomy?
Q Yes.
A Those two words together?
Q Yes.
A No, ma’am.
Q Did you explain to Mr. Paterno anal sex?
A No, I did not explain that to Mr. Paterno.
Q Did you explain to him anal intercourse?
A No, I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual . but I have never used the word anal or rape in this -- since day one.
Q Right. And you didn’t use those words because you weren’t sure that that is what was
happening in the shower, right?
A Ma’am, I’m sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I’m sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn’t hear protests or any verbiage, but I do know for sure what I saw and the positions they were in that --and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma’am.
Q But you could not say for sure that that’s what you saw?
A I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on.
Q Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure.
A Okay, 100 percent sure.
Q Okay. You can’t say that?
A No.
Q When you looked into the shower --
A Yes, ma’am.
Q - - through the mirror, did you see Mr. Sandusky’s genitals touching the boy?
A No, absolutely not.
Q When you looked the second time into the shower, did you see Mr. Sandusky’s genitals touching the boy?
A No, his body was blocking that area of his body, to be frank with you.
Q Okay. Was any part of Mr. Sandusky’s body, did you see up against the boy touching the boy?
A Yes. They were as close as you can be, yes.
Q Okay. All right. So when you went to Mr. Paterno’s house, did you describe the position that Sandusky and the boy were in?
A Yes. I gave a brief description of what I saw. You don't ma’am, you don’t go to Coach Paterno or at least in my mind I don’t go to Coach Paterno and go into great detail of sexual acts. I would have never done that with him ever.
Q But it was your decision to go to Coach Paterno and tell him what happened in the shower?
A Without a doubt my decision, yes, ma’am.
Q And you went to Coach Paterno in lieu of, not in addition to, going to the police that night?
A I went to Coach Paterno first.
Q Okay. Did you go to the police that day of -- the day you spoke to Mr. Paterno?
A No.
Q Did you go the next day?
A No, I did not.
Q Now, you told us that you told Coach Paterno that you -- well, let me ask you this. Did you tell Coach Paterno that you heard sounds?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q And you told him what you saw, the position of the two individuals?
A Again, roughly, yes
Q Did you make any conclusion to CoachPaterno about what was happening?
A Yes. It was extremely sexual, yes.
Q Did you say extremely sexual in nature?
A In nature?
Q Yes.
A I can’t remember if I said the word in nature or not, ma’am. I don’t know that.
Q Did you ever use the word fondling?
A I’m sure I did to help describe what I was seeing. I’m sure I did use the word fondling, yes, ma’am
Q Okay. Did you see any type of fondling with Mr. Sandusky’s hands on the boy?
A No. I’ve already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy, that I could not
see his hands. The bodies were blocking --
Q Okay.
A - - his hands so I cannot say that I saw Mr Sandusky’s hands on a boy’s genitals, no, ma ‘ am.
Q So you can’t -- how would you describe fondling? I’m sort of confused here.
A Fondling is touching someone in a sexual way. I don’t know if that’s the exact definition, but that’s what my definition is.
Starting
at the bottom of page 88.
Q [defense attorney Farrell] One last
question about that date. You didn’t make any written record in a journal, a
diary, a computerized calendar to record the date this happened, did you?
A [Mike McQueary] No, I didn’t think
recording something like this would be smart.
Q Why is that?
A Because I didn’t think it would -- I just didn’t think it would be smart. I had my memory and I know what I saw. Q The night that you say you saw this, well, on that night did you think you saw a crime happening? A Yes, to me that is a crime, sir, yes. Q Did you use the word crime in speaking with your father? A No. He can tell what a crime is and what it is not, sir. Q Uh-huh. And a crime is something, of course, that would require police action, isn’t it? A I’m sorry? Q A crime would require police response in your mind, would it not? A Sure. Q But, as you said, you didn’t call the police the night this happened? A The night this happened I did not call the police, no, sir. Q Your father didn’t tell you to call the police the night this happened? A No. We ended up not calling the police Q So the answer is, no, your father did not tell you to call the police? A No. Q And no one else told you to call the police that night? A No. [Conclusion: McQueary says he saw a crime, knew that a crime required a police response, but did not write down what he saw or call the police. His father concluded, based on what McQueary told him, that a police response was not appropriate. All this suggests that McQueary did not, in fact, see a crime, but merely inferred from the circumstances that one might have possibly occurred.] Q In speaking to your father that night, did you use the word intercourse? MR. BEEMER [prosecutor]: Objection, relevance, Your Honor. MR. FARRELL: Your Honor, this is what the man has testified to repeatedly, what he said to these various people. MR. BEEMER: We’re getting into an area that has nothing to do with the prima facie case, Your Honor. It’s relevant what he told Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz. THE COURT: Mr. McQueary, you can answer that question.
THE WITNESS: Again, I don’t think – I don’t know if I used the word intercourse with my father, but my father definitely knows what happened in the shower. BY MR. FARRELL: Q Based upon what you told him? A Yes, sir. Q The mirror you described looking into, was it a full length? In other words, toe to head mirror or a partial mirror? A Partial mirror, sir. Q How big? A I would say up to most people’s waists, so waist and above. Q Was it the mirror over the sink? A Yes, sir. Q How wide was that mirror? A I would say it’s a good four feet, if not more, wide. Q That mirror’s still there in the staff -- A Yes, sir; yes. Q And the showers today are as they were in 2002? A I think so. Let me correct myself. I haven’t been in that locker room in a very long time. So I think everything is as it was. Q A very long time meaning how long? A Eight years. Roughly eight years I haven’t been in that locker room. I’ve been in the full-time assistant coaches’ locker room, sir. Q Okay. But you did go back into that locker room after the night in question? A Yes, I was still a support staff member for a couple of years, yes. Q So you stopped going into that locker room when you became part of the coaching staff? A Yes, sir, that’s correct. Q Since the night in question, have you seen Mr. Sandusky in the coaching staff locker room at the Lasch Building? A Since that night have I seen Coach Sandusky in the locker room? Q Yes. A No, sir. Q But you have seen him in the Lasch Building? A Yes. Q [defense attorney] When you looked in the mirror, you could see Mr. Sandusky’s back; is that right?
A [McQueary] His whole backside, his whole backside, sir.
Q All right. And, again, could you see him from the side or from the back?
A Kind of about a quartering away angle.
Q And was his body obstructing the view of the boy’s body?
A A lot of the boy --
MR. BEEMER [prosecutor]: I’m going to object, Your Honor. This has been asked and answered.
MR. FARRELL [defense attorney]: I don’t believe it has, Your Honor. It’s been answered anyway so --
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Let me make sure that you got that answer. I saw a lot of the boy but not all of the boy.
BY MR. FARRELL:
Q Uh-huh. Were the boy’s feet on the floor at that time?
A Yes.
Q And was the boy bent over or standing up?
A In an upright position.
Q Meaning not bent over?
A Not bent over, no, sir.
Q So the hands extended straight from the shoulders?
A Roughly that height, yes.
Q The color of the boy’s hair?
A I wouldn’t be able to tell you, sir. It was wet.
Q All right. And, again, could you see him from the side or from the back?
A Kind of about a quartering away angle.
Q And was his body obstructing the view of the boy’s body?
A A lot of the boy --
MR. BEEMER [prosecutor]: I’m going to object, Your Honor. This has been asked and answered.
MR. FARRELL [defense attorney]: I don’t believe it has, Your Honor. It’s been answered anyway so --
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Let me make sure that you got that answer. I saw a lot of the boy but not all of the boy.
BY MR. FARRELL:
Q Uh-huh. Were the boy’s feet on the floor at that time?
A Yes.
Q And was the boy bent over or standing up?
A In an upright position.
Q Meaning not bent over?
A Not bent over, no, sir.
Q So the hands extended straight from the shoulders?
A Roughly that height, yes.
Q The color of the boy’s hair?
A I wouldn’t be able to tell you, sir. It was wet.
Q The boy’s height?
A I wouldn’t be able to give you an accurate height.
Q Well, Mr. Sandusky --
A Do you want me to guess or do you want me to give you an accurate height?
Q Well, I want you to give me an accurate height.
A There’s no way I could do that without a measuring tape, sir.
Q You know Mr. -- how tall are you?
A I’m six four and a quarter.
Q How tall is Mr. Sandusky?
A Again, I can’t give you an accurate height. He’s a couple inches lower than I am.
