ADVERTISEMENT

Fina and McGettigan on 60 Minute Sports

psute

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2010
18,595
617
1
Did not see this posted, they exonerate Joe...

Two key prosecutors in the Jerry Sandusky trial tell their story to 60 Minutes Sports, speaking out for the first time about their investigations.

They claim Penn State obstructed justice for years but add there's "no evidence" to suggest that former football coach Joe Paterno was involved in a cover up.

The interview with former chief deputy attorney general Frank Fina and lead prosecutor Joseph P. McGettigan III is scheduled to air on 60 Minutes Sports on Showtime at 10 p.m. Wednesday. A segment was broadcast on CBS News Tuesday evening.

Fina says he didn't realize at first what was happening at Penn State.

Fina says, "You have a massive multi-billion dollar entity, that at the time we don't realize -- but we would come to realize it -- may not be fully committed to disclosing what the reality is ... we come to realize they were actively obstructing our investigation." Fina goes on to say that the obstruction of evidence went on for many years.

Former Penn State president Graham Spanier, retired senior vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley allegedly covered up Jerry Sandusky's sexual abuse of young boys to protect the university's reputation.

All three men are charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and endangering the welfare of children and are awaiting trial.

All of them are strongly proclaiming their innocence.

The Freeh Report, commissioned by Penn State, found that Spanier, Curley and Schultz concealed information about Sandusky's child abuse.

"Now they're going to be tried on that... But I investigated that case, they deserved to be charged, and I hope justice will be served there." Fina says.

Fina and McGettigan say they were "astonished" by the alleged cover up of serial child sex abuse.

McGettigan explained the administrators' thinking this way, "Some of the thinking on the simplest level ... 'Well that was then, that was Jerry Sandusky or someone else. This is now. Let's move on, We are Penn State."

Asked if he thought Paterno was involved in a cover up, Fina said, "I did not find that evidence."

"I don't see any need to judge him beyond his own words. He (Paterno) said it best," says Fina, "He said: 'I didn't do enough... I should have done more.'"

In a statement released in November of 2011, Paterno said, "This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”

In his last interview with Washington Post reporter Sally Jenkins, in January 2012, Paterno said, “I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.”
http://www.statecollege.com/news/ps...e-of-paterno-involvement-in-cover-up,1378969/
 
  • Like
Reactions: fairgambit
Thanks. I had not seen this before and I don't believe it was posted here.
 
Thanks. I had not seen this before and I don't believe it was posted here.
Fairgambit, I'm not an attorney, but could them going on a national television show to discuss this case be seen as poisoning the jury pool (as if it hasn't been already)?
 
Fairgambit, I'm not an attorney, but could them going on a national television show to discuss this case be seen as poisoning the jury pool (as if it hasn't been already)?


Looks as if they're trying to make a case where none exists.
 
Did not see this posted, they exonerate Joe...

Two key prosecutors in the Jerry Sandusky trial tell their story to 60 Minutes Sports, speaking out for the first time about their investigations.

They claim Penn State obstructed justice for years but add there's "no evidence" to suggest that former football coach Joe Paterno was involved in a cover up.

The interview with former chief deputy attorney general Frank Fina and lead prosecutor Joseph P. McGettigan III is scheduled to air on 60 Minutes Sports on Showtime at 10 p.m. Wednesday. A segment was broadcast on CBS News Tuesday evening.

Fina says he didn't realize at first what was happening at Penn State.

Fina says, "You have a massive multi-billion dollar entity, that at the time we don't realize -- but we would come to realize it -- may not be fully committed to disclosing what the reality is ... we come to realize they were actively obstructing our investigation." Fina goes on to say that the obstruction of evidence went on for many years.

Former Penn State president Graham Spanier, retired senior vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley allegedly covered up Jerry Sandusky's sexual abuse of young boys to protect the university's reputation.

All three men are charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and endangering the welfare of children and are awaiting trial.

All of them are strongly proclaiming their innocence.

The Freeh Report, commissioned by Penn State, found that Spanier, Curley and Schultz concealed information about Sandusky's child abuse.

"Now they're going to be tried on that... But I investigated that case, they deserved to be charged, and I hope justice will be served there." Fina says.

Fina and McGettigan say they were "astonished" by the alleged cover up of serial child sex abuse.

McGettigan explained the administrators' thinking this way, "Some of the thinking on the simplest level ... 'Well that was then, that was Jerry Sandusky or someone else. This is now. Let's move on, We are Penn State."

Asked if he thought Paterno was involved in a cover up, Fina said, "I did not find that evidence."

"I don't see any need to judge him beyond his own words. He (Paterno) said it best," says Fina, "He said: 'I didn't do enough... I should have done more.'"

In a statement released in November of 2011, Paterno said, "This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”

In his last interview with Washington Post reporter Sally Jenkins, in January 2012, Paterno said, “I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.”
http://www.statecollege.com/news/psu-news/sandusky-prosecutors-speak-for-first-time-to-60-minutes-sports-no-evidence-of-paterno-involvement-in-cover-up,1378969/


This is a 2013 article which many of us already knew about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
I read this wrong. Didn't Fina subsequently state that C, S, and S would never see trial?
 
Fairgambit, I'm not an attorney, but could them going on a national television show to discuss this case be seen as poisoning the jury pool (as if it hasn't been already)?
Good question. While I am an attorney, I do no criminal work so I will leave the answer to one of my brethren who does.
 
Looks like Fina reversed again. The guy seems to be desperate.


He is consistent with misquoting Paterno's words over and over and over. Of course the media never corrects it. For an attorney that is very specific with the words they use and evaluate at trial- there's no excuse for his repeated misquoting other than a willful act.
 
Using the "I wish I could have done more ..." MIS-quote is one of the most frustrating things about this entire mess over the last few years:

a. No reporter ever asked Joe to clarify that remark. "wish I could have done more".... Ahhh, any crack reporter ever think of a few simple follow up questions to have Joe clarify, like "why" or "how".

b. Without the follow up question, like "why" or "how", that quote can be greatly mis-interpreted because different people have different levels of feeling guilty or responsible. For example, I've used this example in the past.... Last year they found those 3 girls being held captive in that basement in Cleveland for years. They interviewed many neighbors who IN HINDSIGHT stated that they noticed weird or mysterious behavior from that house. Well, I am sure IN HINDSIGHT some of those neighbors COULD have looked back and thought they could have done more. Did that make them guilty? Did that make them part of a cover up? No of coarse not. But when the truth of the horrors of what was happening to those 3 girls in the house were revealed, then all the weird and mysterious behavior became 'obvious'. ..... Maybe this was all that Joe meant? Without asking the next question.... :why" or "how"or " or "in what way", then no one can ever no for certain what exactly Joe meant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT