ADVERTISEMENT

"McGettigan made a point to say he does not condemn Penn State University... for what Sandusky did."

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
37,750
50,520
1
Special ed attorney, Sandusky prosecutor lecture on bullying, sexual abuse at King’s
First Posted: 10:41 pm - September 29th, 2015 - 129 Views
By Matt Mattei - mmattei@timesleader.com

web1_McGettin2.jpg


WILKES-BARRE — The resounding message when a special education attorney and the lead prosecutor in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case spoke at King’s College Tuesday night was that awareness goes a long way in dealing with bullying and child abuse.

Heather Hulse and Joseph McGettigan, of McAndrews Law Offices in Berwyn, gave presentations on those matters in the Burke Auditorium of the McGowan Business School. The seminar was presented by the college and the Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children of Luzerne County.

Hulse, a special education attorney for 17 years, explained that children with special needs are often the targets of bullying in her lecture entitled “Bullying 101: Know Your Rights and How to Protect Your Child.”

Hulse led off the lecture with a statistic that 160,000 students miss school every day due to fear that they’ll be attacked or intimidated by another student. She then highlighted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA of 2004, which requires all students covered by the statute to be provided with a “free, appropriate public education” in the least restrictive environment.

The act mandates that institutions investigate and enact discipline for reported instances of bullying, but it also asserts that the schools may — but are not required to — take preventative action, which Hulse said worries her. “We’ve had to force the school districts to address the bullying,” Hulse said.

Getting the word out

Hulse preached the importance of spreading information to schools, victims and even bullies in addressing a situation of abuse. She explained that for many students who are being bullied, measures can be taken to move them to another district or to consider private school.

“(Their school) is no longer safe for them,” Hulse said. She noted that in many cases, there are funds set up to help parents of victims with tuition for a private school or to afford socialization counseling, for children who have autism or Asperger’s disease, to prevent further bullying.

Hulse also presented a list of signs that a child is being bullied or is bullying another child that parents should be aware of.

Signs of bullied children include difficulty sleeping, declining interest in school, sudden loss of friends or avoidance of social situations, decreased self-esteem and self-destructive tendencies. Hulse said parents should communicate with the school, being vigilant about documenting their complaint in writing, and that schools should do things as simple as separate a child from a bully physically, encourage a positive circle of friends for a child and encourage other students to stand up for their peers.

In addition, parents can seek self-advocacy counseling to help their children stand up for themselves.

Signs of a bully

Signs that a child might be a bully include being quick to blame others and unwilling to accept responsibility, lacking empathy and compassion, having immature social and interpersonal skills and wanting to be in control.

“Bullying is a learned behavior,” Hulse said. “We can unlearn it.” She went on to note that parents of bullies often have no idea what their child is doing and that bullies are often just as much in need of help as victims.

Another thing Hulse stressed was training for teachers, who often do not see bullying as it does not always occur in the classroom. “Teachers need to be aware that it’s happening outside the classroom and to be on guard.”

Hulse passed the floor to McGettigan, the lead prosecutor in the Sandusky sexual abuse trial, and he proceeded with his lecture on “How to be a Leader in Preventing Child Abuse: The Prosecution of Jerry Sandusky.”

Convicted in June 2012 of sexually abusing 10 pre-teen and teenage boys, Sandusky, a former Penn State defensive football coach under Joe Paterno, was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison.

The animated, long-time criminal prosecutor applauded the work of his colleague, noting that her civil arena allows for her to help people in proactive ways where for many years, he could only put offenders in jail.

Similar indicators

“The indicators of sexual abuse are not that different from the indicators of bullying,” McGettigan said. He explained that the victims of the Sandusky case numbered in the dozens if not into the hundreds, and that a predator like Sandusky operated in ways McGettigan called “insidious, clever, even Machiavellian,” targeting children of single mothers who did not have a father figure in their lives.

He described Sandusky’s method as “grooming” his victims, meaning he would introduce intimate touches so slowly that children would become accustomed to him to the point that he could prey on them. In this way, McGettigan noted, children were unaware of the wrongfulness of what was happening to them.

McGettigan made a point to say he does not condemn Penn State University or even Sandusky’s foundation “The Second Mile” for what Sandusky did, but he does feel more people should have had their eyes open to their surroundings.