Q So over six feet?
A I would say Jerry is over six feet, yes.
Q And the boy’s head was up to what part of Jerry’s body?
A I would say up to his pectoral muscle, in that area somewhere.
Q Okay. So around the nipple area?
A Yeah, around there.
Q The top of the boy’s head?
A Yes.
Q So the boy was about, say, a foot and a half shorter than Mr. Sandusky?
A I would say a foot. [The height disparity would seem to preclude Sandusky from engaging in a sexual act if both he and the boy were standing, as they were.]
MR. BEEMER: Objection, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Five two, five three.
THE COURT: If we can continue to move, please.
BY MR FARRELL:
Q At no time this night did you hear anything, did you hear the boy say anything, right?
A I heard slapping and I did not hear any verbiage at all in any way.
Q From either fellow?
A From either person.
Q And the slapping, you said you heard two or three slapping sounds?
A To my memory, two or three rhythmic slapping sounds, yes, sir.
Q So like (counsel makes slapping sound three times)?
A You got it.
Q And you heard that once and then not again?
A Right, right. [It was from these slapping sounds that McQueary inferred that a sexual act was in progress.]
Q The third time you looked at Mr. Sandusky and the boy, they were both facing you?
A Yes, sir.
Q And at this time you could see the boy’s face, right?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us the boy’s complexion?
A Caucasian.
Q Was he fair-skinned, olive-skinned?
A I didn’t sit there and stare. I would not be able to tell you, sir, accurately.
Q At this point can you see the color of his hair, the third time?
A I see the color of his hair but, again, he’s wet. So for me to sit here and say I know the actual color of his hair, I would not be able to tell you that, sir.
Q Did he have any facial hair?
A No.
Q Hair on his chest?
A No.
Q Pubic hair?
A I didn’t sit there and stare, but I don’t recall that, no.
Q You don’t recall if he did or he didn’t?
A Did not. I don’t think he did have pubic hair, sir. As I stated before, in my opinion he was prepubescent. He was a ten- or twelve-year-old boy.
Q Uh-huh. As the boy and Mr. Sandusky stood looking at you, they were both still naked?
A Naked, yes, sir.
Q Did Mr. Sandusky have an erection?
A I can’t tell you that, sir. I don’t know. I did not - - again, I don’t look and stare down there.
Q At any point during this evening, did you see whether or not Mr. Sandusky had an erect penis?
A No, I did not.
Q At any point during this night, did you see a look of pain on the boy’s face?
A Pain?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q And you never said anything to that boy?A Never said anything, no.
Q On that night, did you have a cell phone with you?
A I can’t recall if I had a cell phone with me or not on that night
Q Do you know if you called your father from a cell phone or a phone in the Lasch Building?
A I called him from a landline at my desk.
Q And your desk, you say, was on the second floor?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the shower on the first floor?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you went up to the second floor after the third time, you say you saw Mr. Sandusky and the boy, you left the boy with Mr. Sandusky, did you not?
A Yes, they were separated and he was still with Mr. Sandusky when I left that locker room. yes.
Q When you say separated, they were still side by side, right?
A No, not side by side. To me side by side is six inches or closer. They were four or five feet in between them.
Q Still in the shower?
A But in the shower room together, yes.
Q Naked?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that’s how you left the boy?
A Yes.
Q And did not call the police?
A I did not call the police.
Q Prior to this occasion, had you ever had any contact with the Penn State University Police?
A Have I ever had contact with them?
Q Yes. Talked to any of them?
A I’m sure I had on the street hello or something, sir, yes, but I was not a part of a criminal investigation at Penn State. I mean, not in detail conversation, I guess if that’s what you’re asking.
Q Yes. You knew Penn State had uniformed police officers?
A Yes, absolutely.
Q Carry guns?
A Yes.
Q You know the town of State College has uniformed police officers?
A Yes, absolutely.
Q Carry firearms?
A Yes.
Q You never saw Mr. Schultz in a uniform, did you?
A Not in a uniform.
Q Never saw him carrying a firearm?
A Not a firearm, no.
Q And during your time at Penn State, did you ever have occasion to report -- let’s put aside this incident. Did you ever have occasion to report any incident to either the Penn State Police or the State College Police?
