Speaking of organized crime, Gerald Arthur "Jerry" Sandusky went on trial in Pennsylvania on Monday for fifty-some counts of various child rape offenses. Sandusky was a famous assistant football coach at Pennsylvania "Penn" State University for thirty-some years. The former athletic director Timothy "Tim" Curley and a former Penn State vice president who was in charge of university police named Gary "Gary" Schultz have also been charged with cover-up type offenses. University president Graham "Cracker" Spanier and head football coach Joseph "JoPa" Paterno also lost their jobs. The case decapitated the university.
In other words Penn State is on trial this week.
"Where were Sandusky's hands (and other body parts)?" is coupled with the familiar Watergate question "What did they know and when did they know it." Penn State is on trial this week and it does not seem to be going well for the home team. Through Tuesday two, if I remember correctly, of the then-children had testified, it seems compellingly, since some jurors were seen to be dabbing tears from their eyes, as had former assistant coach Michael "Mike" McQueary. McQueary told jurors he went to a Penn State locker room one late night and heard the distinct, rhythmic sounds of "skin-on-skin slapping" coming from the showers, in which he saw a naked Sandusky front-to-back with a naked child whose hands were on the shower wall. It is true as McQueary said in answer to a question from one of Sandusky's lawyer's that he did not actually see Sandusky's actual penis actually penetrating the actual anus of the actual child. That does not seem to have been a helpful line of questioning to Sandusky unless his defense team--and Sandusky may testify--has a non-sexual explanation for rhythmic skin-on-skin slapping sounds between a middle-aged man and a child in a shower. Anyone with any ideas please contact Joseph Amendola, c/o Bellfonte, Pennsylvania courthouse immediately.
Sandusky seems to be in denial. Why would he take this case to trial? He knows what he did, if these victims are telling the truth, and it certainly seems they're telling the truth (and there are more to come), why would he put the kids, now young men, through the excruciating re-telling of what he did in a public courtroom? If they're telling the truth he's going to get convicted and he will get no leniency in sentencing when he made these kids-now-men go through this. He will spend the rest of his life in prison. On the other hand, if he was not in denial and wanted to do the right thing for the victims he could have admitted his guilt before the court. He then could reasonably have expected some sentencing "discount" from the prosecutors and judge.
Penn State people are in denial. Schultz and Curley tried to cover up, if the allegations are true, child rape by a prominent face of the university. To save face, to protect Penn State's image. Although not criminally charged, Spanier and Paterno were in denial too and did similar cover-up-like things. There was a mini-riot on campus when Paterno was fired. Penn State's image was good, it was carefully-crafted, and it was a fraud. Long before Jerry Sandusky committed his first alleged act of child rape, Penn State sold its soul to football. The mission of the university was no longer education, Penn State was a better-than-average school, not elite, the mission of the school was to win football games with "honor" or whatever their phrase was.
Which brings us back to organized crime: Why haven't Pennsylvania prosecutors, or federal prosecutors, criminally charged the Pennsylvania State University as an institution? Racketerring "RICO" comes to mind, there may be other statutes that would provide a legal theory of prosecution (Some kind of tax fraud? Prosecutors finally got Al Capone on income tax evasion, not running a criminal enterprise.) but RICO seems tailor-made. Penn State is a legal entity; there seems to be a "pattern of racketeering activity" as that is defined; the activity involved more than one person, and high-ranking university officials to boot; rape and perjury are enumerated underlying crimes; there are several "predicate acts;" Penn State as an institution, as an "enterprise" benefited financially from the racketeering activity, the original intent of the statute, but not a requirement. That seems to fit, all of that seems to fit. Why is Penn State not charged with RICO or something?
Image: The first Google image under keyword "Penn State."