“I don’t know if (sexual abuse) can be eradicated,” McGettigan said. “But what we can do is minimize the abuse and the damages it causes.” He went on to say that his best advice to individuals who might help prevent abuse is, “You can be observant.”

Reach Matt Mattei at 570-991-6651 or mmattei@timesleader.com.
 
Last edited:
I know I shouldn't let it bother me, but how long are these media dolts going to continue to do this:

...Sandusky, a former Penn State defensive football coach under Joe Paterno...

Why not, "Sandusky, a former Penn State defensive football coach", period? Is it because they don't feel they can write compelling articles without sensationalizing them by adding a connection to Paterno? Sheesh!


Where's my effing coffee?!?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
That's better than fina, who while saying he found no evidence that Joe engaged in a cover-up, still stupidly chose to condemn Joe morally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
I know I shouldn't let it bother me, but how long are these media dolts going to continue to do this:

...Sandusky, a former Penn State defensive football coach under Joe Paterno...

Why not, "Sandusky, a former Penn State defensive football coach", period? Is it because they don't feel they can write compelling articles without sensationalizing them by adding a connection to Paterno? Sheesh!


Where's my effing coffee?!?

+1

Plus, someone should tell the reporter AND his editor that lectures, books, etc. are titled, not entitled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMS1950 and 91Joe95
Passage from Chi’s 2013 article:

Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan 2013: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sandusky-prosecutors-penn-state-put-schools-prestige-above-abuse/ …

It took awhile, Fina said, before the prosecutors realized that Penn State President Graham Spanier, Senior Vice President Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley were putting the school's brand above the repeated sexual abuse of young boys on its campus.

FINA: I think the evidence -- now they're gonna be tried on that. ... But I investigated that case. They deserve to be charged, and I hope justice will be served there.

KETEYIAN: Did you two ever look at each other and go, "I can understand if they're covering up recruiting violations. But this is serial sexual abuse of children that they are institutionally resisting efforts to uncover."

JOSEPH MCGETTIGAN: Yeah

FINA: Many times. I mean, that that happened over and over again. I mean, it just -- just astonished --

MCGETTIGAN: You know what, there -- there -- some of the thinking on the simplest level, one of the simplest expressions of their thinking is, "Well, that was then. That was Jerry Sandusky. That was someone else. This is now. Let's move on. We are Penn State."

KETEYIAN: Do you believe that Coach Paterno was a part of the conspiracy to conceal -- to cover up the crimes at Penn State by Jerry Sandusky?

FINA: I do not. And -- and I -- I'm viewing this strictly on the evidence, not any kind of fealty to anybody. I did not find that evidence.

KETEYIAN: But you know as well as I do, Frank, Joe Paterno was the most powerful man on that campus, arguably the most powerful coach in college football. He knew what was going on in that university, and the argument is if he knew what he knew, he should have put a stop to it. He should have done more.

FINA: Well, that's right. And I don't see any need to judge him beyond his own words. He said it best: "I didn't do enough. I should have done more."
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion
I'd be interested in his exact quote when it was reported that he "said he doesn't condemn..." Wonder why it was reported that way instead of printing his exact quote. Much easier for him to waffle on the way it was reported than on what he actually said.
 
I wonder if he would condemn CYS and DPW since people with those agencies are supposedly trained professionals in the field of child welfare. Both knew (or should have known) Sandusky well yet still approved him as both an adoptive and foster parent. It's safe to say they would have known much more about the Sandusky household than anyone at Penn State.
 
Passage from Chi’s 2013 article:

Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan 2013: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sandusky-prosecutors-penn-state-put-schools-prestige-above-abuse/ …

It took awhile, Fina said, before the prosecutors realized that Penn State President Graham Spanier, Senior Vice President Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley were putting the school's brand above the repeated sexual abuse of young boys on its campus.

FINA: I think the evidence -- now they're gonna be tried on that. ... But I investigated that case. They deserve to be charged, and I hope justice will be served there.

KETEYIAN: Did you two ever look at each other and go, "I can understand if they're covering up recruiting violations. But this is serial sexual abuse of children that they are institutionally resisting efforts to uncover."

JOSEPH MCGETTIGAN: Yeah

FINA: Many times. I mean, that that happened over and over again. I mean, it just -- just astonished --

MCGETTIGAN: You know what, there -- there -- some of the thinking on the simplest level, one of the simplest expressions of their thinking is, "Well, that was then. That was Jerry Sandusky. That was someone else. This is now. Let's move on. We are Penn State."

KETEYIAN: Do you believe that Coach Paterno was a part of the conspiracy to conceal -- to cover up the crimes at Penn State by Jerry Sandusky?

FINA: I do not. And -- and I -- I'm viewing this strictly on the evidence, not any kind of fealty to anybody. I did not find that evidence.

KETEYIAN: But you know as well as I do, Frank, Joe Paterno was the most powerful man on that campus, arguably the most powerful coach in college football. He knew what was going on in that university, and the argument is if he knew what he knew, he should have put a stop to it. He should have done more.

FINA: Well, that's right. And I don't see any need to judge him beyond his own words. He said it best: "I didn't do enough. I should have done more."

That last quote was actually edited. Here's the full version of Fina's response:
 
One would hope so (but I have not heard anything to that effect)

He is a POS

I am thinking that this is a guy who does not inolve himself with porn, or allow others to involve him.

I think he gets his rocks off by looking in the mirror. Just my impression of him is all.
 
I'd be interested in his exact quote when it was reported that he "said he doesn't condemn..." Wonder why it was reported that way instead of printing his exact quote. Much easier for him to waffle on the way it was reported than on what he actually said.
Yes, agreed, Bell. I emailed the writer (Matt Mattei) this morning to ask if McGettigan offered up a quote. Fingers crossed.

Anyway, it's hilariously sad how our own BOT is the last (only) party that's still fighting tooth and nail to preserve the old $8.5 million dollar narrative. FML
 
Why does the famous quote about the Roman Empire come to mind when I read this story about McGettigan (paraphrasing) - the Romans create a wasteland and call it peace.

So after dropping an atomic bomb on state college McGettigan now wants to change the narrative 4 years later? It sure seemed it was all about Penn State when Linda Kelly and everyone else was in front of the cameras on that infamous November day in 2011 looking for their 15 minutes of fame. And McGettigan is also now preaching about being more aware of child abuse - really Joe? Where was the awareness of law enforcement, the OAG, and child welfare agencies when Sandusky built his second mile organization between 1977 and 2011? What was the states excuse for not being more aware and stopping Sandusky in 1998?
 
My recollection may be incorrect, but my belief was that McGettigan was brought in by the AG's office out of semi-retirement exclusively to be one of the litigators for the Jerry trial as a courtroom presence rather than an investigating prosecutor. From my knowledge, he wasn't involved in any of the Grand Juries and I don't believe he was involved in the prosecution of Curley, Schultz and Spanier. In fact, my impression was that he went back to private practice after Sandusky's prosecution was complete, so I suspect that he wouldn't have been involved in the receipt of the emails, many of which originated from Agents at the AG's office whom McGettigan likely wouldn't have known or interacted with.

So in that sense, it makes sense that he wouldn't have much of a (public) opinion on Penn State one way or another - it wasn't his fight or his trial.
 
My recollection may be incorrect, but my belief was that McGettigan was brought in by the AG's office out of semi-retirement exclusively to be one of the litigators for the Jerry trial as a courtroom presence rather than an investigating prosecutor. From my knowledge, he wasn't involved in any of the Grand Juries and I don't believe he was involved in the prosecution of Curley, Schultz and Spanier. In fact, my impression was that he went back to private practice after Sandusky's prosecution was complete, so I suspect that he wouldn't have been involved in the receipt of the emails, many of which originated from Agents at the AG's office whom McGettigan likely wouldn't have known or interacted with.

So in that sense, it makes sense that he wouldn't have much of a (public) opinion on Penn State one way or another - it wasn't his fight or his trial.
I suspect that McGettigan was brought into this case in much the same way that Freeh was chosen to receive the commission on the "SITF Investigation":

In both situations, certain things were "expected"...and the executioner of those tasks had to be completely reliable wrt staying "on script".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
I suspect that McGettigan was brought into this case in much the same way that Freeh was chosen to receive the commission on the "SITF Investigation":

In both situations, certain things were "expected"...and the executioner of those tasks had to be completely reliable wrt staying "on script".
I mean, I agree with you, but I'm not sure if that's controversial or unacceptable. Trial attorneys and trial litigators are brought in to win the courtroom with the facts they are given. Similarly, prosecutors are brought in to secure a guilty verdict from a jury, and a defense attorney is brought in to secure a not guilty verdict, each with the facts they are provided with - sometimes by another investigatory body. There's no guise of independence for a prosecutor or a defense attorney like there would be for a hired investigator who is specifically billed as being "independent" - everyone in the courtroom knows what each side is trying to do.

So, you're right - McGettigan was brought into the Sandusky prosecution with certain things "expected" of him. The expectation was that he secure guilty verdicts for the crimes Jerry was charged with by the state. But he's a prosecutor, so I'm not sure if that's really all too controversial.
 
I mean, I agree with you, but I'm not sure if that's controversial or unacceptable. Trial attorneys and trial litigators are brought in to win the courtroom with the facts they are given. Similarly, prosecutors are brought in to secure a guilty verdict from a jury, and a defense attorney is brought in to secure a not guilty verdict, each with the facts they are provided with - sometimes by another investigatory body. There's no guise of independence for a prosecutor or a defense attorney like there would be for a hired investigator who is specifically billed as being "independent" - everyone in the courtroom knows what each side is trying to do.

So, you're right - McGettigan was brought into the Sandusky prosecution with certain things "expected" of him. The expectation was that he secure guilty verdicts for the crimes Jerry was charged with by the state. But he's a prosecutor, so I'm not sure if that's really all too controversial.
I hear ya'.......but your thoughts wrt what the expectations were (correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you believe the "expectations" were simply to gain a guilty verdict) are very different from what I BELIEVE the "expectations" were (namely, to insure that this entire debacle be made into a "Penn State" issue.....with the obvious implications of what it would NOT be made into).

I also.....though I know it is considered a bit naïve....still think that the obligations of the State (the prosecutors and the judiciary) ought to be something other than "maximizing the chances of a conviction".....it ought to be - in my Pollyanna world - an obligation to pursue justice. Full, open, honest justice. Again, call me a Pollyanna, but I still believe in that shit.

This..."prosecutors are brought in to secure a guilty verdict from a jury"....is a Kafka-esque notion that should frighten the shit out of all of us. IMHO
 
I hear ya'.......but your thoughts wrt what the expectations were (correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you believe the "expectations" were simply to gain a guilty verdict) are very different from what I BELIEVE the "expectations" were (namely, to insure that this entire debacle be made into a "Penn State" issue.....with the obvious implications of what it would NOT be made into).

I also.....though I know it is considered a bit naïve....still think that the obligations of the State (the prosecutors and the judiciary) ought to be something other than "maximizing the chances of a conviction".....it ought to be - in my Pollyanna world - an obligation to pursue justice. Full, open, honest justice. Again, call me a Pollyanna, but I still believe in that shit.

This..."prosecutors are brought in to secure a guilty verdict from a jury"....is a Kafka-esque notion that should frighten the shit out of all of us. IMHO
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure if I agree. Recalling the Sandusky trial in a vacuum (and attempting to divorce the C/S/S prosecutions, the grand jury process, the actions taken by PSU in the wake of the arrests, Freeh, etc.), the trial itself focused much more, as one would expect, on Sandusky's actions and his victims, rather than Penn State or its administrators. In that courtroom on those days, Penn State wasn't on trial, The Second Mile wasn't on trial, Central Mountain and CYS/DPW weren't on trial - Jerry was the only one in the defendant's chair. Hell, even when Judge Cleland tried to discuss with the prosecutors a particular strategy's potential impact on C/S/S, the prosecutors reminded the Judge that C/S/S weren't being tried (IMO, with an implicit emphasis on "in this courtroom"), Jerry was.

You can certainly disagree, but I think McGettigan was brought in, IIRC shortly before the Sandusky trial began, for one reason - to put the guy in jail through guilty verdicts. I don't believe he was too concerned with Penn State or C/S/S simply because he wasn't trying those cases down the road, and they didn't have too much bearing on Jerry's guilt or innocense. As has been pointed out repeatedly on this board, not all of the victims who testified at Jerry's trial were abused on PSU's campus - although I do recall the prosecutors noting that Jerry's access to the PSU football program (through ticket access, bowl trips, gifts, practice visits, and football facility access) helped him provide some of the bait both to get closer to his victims and to keep them close. But any true question of PSU's culpability just didn't matter when it came to whether Jerry was guilty or innocent.
 
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure if I agree. Recalling the Sandusky trial in a vacuum (and attempting to divorce the C/S/S prosecutions, the grand jury process, the actions taken by PSU in the wake of the arrests, Freeh, etc.), the trial itself focused much more, as one would expect, on Sandusky's actions and his victims, rather than Penn State or its administrators. In that courtroom on those days, Penn State wasn't on trial, The Second Mile wasn't on trial, Central Mountain and CYS/DPW weren't on trial - Jerry was the only one in the defendant's chair. Hell, even when Judge Cleland tried to discuss with the prosecutors a particular strategy's potential impact on C/S/S, the prosecutors reminded the Judge that C/S/S weren't being tried (IMO, with an implicit emphasis on "in this courtroom"), Jerry was.

You can certainly disagree, but I think McGettigan was brought in, IIRC shortly before the Sandusky trial began, for one reason - to put the guy in jail through guilty verdicts. I don't believe he was too concerned with Penn State or C/S/S simply because he wasn't trying those cases down the road, and they didn't have too much bearing on Jerry's guilt or innocense. As has been pointed out repeatedly on this board, not all of the victims who testified at Jerry's trial were abused on PSU's campus - although I do recall the prosecutors noting that Jerry's access to the PSU football program (through ticket access, bowl trips, gifts, practice visits, and football facility access) helped him provide some of the bait both to get closer to his victims and to keep them close. But any true question of PSU's culpability just didn't matter when it came to whether Jerry was guilty or innocent.


These Judges keep kicking the can down the road from one another. They all suck. Do they like porn too?
 
Passage from Chi’s 2013 article:

Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan 2013: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sandusky-prosecutors-penn-state-put-schools-prestige-above-abuse/ …

It took awhile, Fina said, before the prosecutors realized that Penn State President Graham Spanier, Senior Vice President Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley were putting the school's brand above the repeated sexual abuse of young boys on its campus.

FINA: I think the evidence -- now they're gonna be tried on that. ... But I investigated that case. They deserve to be charged, and I hope justice will be served there.

KETEYIAN: Did you two ever look at each other and go, "I can understand if they're covering up recruiting violations. But this is serial sexual abuse of children that they are institutionally resisting efforts to uncover."

JOSEPH MCGETTIGAN: Yeah

FINA: Many times. I mean, that that happened over and over again. I mean, it just -- just astonished --

MCGETTIGAN: You know what, there -- there -- some of the thinking on the simplest level, one of the simplest expressions of their thinking is, "Well, that was then. That was Jerry Sandusky. That was someone else. This is now. Let's move on. We are Penn State."

KETEYIAN: Do you believe that Coach Paterno was a part of the conspiracy to conceal -- to cover up the crimes at Penn State by Jerry Sandusky?

FINA: I do not. And -- and I -- I'm viewing this strictly on the evidence, not any kind of fealty to anybody. I did not find that evidence.

KETEYIAN: But you know as well as I do, Frank, Joe Paterno was the most powerful man on that campus, arguably the most powerful coach in college football. He knew what was going on in that university, and the argument is if he knew what he knew, he should have put a stop to it. He should have done more.

FINA: Well, that's right. And I don't see any need to judge him beyond his own words. He said it best: "I didn't do enough. I should have done more."


I like how the haters play the "most powerful man" card, but have no examples of this being the case. One example of JVP not being powerful is the Baseball stadium sitting across the street from Beaver Stadium. JVP tried very hard to keep it from being where it is, but he failed. The most powerful man would have been able to have the baseball stadium built elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUEngineerx2
Special ed attorney, Sandusky prosecutor lecture on bullying, sexual abuse at King’s
First Posted: 10:41 pm - September 29th, 2015 - 129 Views
By Matt Mattei - mmattei@timesleader.com

web1_McGettin2.jpg


WILKES-BARRE — The resounding message when a special education attorney and the lead prosecutor in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case spoke at King’s College Tuesday night was that awareness goes a long way in dealing with bullying and child abuse.