A No, I’ve never reported incidents.
Q Never had your car broken into?
A No, sir.
Q Or home burglarized?
A No.
Q But had that happened, it would have been one of these uniformed police officers you reported it to, right?
A Yes, for a home burglary, yes, not for Jerry Sandusky doing what he was doing to a boy, just to address your point.
Q Well, tell us why would you not report that.
A Because it was delicate in nature in my opinion, sir, and I tried to use my best judgment.
Q And, as you say, your best judgment included leaving the boy with Mr. Sandusky,right?
A Yes, I was sure the act was over.
Q You don’t know what happened after you left?
A I do not know what happened for sure after I left.
Q Never made any effort to find that boy, did you?
A I did not. [Joe Paterno was, however, supposed to have tried to find the boy according to Lanny Davis, whom the Trustees hired as their spin doctor after they fired Paterno.]
Q Did you ever ask anyone at the Second Mile about a boy who might have been with Mr. Sandusky on this night? [Tim Curley did, but was nonetheless accused of participating in a coverup.]
MR. BEEMER [prosecutor]: Your Honor, objection. He just answered the question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Grand Jury and Media Manufactured "Penn State Sex Scandal"
Grand Jury and Media Manufactured "Penn State Sex Scandal" at the Daily Kos
But the "Victim 2" charges that have implicated Joe Paterno and Penn State presented in the Grand Jury Presentment have misled the media, the Board of Trustee's and the public in order to advance Republican political careers. The Victim 2 section of the presentment is a LIE. I am a University of Tennessee alumni with no love for Paterno or Penn State but I abhor this injustice. The media has failed to offer the truth so someone has to expose this injustice and the unforgivable lack of fairness by the media that has condemned Paterno and Penn State in the court of public opinion.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Another version of Mike McQueary's story about Jerry Sandusky surfaces
Another version of Mike McQueary's story about Jerry Sandusky surfaces
Since charges were filed Nov. 4, several variations of McQueary’s story have come out publicly.
- His grand jury testimony says he heard slapping noises and saw a boy being sodomized by Sandusky.
- His hand-written statement to police says, "I did not see insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occurring." He says the whole incident lasted about a minute.
- In an email he sent to friends following the firing of Joe Paterno, he says "I made sure it stopped," something not mentioned in the grand jury testimony or police statement.
- And now Dranov’s testimony describes a new scenario.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Letters to the BOT
What most people don't know, is the BOT is being flooded with letters questing their recent decisions.
Several of these powerful letters are listed below.
..............................................................................................................................................
You have the rare luxury of hindsight and the opportunitiy to reverse your decision to fire Joe Paterno and instead accept his resignation. I would assume that you have been following the media (we know you cave to the media ie your knee jerk reaction in firing Joe Paterno in the first place). With all of the information from credible sources you should realize that legally you have no grounds to fire him. In time this will come back to haunt you. The same way the initial decision in the handling of Jerry Sandusky by the attorney general, Ray Gricar, Corbett and the Penn State board of Trustees is now coming back a thousand fold. Can you not learn from your mistakes? Fix this travesty while you still can.
Elizabeth Morgan
..............................................................................................................................................
Dear Board of Trustees,
I want to start by saying that I'm not prone to overreaction or one to send a lot of complaint letters. I also serve on boards of both public companies and non-profits and believe I have a sense of the pressure the Trustees were initially under and continue to experience as well as the sometimes cloudy interpretation of the Board's responsibilities.
I am simply disappointed and deeply saddened. While the pressure was tremendous, you had an opportunity to stand tall and represent an ideal and you missed it. You validated a mob mentality being stirred by irresponsible media. You did what was expected rather than what was right. In so doing, you took away the opportunity for the Penn State community to stand tall and point out to the world that the actions of Jerry Sandusky were not the actions of Penn State.
I am not so naive to think that if everyone had it to do again, they would not recognize that different steps would have been immeasurably better. Mistakes of commission and omission were undoubtedly made. However a statement like what follows would have given us all something to rally behind. It would have been calming during the storm. It would have been the kind of leadership that is expected of you.
"The board has been deeply concerned about the events that have been unfolding. We've thought long and hard and debated what steps to take. In the end, we are guided by the values and principles this institution has stood for and continues to stand for. We feel a great sense of sadness and we will diligently continue the process of investigating and seeking to understand what has occurred. Our positions may change as facts unfold. For now however we are not going to abandon good people who we believe acted according to their best judgment at the time, in very difficult circumstances. As a board, we are not going to bend our principle of fairness and loyalty due to the rush to judgment we are seeing until we have factual information that indicates our loyalty is misplaced.
At the same time, the Board will not exercise blind loyalty. The situation is deeply concerning, and we will find out what we as an institution need to learn from this and we will insist on appropriate accountability. But to be very clear and specific, it is inconsistent with the values of this university to turn our backs on people we believe are good because of pressure we are under. Joe Paterno remains the head coach of our football team, but more importantly a valued educator and member of the Penn State family. He is not beyond evaluation regarding these events; however we don't expect perfection, just good moral character and selfless intent and dedication to what Penn State is. If there were improprieties, his record will not excuse them. However his record is clear and he deserves our support at this time - regardless of the pressure and rush to judgment we are seeing.
We want to reiterate that the principles we are dedicated to at this time are due process and standing by good people in trying times. These are principles we want our students and alumni to be able to count on. We will update you as the Board continues its work."
More than simply an opportunity lost, the course you chose is heartbreaking and will shape the path for years to come. I won't presume to speak for all, but many alumni feel rudderless due to the lack of leadership in this critical time.
Respectfully,
Bill Boor
BS - Chemical Engineering
..............................................................................................................................................
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
As a current student and Alum of Penn State I was disappointed with the board’s action to terminate a long standing member of the University with haste and without foundation. The board allowed media pressure and opinion to taint their judgment. This is not the way any organization should run their business.
In fact within the entire situation as best as the current evidence suggests Joe Paterno did the right thing, yet he has been vilified by the boards decision. Just because a decision to accept Joe’s retirement is not necessarily supported by the media’s desires is not nearly enough for the board to take further action. In fact in taking this action the Board has further tarnished the Penn State Brand by allowing the prevailing opinion to flourish. Further the board has fostered the opinion that this was a “football” matter when in fact the accused had no longer reported through Joe Paterno in 2002.
If the Penn State Community had bowed to public opinion of the time in 1946 there would be no “We Are”. Back in 1946 it was the Football Program that stood up for the right thing in the face of adversity. This was one of the defining moments in our history and for that I am proud. The Board failed in their duties during their recent decision and failed in their duties since 2002. Either the board was aware of the situation in 2002 and failed to insure the incident was reported or it was not. If the board was not aware then organizationally something is wrong since a decision not to report such an incident should have been brought to the boards attention. By firing Joe Paterno the board has placed the blame for its failure wrongly upon an individual who did was required of him. This is not the Penn State way and the decision should be reversed.
“We are Penn State” This is what we should stand for. We should right this wrong and then we should do what we should have done in the first place. Compile all the facts, make appropriate decisions that impact those affected based on those facts, and put adequate controls in place to insure that whatever went wrong cannot happen again.
I am Proud to be a Penn State Alum and will forever be so. However, if this board can not correct its wrong I for one will do everything in my power to insure we correct this by working tirelessly to insure the Board is replaced with people who understand what Penn State is and should be.
Please take the time and consider what has transpired and correct the mistakes that have been made.
Sincerely,
John R. Cohrac Sr. ‘90
Several of these powerful letters are listed below.
..............................................................................................................................................
You have the rare luxury of hindsight and the opportunitiy to reverse your decision to fire Joe Paterno and instead accept his resignation. I would assume that you have been following the media (we know you cave to the media ie your knee jerk reaction in firing Joe Paterno in the first place). With all of the information from credible sources you should realize that legally you have no grounds to fire him. In time this will come back to haunt you. The same way the initial decision in the handling of Jerry Sandusky by the attorney general, Ray Gricar, Corbett and the Penn State board of Trustees is now coming back a thousand fold. Can you not learn from your mistakes? Fix this travesty while you still can.
Elizabeth Morgan
..............................................................................................................................................
Dear Board of Trustees,
I want to start by saying that I'm not prone to overreaction or one to send a lot of complaint letters. I also serve on boards of both public companies and non-profits and believe I have a sense of the pressure the Trustees were initially under and continue to experience as well as the sometimes cloudy interpretation of the Board's responsibilities.
I am simply disappointed and deeply saddened. While the pressure was tremendous, you had an opportunity to stand tall and represent an ideal and you missed it. You validated a mob mentality being stirred by irresponsible media. You did what was expected rather than what was right. In so doing, you took away the opportunity for the Penn State community to stand tall and point out to the world that the actions of Jerry Sandusky were not the actions of Penn State.
I am not so naive to think that if everyone had it to do again, they would not recognize that different steps would have been immeasurably better. Mistakes of commission and omission were undoubtedly made. However a statement like what follows would have given us all something to rally behind. It would have been calming during the storm. It would have been the kind of leadership that is expected of you.
"The board has been deeply concerned about the events that have been unfolding. We've thought long and hard and debated what steps to take. In the end, we are guided by the values and principles this institution has stood for and continues to stand for. We feel a great sense of sadness and we will diligently continue the process of investigating and seeking to understand what has occurred. Our positions may change as facts unfold. For now however we are not going to abandon good people who we believe acted according to their best judgment at the time, in very difficult circumstances. As a board, we are not going to bend our principle of fairness and loyalty due to the rush to judgment we are seeing until we have factual information that indicates our loyalty is misplaced.
At the same time, the Board will not exercise blind loyalty. The situation is deeply concerning, and we will find out what we as an institution need to learn from this and we will insist on appropriate accountability. But to be very clear and specific, it is inconsistent with the values of this university to turn our backs on people we believe are good because of pressure we are under. Joe Paterno remains the head coach of our football team, but more importantly a valued educator and member of the Penn State family. He is not beyond evaluation regarding these events; however we don't expect perfection, just good moral character and selfless intent and dedication to what Penn State is. If there were improprieties, his record will not excuse them. However his record is clear and he deserves our support at this time - regardless of the pressure and rush to judgment we are seeing.
We want to reiterate that the principles we are dedicated to at this time are due process and standing by good people in trying times. These are principles we want our students and alumni to be able to count on. We will update you as the Board continues its work."
More than simply an opportunity lost, the course you chose is heartbreaking and will shape the path for years to come. I won't presume to speak for all, but many alumni feel rudderless due to the lack of leadership in this critical time.
Respectfully,
Bill Boor
BS - Chemical Engineering
..............................................................................................................................................
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
As a current student and Alum of Penn State I was disappointed with the board’s action to terminate a long standing member of the University with haste and without foundation. The board allowed media pressure and opinion to taint their judgment. This is not the way any organization should run their business.
In fact within the entire situation as best as the current evidence suggests Joe Paterno did the right thing, yet he has been vilified by the boards decision. Just because a decision to accept Joe’s retirement is not necessarily supported by the media’s desires is not nearly enough for the board to take further action. In fact in taking this action the Board has further tarnished the Penn State Brand by allowing the prevailing opinion to flourish. Further the board has fostered the opinion that this was a “football” matter when in fact the accused had no longer reported through Joe Paterno in 2002.
If the Penn State Community had bowed to public opinion of the time in 1946 there would be no “We Are”. Back in 1946 it was the Football Program that stood up for the right thing in the face of adversity. This was one of the defining moments in our history and for that I am proud. The Board failed in their duties during their recent decision and failed in their duties since 2002. Either the board was aware of the situation in 2002 and failed to insure the incident was reported or it was not. If the board was not aware then organizationally something is wrong since a decision not to report such an incident should have been brought to the boards attention. By firing Joe Paterno the board has placed the blame for its failure wrongly upon an individual who did was required of him. This is not the Penn State way and the decision should be reversed.
“We are Penn State” This is what we should stand for. We should right this wrong and then we should do what we should have done in the first place. Compile all the facts, make appropriate decisions that impact those affected based on those facts, and put adequate controls in place to insure that whatever went wrong cannot happen again.
I am Proud to be a Penn State Alum and will forever be so. However, if this board can not correct its wrong I for one will do everything in my power to insure we correct this by working tirelessly to insure the Board is replaced with people who understand what Penn State is and should be.
Please take the time and consider what has transpired and correct the mistakes that have been made.
Sincerely,
John R. Cohrac Sr. ‘90
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Grand Jury Report: Part two of "What did Joe Paterno know and when did he know it?"
The Grand Jury Report: Part two of "What did Joe Paterno know and when did he know it?"
Consequently, the evidence available to us thus far not only clears Paterno of any suspicion that he engaged in a cover-up -- an extremely far-fetched suspicion, in the first place -- but also that Paterno earned praise for performing his legal duty. Arguably, by insisting that Schultz be brought in, Paterno went beyond his legal obligation.
Unfortunately, such evidence proved worthless as jackals in the news media seized upon the hysteria surrounding the news of despicable sexual molestation of young boys by Jerry Sandusky to transform a "Jerry Sandusky scandal" into a "Penn State scandal" and then a "Joe Paterno scandal." Now, there's no questioning why the "Jerry Sandusky scandal" emerged. Moreover, given that Sandusky was once employed by Penn State (and maintained close ties with Penn State), and given the grand jury report and the subsequent indictments of Penn State's Athletic Director, Tim Curley, and the Vice President responsible for overseeing the University police, Gary Schultz, one understands how the "Sandusky scandal" became the "Penn State scandal." But, how the "Sandusky scandal" and the "Penn State scandal" became the "Joe Paterno scandal" is much less easy to understand.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Penn State Trustees May Have Violated State Law
Penn State Trustees may have violated Sunshine law with secret/emergency meetings including the one that fired Joe Paterno.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
"It was a witch hunt at Penn State"
Bill Kline's "It was a witch hunt at Penn State" says all that needs to be said.
In bouncing Paterno last week, John Surma, the vice chair of Penn State's Board of Trustees, said the trustees "do not yet know all the facts."
Exactly 51 seconds later, Surma, when asked why Paterno was let go, responded: "In consideration of all the facts …"
Talk about an oxymoron. Which one is it? Do you have all the facts or not? And if not, on what are you basing your decision?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Trustee Admits Rush to Judgment!
PSU Trustee Speaks About Paterno, Spanier Firings speaks for itself.
He said the board had to act fast last week so the university could move forward, but now it has to take its time making sure it knows all the facts before making other changes.
This is an open admission of a rush to judgment and therefore poor stewardship.
Trustees' Own Statement Proves Poor Stewardship
Are we the only ones who see something wrong with the fact that the Board fired and humiliated Joe Paterno (and also forced President Spanier to resign, although the buck arguably stops with him) the next day, before the indicated action was taken?
At its regular meeting on Friday, November 11, 2011, the Board will appoint a Special Committee, members of which are currently being identified, to undertake a full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report. This Special Committee will be commissioned to determine what failures occurred, who is responsible and what measures are necessary to insure that this never happens at our University again and that those responsible are held fully accountable. The Special Committee will have whatever resources are necessary to thoroughly fulfill its charge, including independent counsel and investigative teams, and there will be no restrictions placed on its scope or activities. Upon the completion of this investigation, a complete report will be presented at a future public session of the Board of Trustees.
Penn State Trustees' Questionable Stewardship
The Chinese leadership concept of the Mandate of Heaven relates to the leader's or monarch's service to his or her stakeholders, and stewardship for the welfare of the organization. The Indo-European root dher, which appears in Asian Indian titles like Sirdar, Jemadar, and so on along with names like Darius means "to hold" in the sense of responsibility or stewardship. From where we sit, the manner in which Penn State's Trustees fired football coach Joe Paterno illustrates poor stewardship.
One statement in favor of Paterno's dismissal said the Trustees had to "stop the bleeding" over the scandal due to former coach Jerry Sandusky's alleged sexual abuse of children. One can indeed stop a head wound from bleeding by cutting the patient's throat, which may well be what the Trustees did to the University in terms of future alumni support. (The thousands of students who demonstrated against Paterno's dismissal will be alumni in a few years.) Everything about the affair, including an emergency meeting, suggests not a careful and deliberative process but rather a hasty rush to judgment. The elephant in the living room is the conspicuous absence of assistant coach Mike McQueary from the list of those fired or forced to resign. Trustee spokesman John Surma said Wednesday that there "has been no change in (McQueary's) status at this time."
From where we sit, the Trustees' unspoken objective, and the word "groupthink" comes to mind, was to satiate a media feeding frenzy. We cannot identify any "careful consideration" (the words used in conjunction with Paterno's dismissal) in terms of deliberation much less impartial investigation. The committee or panel the Trustees said would investigate has in fact yet to be created. The phrase "Sentence first, verdict afterward" from Alice in Wonderland comes to mind immediately.
Let's look at the media lynch mob's view that "Paterno should have done more to protect the children" from a position of common sense and reality rather than emotion or a self-serving desire to attack the country's most respected football coach and mentor. Kenny Rogers' lyrics "Did you ever kick a good man when he was down, just to make yourself feel strong?" come to mind immediately in the latter context. The same goes for a beer-muscle crowd that always knows with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight what the person on the spot should have done. Suppose that Paterno had indeed called the State Police as soon as McQueary brought his allegations to him.
State Trooper: "All right, Mr. Paterno, what did you see, and when and where did you see it?"
Paterno: "I wasn't there."
Trooper (not very impressed): "Then the man who was there needs to talk to us."
The best Paterno could have therefore done even with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight (the indictment against Jerry Sandusky) would have been to put McQueary in touch with the police instead of University administrators. Then it would have been McQueary's word against Sandusky's unless the victim could be located. We cannot give legal advice but we are not even sure it is possible to prosecute a sex crime without a victim.
It is very bad judgment to accuse anybody of a crime you cannot prove, and this was (in 2002) an easily foreseeable outcome of Paterno "taking the matter further than he did." The scenario is not hypothetical, and we speak from personal experience.
A few years ago, while researching Barack Obama's legislative tolerance for live birth abortion, we found on a very prominent pro-life Web site a credible accusation that a named doctor and hospital had left an unwanted baby (as defined by law, not the pro-life camp) to die from neglect. We took reasonable, prudent, and limited action by forwarding the hearsay evidence (the same kind of evidence in front of Paterno) to the hospital regulatory agency of the state in question. In other words, we went through channels as Paterno went through channels. The agency discovered the accusation to be false, so the Web site owner was lucky to not be sued for libel along with the source of the accusation. This illustrates the possible consequences of "doing more" as Paterno's critics say he should have done.
The context in which McQueary reported his allegations to Paterno could have easily reinforced the nightmare scenario of a false accusation to the wrong people followed by its moral and legal consequences. Our immediate first reaction would have been, "You weren't confident enough that you saw what you think you saw to call the police on the spot. How can I be confident enough to call them on the basis of hearsay evidence now?" This does not mean we would have looked the other way or done nothing; we did something about the hearsay report of a baby's purported murder. Paterno also did something. He took the allegation to his superiors, and probably assumed quite reasonably that they would involve the University's attorney to handle the matter in a way that would not expose the University to a libel suit. That is good stewardship, which makes the Trustees' preemptory dismissal and humiliation of the man who exercised it bad stewardship.
Paterno had no way to know that Gary Schultz, whose supervisory responsibilities included the campus police, would not handle the matter thoroughly and would later be indicted for perjury. Graham Spanier's sole fault meanwhile seems to be that, as Schultz's supervisor, the buck technically stopped with him.
The underlying problem is of course that McQueary did not call the police to report an (alleged until proven) violent felony in progress. Had he done so, the police might have arrived in time to catch Sandusky in the act, or at least in time to catch him when he tried to leave with the boy. Then they would have had a victim, witnesses including not only McQueary but also the responding officer(s), physical evidence, and an open and shut case.
It is therefore impossible for us to envision any circumstances in which the Trustees can be right about firing Paterno while not firing McQueary. Had the Trustees fired everybody involved including McQueary, we would not agree with the action's haste or its fairness to Paterno, but nobody could say that the Trustees had not been consistent. They could also have fired nobody while waiting for both the law and their own investigative panel to do their work. They instead chose the worst possible course of action; one whose inconsistency makes it impossible for us to accept their boilerplate statement that it was for the best interests of the University. We perceive only a hasty consensus to satiate a media lynch mob by firing and humiliating a man known not only for his football victories but also for making star players go to class rather than win games for him if that choice had to be made. Others also perceive it this way, and that is not in the best interests of the University.
--Bill Levinson B.S. '78
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)