Cool thing about this incident is that the UC-Davis President's job is now in jeopardy and the UC-Davis president has control over the Campus police and so it looks like somebody has to be sacrificed, guess who those somebodies will be, hint, it ain't the President.
There are three more people sitting around today, two cops involved and their chief. They are now finding out and will soon find out for sure that they are simply pawns in a game (just like every other cop in this country) and that when their superiors are in danger they will be tossed to the wind if it protects their owners.....I mean bosses.
1969 — Jerry Sandusky starts his coaching career at Penn State University as a defensive line coach.
1977 — Jerry Sandusky founds The Second Mile. It begins as a group foster home dedicated to helping troubled boys and grows into a charity dedicated to helping children with absent or dysfunctional families.
January 1983 — Associated Press voters select Penn State as college football’s national champion for the 1982 season.
January 1987 — Associated Press voters select Penn State as college football’s national champion for the 1986 season.
1994 — Boy known as Victim 7 in the report meets Sandusky through The Second Mile program at about the age of 10.
1994-95 — Boy known as Victim 6 meets Sandusky at a Second Mile picnic at Spring Creek Park when he is 7 or 8 years old.
1995-96 — Boy known as Victim 5, meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is 7 or 8, in second or third grade.
1996-97 — Boy known as Victim 4, at the age of 12 or 13, meets Sandusky while he is in his second year participating in The Second Mile program.
1996-98 — Victim 5 is taken to the locker rooms and showers at Penn State by Sandusky when he is 8 to 10 years old.
Jan. 1, 1998 — Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky’s wife, as a member of Sandusky’s family party for the 1998 Outback Bowl.
1998 — Victim 6 is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old. When Victim 6 is dropped off at home, his hair is wet from showering with Sandusky. His mother reports the incident to the university police, who investigate.
Detective Ronald Schreffler testifies that he and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, with the consent of the mother of Victim 6, eavesdrop on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 has with Sandusky. Sandusky says he has showered with other boys and Victim 6’s mother tries to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he will not. At the end of the second conversation, after Sandusky is told he cannot see Victim 6 anymore, Schreffler testifies Sandusky says, “I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead.”
Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testifies that he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky, and that Sandusky admits showering naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong.
The case is closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decides there will be no criminal charge.
June 1999 — Sandusky retires from Penn State but still holds emeritus status.
Dec. 28, 1999 — Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky’s wife, as a member of Sandusky’s family party for the 1999 Alamo Bowl.
Summer 2000 — Boy known as Victim 3 meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is between seventh and eighth grade.
Fall 2000 — A janitor named James Calhoun observes Sandusky in the showers of the Lasch Football Building with a young boy, known as Victim 8, pinned up against the wall, performing oral sex on the boy. He tells other janitorial staff immediately. Fellow Office of Physical Plant employee Ronald Petrosky cleans the showers at Lasch and sees Sandusky and the boy, who he describes as being between the ages of 11 and 13.
Calhoun tells other physical plant employees what he saw, including Jay Witherite, his immediate supervisor. Witherite tells him to whom he should report the incident. Calhoun was a temporary employee and never makes a report. Victim 8’s identity is unknown.
March 1, 2002 — A Penn State graduate assistant enters the locker room at the Lasch Football Building. In the showers, he sees a naked boy, known as Victim 2, whose age he estimates to be 10 years old, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant tells his father immediately.
March 2, 2002 — In the morning, the graduate assistant calls coach Joe Paterno and goes to Paterno’s home, where he reports what he has seen.
March 3, 2002 — Paterno calls Tim Curley, Penn State athletic director, to his home the next day and reports a version of what the grad assistant had said.
March 2002 — Later in the month the graduate assistant is called to a meeting with Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz. The grad assistant reports what he has seen and Curley and Schultz say they will look into it.
March 27, 2002 (approximate) — The graduate assistant hears from Curley. He is told that Sandusky’s locker room keys are taken away and that the incident has been reported to The Second Mile. The graduate assistant is never questioned by university police and no other entity conducts an investigation until the graduate assistant testifies in grand jury in December 2010.
2005-2006 — Boy known as Victim 1 says that he meets Sandusky through The Second Mile at age 11 or 12.
Spring 2007 — During the 2007 track season, Sandusky begins spending time with Victim 1 weekly, having him stay overnight at his residence in College Township, Pa.
Spring 2008 — Termination of contact with Victim 1 occurs when he is a freshman in a Clinton County high school. After the boy’s mother calls the school to report sexual assault, Sandusky is barred from the school district attended by Victim 1 from that day forward and the matter is reported to authorities as mandated by law.
Early 2009 — An investigation by the Pennsylvania attorney general begins when a Clinton County, Pa., teen boy tells authorities that Sandusky has inappropriately touched him several times over a four-year period.
September 2010 — Sandusky retires from day-to-day involvement with The Second Mile, saying he wants to spend more time with family and handle personal matters.
Nov. 5, 2011 — Sandusky is arrested and released on $100,000 bail after being arraigned on 40 criminal counts.
Nov. 7, 2011 — Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says Paterno is not a target of the investigation into how the school handled the accusations. But she refuses to say the same for university President Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz, who have stepped down from their positions, surrender on charges that they failed to alert police to complaints against Sandusky.
Nov. 8, 2011 — Possible ninth victim of Sandusky contacts state police as calls for ouster of Paterno and Spanier grow in state and beyond. Penn State abruptly cancels Paterno’s regular weekly news conference.
Nov. 9, 2011 — Paterno announces he’ll retire at the end of the season then is fired by board of trustees.
Years ago I reviewed Daniel Kahneman book, Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Heuristics and Biases is a collection of graduate-school-level papers rather than a summary of research. Kahneman has finally written his summary of the research of cognitive bias, and it's pretty much the must-read book of the year.
But another way to look at life is to look at it as a great shopping mall, not the usual kind, where goods are purchased with money, but one where such things as worldly success, love of music, enjoyment of painting, a six handicap golf game, a close relationship with your daughter, and many other similar things are also for sale. But the commodity with which they are purchased is not money but is time. And quite contrary to the way the capitalist system works with money and goods, every one of us is given exactly the same amount of time in each hour, in each day, and in each year. It is a limited amount, and it is impossible for anyone to be so rich in "time" that he can enjoy every single one of the things which time may buy. So there is a choice to be made, just as in purchasing goods with money, although the choice in the one case is far less obvious than the choice in the other.
Right before leaving work, I found a case that ruined an entire argument I had made. "How do I bill the client for the past 10 hours of work, in light of this new case? I should have found this case sooner. Do I disclose the case in the motion? The other guy is an idiot, and probably won't find it. Doesn't the adversarial process require the other person to find this stuff out? What about the duty of candor to the court." I felt like shit.
I started driving to the gym when I almost passed out. I had forgotten to eat. I stopped by the Shell station for a protein bar, and spent the next fifteen minutes on the road trying to rationalize not going to the gym.
Feeling detached, I pulled into the parking lot and grabbed my ticket from the machine. I pulled into a space, grabbed my gym bag, and went to grab my ticket - which the gym validates.
Fuck. I can't find my ticket. Jesus fuck.
I'd like to say I felt anger, as anger fuels me. I didn't have the energy for anger. I felt weary. Beta. If I had more emotions, I probably would have cried.
It wasn't that a replaced ticket, as the woman said, would cost $12.50. It was that everything was fucked up.
But I use the banal struggles of life to drive me to something more. Even small struggles can lead to increased life skills. "Find a way to talk the woman into giving you a replacement ticket, without paying the fee," I told myself.
"A replacement ticket is 12.50," she insisted. "But I just got here. The wind blew it out of my hands." She was sorry, but it was only $12.50.
I wouldn't leave. In sales, they teach: He who speaks first, loses. I stood silently.
"Where are you going," she asked? "To the gym," I replied, and she promised to let me out for free if the gym would give me a note proving I was a member.
The small victory gave me no energy. Because I had had less than 500 calories over the last 24 hours, my workout was shit. I was weak. I couldn't get a pump. I hadn't had enough water, so my stomach was bloated. I was too disgusted to even look at myself.
It felt like being stuck in traffic. Even when you're moving, you don't feel like you're getting anywhere. I ground through my workout, questioning my manhood and mortality. "So this is what getting old feel like..."
I had to finish my workout with cardio, and went to the dreaded stair master. After two minutes, I was exhausted. "Fuck this, I'm out of here."
Then I set a goal - an entirely arbitrary one. I was going to do 20 minutes on the stair climber.
At five minutes, I wanted to quit. "Just hold the hand rails. It doesn't matter. Just don't stop."
At 5:15, I started telling myself, "You haven't done this machine in a long time. Ten minutes will be a good start. You are already soaked in sweat and panting. Ten minutes would be great!"