Heather Hulse and Joseph McGettigan, of McAndrews Law Offices in Berwyn, gave presentations on those matters in the Burke Auditorium of the McGowan Business School. The seminar was presented by the college and the Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children of Luzerne County.

Hulse, a special education attorney for 17 years, explained that children with special needs are often the targets of bullying in her lecture entitled “Bullying 101: Know Your Rights and How to Protect Your Child.”

Hulse led off the lecture with a statistic that 160,000 students miss school every day due to fear that they’ll be attacked or intimidated by another student. She then highlighted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA of 2004, which requires all students covered by the statute to be provided with a “free, appropriate public education” in the least restrictive environment.

The act mandates that institutions investigate and enact discipline for reported instances of bullying, but it also asserts that the schools may — but are not required to — take preventative action, which Hulse said worries her. “We’ve had to force the school districts to address the bullying,” Hulse said.

Getting the word out

Hulse preached the importance of spreading information to schools, victims and even bullies in addressing a situation of abuse. She explained that for many students who are being bullied, measures can be taken to move them to another district or to consider private school.

“(Their school) is no longer safe for them,” Hulse said. She noted that in many cases, there are funds set up to help parents of victims with tuition for a private school or to afford socialization counseling, for children who have autism or Asperger’s disease, to prevent further bullying.

Hulse also presented a list of signs that a child is being bullied or is bullying another child that parents should be aware of.

Signs of bullied children include difficulty sleeping, declining interest in school, sudden loss of friends or avoidance of social situations, decreased self-esteem and self-destructive tendencies. Hulse said parents should communicate with the school, being vigilant about documenting their complaint in writing, and that schools should do things as simple as separate a child from a bully physically, encourage a positive circle of friends for a child and encourage other students to stand up for their peers.

In addition, parents can seek self-advocacy counseling to help their children stand up for themselves.

Signs of a bully

Signs that a child might be a bully include being quick to blame others and unwilling to accept responsibility, lacking empathy and compassion, having immature social and interpersonal skills and wanting to be in control.

“Bullying is a learned behavior,” Hulse said. “We can unlearn it.” She went on to note that parents of bullies often have no idea what their child is doing and that bullies are often just as much in need of help as victims.

Another thing Hulse stressed was training for teachers, who often do not see bullying as it does not always occur in the classroom. “Teachers need to be aware that it’s happening outside the classroom and to be on guard.”

Hulse passed the floor to McGettigan, the lead prosecutor in the Sandusky sexual abuse trial, and he proceeded with his lecture on “How to be a Leader in Preventing Child Abuse: The Prosecution of Jerry Sandusky.”

Convicted in June 2012 of sexually abusing 10 pre-teen and teenage boys, Sandusky, a former Penn State defensive football coach under Joe Paterno, was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison.

The animated, long-time criminal prosecutor applauded the work of his colleague, noting that her civil arena allows for her to help people in proactive ways where for many years, he could only put offenders in jail.

Similar indicators

“The indicators of sexual abuse are not that different from the indicators of bullying,” McGettigan said. He explained that the victims of the Sandusky case numbered in the dozens if not into the hundreds, and that a predator like Sandusky operated in ways McGettigan called “insidious, clever, even Machiavellian,” targeting children of single mothers who did not have a father figure in their lives.

He described Sandusky’s method as “grooming” his victims, meaning he would introduce intimate touches so slowly that children would become accustomed to him to the point that he could prey on them. In this way, McGettigan noted, children were unaware of the wrongfulness of what was happening to them.

McGettigan made a point to say he does not condemn Penn State University or even Sandusky’s foundation “The Second Mile” for what Sandusky did, but he does feel more people should have had their eyes open to their surroundings.

“I don’t know if (sexual abuse) can be eradicated,” McGettigan said. “But what we can do is minimize the abuse and the damages it causes.” He went on to say that his best advice to individuals who might help prevent abuse is, “You can be observant.”

