Sandusky Questions

Submitted by Ziff72 on November 8th, 2011 at 3:39 PM

1. I've never been to Penn St. but based on what I have read the last 3 days about how this is such a tight knit community,  is there anyway that most people in the community and definitely all of the PSU top brass didn't hear rumors of his behavior?

I mean in 98 you have police officers  and a D.A. aware of what is going on and from there it would seem it would just grow then in 2002 all the PSU brass hear of it.  Is it possible such explosive news was not passed around barber shops etc.? 

2. In light of all the news his 99 firing/resignation falls under a curious light.   Does anyone recall the reason given at the time?

Comments

mGrowOld

November 8th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^

And straight from Sandusy's Wikipedia page comes the following:

"The book includes a quote from ex-head coach Dick Vermeil about Sandusky.  He could very well be the Will Rogers of the coaching profession."

What does that even mean?  Was Sandusky considered some sort of resident philosopher?

 

 

 

 

Six Zero

November 8th, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^

In a PSU family, with countless friends, neighbors and other community members diehard fans, alumni, boosters and even players.  I haven't gone polling door to door, but from what I can tell no one really saw this coming.

MrVociferous

November 8th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^

OJ McDuffie recently said that he heard rumors about Sandusky years ago, but never believed it.  And I've also heard that reporters in Pennsylvania have been on this story for years, but kept hitting dead ends.  So the word was out there, but it was just so shocking that no one believed it.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

November 8th, 2011 at 5:44 PM ^

Why shocking?  I think it's human nature that when you've known someone for most of your life, you're much more likely to believe the best of them and not the nasty rumors from "outside."  Here's a guy who coached up thousands of college players and did charity work and adopted six kids and was basically a pillar of the Penn State community.  And if you were in the Penn State "family" that's the guy you saw every day.  I'm not surprised at all that people would believe their eyes over rumors.  The mind comes up with all kinds of reasons to dismiss what it hears that doesn't jibe with what it thinks it knows.

profitgoblue

November 8th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^

Interesting.  Technically, a bond is set based on the gravity of the offenses alleged and the level of flight risk surrounding the defendant.  I doubt the court is too worried about Sandusky running so the bail amount technically didn't need to be too high.  Still, I think everyone would rather it be set at $100million so that they guy stays in jail.

ijohnb

November 8th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^

It is not as much gravity of the offense (that has more to do with flight risk because the greater the offense= the greater the potential sentence = the more reason to flea) as it is danger to the public if released.  If the public in this case includes the accused, I believe him to be a very high risk defendant.  Not that anybody at this point besides his family (maybe) would really care, but I don't think that there is a higher rating on the "suicide scale" right now than Jerry Sandusky.

Further, it would surprise the hell ouf of me if there is not a school in his neighborhood.

papabear16

November 8th, 2011 at 3:53 PM ^

I don't disagree, but it matters little.  He has enough cash to post whatever bond is necessary, and is a big enough name that he's not a huge flight risk.  A TSA screener sees "Jerry Sandusky" on a passport and they might shoot first and ask questions later.  Bond is not usually set with regard to the nature of the crime.

Plus, this guy would be a pain for the state to have in prison right now.  They have to protect him - he's innocent until proven guilty - but jail populations are notoriously unfriendly to those who hurt kids.

TIMMMAAY

November 8th, 2011 at 5:41 PM ^

You can be sure that if he winds up in prison he will get back everything he ever gave. Still won't make it right with those he has damaged, but it makes it slightly more palatable. I really hope he doesn't get off on some technicality, though I seriously doubt that. 

UAUM

November 8th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^

is the Big Ten trophy named after one guy who's team is no longer in the conference, and hasn't been for 65 years, and another who's only been in the conference for 20 of the conferences's 115 years of existence?

Meanwhile, Fielding Yost won 6 national championships and coached in the league for 25 years?

CRex

November 8th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^

I had some high school teammates play ball at PSU.  They came in right after Sandusky left.  All they heard was in reality he was fired, but allowed to resign due to his service.  They heard nothing about the child abuse or anything of that nature.  PSU has always been a bit insular, but prior to this it was supposed to be the good kind of insular.  Like how we had our "Michigan Man" thing, everyone was a moral product of Happy Valley.  This came completely out of left field and will likely take awhile to figure out who all was in the coverup and who wasn't.

A lot of people likely just shut up and didn't make waves to avoid damaging the community.  

SFBayAreaBlue

November 8th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^

if this first came to light in 1998 and caused his abrupt resignation then either the cops didn't have enough to press charges on, or they were complicit.  If they didn't have enough evidence, you can bet stonewalling by the majority of the athletic department was a factor. 

Also, from what I've seen in movies and TV, the charges read like a failed negotiation.  To get to the #40, they had to make like 5 or 6 charges for each incident.  There's also reports of a failed sting and wiretapping to get a confession.  The timing of this is rather suspicious, 9 years after the latest charge.  

I seriously doubt they can get convictions on all 40 charges, or he would have been arrested much sooner.  But with this type of accusation, the indictment itself is enough to ruin anyone's life. 

el segundo

November 8th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^

don't rely on movies and TV shows for an idea of what shapes legal practice and procedure in criminal law.

Making five or six charges for every incident is not surprising or noteworthy.  A single course of wrongful conduct (such as molesting one child on one occasion) can give rise to numerous distinct criminal offenses.

Moreover, when it comes to child sexual abuse, there's nothing terribly "suspicious" about a 9-year wait between the accused conduct and the filing of charges.  Children are often incapable of talking about what happened to them -- or even of really comprehending it.  In many cases, it's only when they grow up that they're emotionally and mentally equipped to realize how they were harmed and to file charges or give meaningful testimony about it.

IndyBlue

November 8th, 2011 at 6:23 PM ^

Agreed on the part about TV/movies.  It amazes me how much people think those stories actually reflect how the court system actually works.  Also, agrred on the multiple charges from one act.  It is very common to be charged with multiple crimes with one act.  A) because each act actually does amount to multiple violations and B) it helps to get at least some of the charges to stick.

el segundo

November 8th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^

don't rely on movies and TV shows for an idea of what shapes legal practice and procedure in criminal law.

Making five or six charges for every incident is not surprising or noteworthy.  A single course of wrongful conduct (such as molesting one child on one occasion) can give rise to numerous distinct criminal offenses.

Moreover, when it comes to child sexual abuse, there's nothing terribly "suspicious" about a 9-year wait between the accused conduct and the filing of charges.  Children are often incapable of talking about what happened to them -- or even of really comprehending it.  In many cases, it's only when they grow up that they're emotionally and mentally equipped to realize how they were harmed and to file charges or give meaningful testimony about it.

profitgoblue

November 8th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^

Another question I have:  Does anyone have any idea how it will affect recruiting?  I saw the "Hello: Anthony Zettel" post above but do you all think it could significantly impact recruiting?  I can't imagine sending my kid to PSU to play football there now, even if that is irrational or an overreaction on my part . . .

 

SysMark

November 8th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^

Sure as hell isn't going to help...I think you can be pretty certain this will eliminate a good number of recruits...situation is really ugly and there is a lot more ugly to come.

Some people still seem to be talking about it like it is a sex or money scandal...this is on a whole different level.  Going to take a while for the full impact to hit.

Moleskyn

November 8th, 2011 at 3:59 PM ^

I want to know how Sandusky thinks he is innocent. From an ESPN article (and I've seen statements similar to this in other articles, as well):

Sandusky's attorney, Joe Amendola, said his client has been aware of the accusations for about three years and has maintained his innocence. Amendola has said that Sandusky attributes the allegations to troubled kids who are acting out.

One what grounds does he claim that? How in the world can he claim he is innocent, or is that just lawyer-speak?

papabear16

November 8th, 2011 at 4:06 PM ^

I'm sure it's not lawyer-speak.  This guy is going to have to say "I didn't do it."  And his lawyer is there to advocate his case, so the lawyer will say the same thing.  He has the right to deny the allegations against him.

But don't get me wrong, I'm just explaining the statement.  It sure sounds as if he's guilty as sin.

True Blue Grit

November 8th, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^

He's obviously a serial pedophile and rapist.  Lying is nothing compared to what he's already done.  Give him his due process?  Sure, that's fine.  But Grand Jury's don't spent 2-3 years investigating people on criminal child abuse and idict them with little evidence.  In this case they have eye witnesses and victims all lined up.  Sandusky is toast.  For this reason, I could never be a defense attorney.  Defending a scumbag like Sandusky would be completely against my belief in doing the right thing.