Ten minutes came along, my lungs burned. My gums hurt, too, and my entire body was on fire. My legs itches due to increase capillary circulation of oxygen towards the skin.
Every 15 or 20 seconds, I'd look down. "Look, man. You're almost at 2 miles of stairs. Just stop at two miles. Twenty minutes, after all, is an arbitrary goal. It doesn't mean anything."
My inner id kept trying to get me to quit, and my super ego kept rejecting it.
Twenty minutes arrived, and I stepped off the machine. There was no sense of accomplishment. There was only the fatalistic sense that it was over.
I left the gym punch drunk, went home, and did laundry.
The next morning I felt like a G. I had energy, blood was circulating, and my performance at work was awesome. I found a way to deal with the case that ruined my previous night, and the workout in the gym went perfectly.
If I had gone home, the id would have had its way. Last night's trimph, while trivial and arbitrary, reset my entire being.
I always set arbitrary goals - even if they make no sense.
If you, me, or any other non-sociopath made a decision leading to the wrongful imprisonment of a man, we'd probably reconsider that initial opinion. Yet the United States Supreme Court - the highest court in all the land - issues opinions making wrongful convictions more likely. Consider two cases on the government's duty to retain and disclose exculpatory evidence, and one case on the free speech rights of government employees.
In Youngblood v. Arizona, Arizona police failed to preserve clothing (from a rape scene) that contained DNA evidence:
At trial, expert witnesses testified that respondent might have been completely exonerated by timely performance of tests on properly preserved semen samples. Respondent was convicted of child molestation, sexual assault, and kidnaping in an Arizona state court.
The United States Supreme Court excused the government's negligence, ultimately reinstating the conviction. Guess what happened next?
After spending almost a decade in prison, it was proven conclusively - beyond any doubt - that the prisoner in Youngblood v. Arizona, Larry Youngblood, was innocent. Not not guilty - but totally, factually, he-didn't-freaking-do-it innocent.
The Supreme Court directly lead to the wrongful imprisonment of a man. Given that Youngblood was convicted of child molestation, and given how child molestors are treated in prison we can go farther: The United States Supreme Court caused the gang rape of an innocent man
Yet the Supreme Court has shown no contrition. In Connick v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors who withheld exculpatory evidence could not be sued. Indeed, in Connick unlike in Youngblood, the Supreme Court already knew an innocent man had been convicted. The man sued after he had been released from prison.
Under Supreme Court precedent, prosecutors have no incentive - other than a "conscience" - to behave ethically. Conscience belongs in quotes, as San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón's actions prove:
District Attorney George Gascón fought back against attacks on his suppression of an internal memo criticizing the San Francisco Police Department Crime Lab's DNA unit at a public forum for DA candidates last night, asserting that his office was prepared to disclose the memo through appropriate legal channels.
Long story short: The San Francisco Police Department Crime Lab is corrupt and unreliable. One lab technician stole cocaine from the lab. Yet prosecutores relied on evidence from this crime lab in their cases against innocent men. Moreover, no one - other than the prosecutors - knew about the crime lab's corruption and incompetence.
The highest prosecutor in San Francisco, Gascón, knew the crime lab was corrupt. Yet he did everything - and is doing everything - in his power to cover up the corruption. He did so even though a lower-level prosecutor begged Gascón to do the right thing:
The memo was written by a whistle-blower, formerly employed at the DA's office, who criticized practices for analyzing DNA evidence at the SFPD Crime Lab. The former employee, Rockne Harmon, is a veteran prosecutor and nationally recognized DNA expert who says he is disturbed that his report has not been shared with members of the defense bar or outside auditors who performed accreditation inspections of the crime lab.
What incentive, after all, does he have to disclose the internal memo? He can't be sued, thanks to the great big forcefield the United States Supreme Court put around him. He can't be arrested, since no one is going to arrest a prosecutor for covering up a crime.
Oh, wait, you think I'm even finished with the Supreme Court? Get ready for more.
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court held that a District Attorney could fire a line prosecutor who blew the whistle about police misconduct. In Garcetti, a prosecutor who believed a police officer was lying expressed his concerns to the District Attorney. The D.A. demoted the prosecutor.
The Supreme Court held that a District Attorney may demote an employee for speaking out about misconduct. Thus, the prosecutor who uncovered the SFPD's corruption would have had to chosen between going public with the corruption, or losing his livelihood.
Reading through Supreme Court opinions on prosecutorial misconduct leaves one wondering: Does the Supreme Court want innocent people convicted?