Reach Matt Mattei at 570-991-6651 or mmattei@timesleader.com.
Well ain't that grand!
 
I like how the haters play the "most powerful man" card, but have no examples of this being the case. One example of JVP not being powerful is the Baseball stadium sitting across the street from Beaver Stadium. JVP tried very hard to keep it from being where it is, but he failed. The most powerful man would have been able to have the baseball stadium built elsewhere.


That idea is so bullshit. There are several CEOs and other influential corporate executives currently on our Board of Trustees (and many that were involved in 2011 that are now gone) that are extremely powerful. Further, they are tied into powerful politicians. As a single example, see my Tweet below from a few days ago with Frazier and Bill Clinton.

These people joined together to cover their own asses and point the finger at Joe...he didn't have a chance against that type of power. Even more disgusting, they did it to him when he was in his final days and couldn't even attempt to fight back.

These people (current and past Board members + politicians) are the scum of the earth.

 
Last edited:
I like how the haters play the "most powerful man" card, but have no examples of this being the case. One example of JVP not being powerful is the Baseball stadium sitting across the street from Beaver Stadium. JVP tried very hard to keep it from being where it is, but he failed. The most powerful man would have been able to have the baseball stadium built elsewhere.

There are many who seem to be greatly confused by the clear distinction between celebrity and authority.
 
I like how the haters play the "most powerful man" card, but have no examples of this being the case. One example of JVP not being powerful is the Baseball stadium sitting across the street from Beaver Stadium. JVP tried very hard to keep it from being where it is, but he failed. The most powerful man would have been able to have the baseball stadium built elsewhere.

Great point and example. To add to that Joe didn't want JS bringing kids into lasch and was overruled. Also when the crap hit the fan no one from PSU even got Joe's side of the story before firing him via late night message/phone call. If Joe was all powerful how did he get fired in that manner?

Thesr are points that the uninformed haters simply cannot refute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: capkrokus
You can certainly disagree, but I think McGettigan was brought in, IIRC shortly before the Sandusky trial began, for one reason - to put the guy in jail through guilty verdicts. I don't believe he was too concerned with Penn State or C/S/S simply because he wasn't trying those cases down the road, and they didn't have too much bearing on Jerry's guilt or innocense. As has been pointed out repeatedly on this board, not all of the victims who testified at Jerry's trial were abused on PSU's campus - although I do recall the prosecutors noting that Jerry's access to the PSU football program (through ticket access, bowl trips, gifts, practice visits, and football facility access) helped him provide some of the bait both to get closer to his victims and to keep them close. But any true question of PSU's culpability just didn't matter when it came to whether Jerry was guilty or innocent.

McGettigan and Fina framed the case against Sandusky in a way that was specifically designed to make it a case against Penn State. It's how they chose the victims that they presented among all the victims who were eventually identified. The janitor case in particular was extremely weak and the hearsay testimony should not have been allowed. It was only used to make Penn State look bad. The prosecutors didn't want to include the 1998 case because it showed that Penn State handled that case precisely by the book. It was only included because the victim's mother made a stink and demanded it.

I would be willing to bet that Sandusky abused many more boys in Hilton Garden Inn than he ever did at Penn State facilities. But bringing that up would not have served the OAG's (and Corbett's) purposes.
 
So in that sense, it makes sense that he wouldn't have much of a (public) opinion on Penn State one way or another - it wasn't his fight or his trial.

The fact is that he had very strong opinions about Penn State's culpability from 2011 until at least 2013. These opinions are a matter of public record, so it is bizarre that he is now walking them back. Has McGettigan figured out that he was fooled by Frank the porndog? I don't know. But his tune has changed if he is now saying that Penn State is not to blame.
 
That's better than fina, who while saying he found no evidence that Joe engaged in a cover-up, still stupidly chose to condemn Joe morally.
Yeah, Fina was pissed that he couldn't send porn to Joe due to Joe never using email/computers.
 
A quick and honest question....to date, has McGettigan been implicated in the porngate stuff?
Even if he wasn't implicated, as powerful as he is, he should have known and should have done more to prevent Fina and his lackeys from transmitting their filth. He had a moral obligation to stop them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT