CNN Headline on Paterno

[JosephNit]

We won't move on as long as little whores like Ganim keep rubbing out faces in it. But hey, if you wanna move, move; nobody needs you.

If people want to spend the morning before a big game jumping through Sara Ganim's hoops, they have every right to do so. But I'm not sure what it accomplishes -- other than giving Sara the attention she wants.

There's exactly one useful item of information in the whole piece, but it does not come as news to anyone who's been paying attention or has an ounce of common sense.

Meanwhile, she blithely regurgitates as though fact the unbelievable and ludicrous claim of some schmuck who says he approached Joe in 1976 and was waved off.

In any case, there's no mystery about the timing of Ganim's article. We know the game she's playing. The question is, why play it with her?

 

[Burb]

FAKE NEWS !!!!!!

 

[Lefty Hill]

They have a profile on a weightlifting forum...maybe it's IronDoc?

I thought of that.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

It needs to be corrected. It was November 23, 2010. The article got it wrong.

She's not talking about the November 22, 2010 interview with Sassano and Rossman. She's talking about a November 23, 2011 interview done with an unnamed state trooper. This is where McQueary magically comes up with Joe's "second victim" response. TWO WEEKS AFTER the GJP.

In November 2010, the Prosecutors (and of course McQueary) still didn't even KNOW about 1998!

 

[Art]

If people want to spend the morning before a big game jumping through Sara Ganim's hoops, they have every right to do so. But I'm not sure what it accomplishes -- other than giving Sara the attention she wants.

There's exactly one useful item of information in the whole piece, but it does not come as news to anyone who's been paying attention or has an ounce of common sense.

Meanwhile, she blithely regurgitates as though fact the unbelievable and ludicrous claim of some schmuck who says he approached Joe in 1976 and was waved off.

In any case, there's no mystery about the timing of Ganim's article. We know the game she's playing. The question is, why play it with her?

The snark in the CNN newsroom, where Ganim isn't particularly well regarded, is that she cranked out the story in order to avoid being sent to Florida.

 

[YYZ86]

If you receive a report of suspected CSA, you need to contact police and/or the pa childline. As a mandatory reporter, I hope you know this.

Did you make the call yet? Did you ask if at the time did he do the right thing? My last response to you until you do.

 

[getmyjive11]

They have a profile on a weightlifting forum...maybe it's IronDoc?

I prefer SteelDoc.

 

[getmyjive11]

Simply not true....his job description and the office description clearly said he was in charge of campus security.

Clearly you do not understand his s roll. How many arrests do you think he made/directed?

 

[getmyjive11]

Did you make the call yet? Did you ask if at the time did he do the right thing? My last response to you until you do.

What?

 

[LundyPSU]

If people want to spend the morning before a big game jumping through Sara Ganim's hoops, they have every right to do so. But I'm not sure what it accomplishes -- other than giving Sara the attention she wants.

There's exactly one useful item of information in the whole piece, but it does not come as news to anyone who's been paying attention or has an ounce of common sense.

Meanwhile, she blithely regurgitates as though fact the unbelievable and ludicrous claim of some schmuck who says he approached Joe in 1976 and was waved off.

In any case, there's no mystery about the timing of Ganim's article. We know the game she's playing. The question is, why play it with her?

so, please explain the reason for this timing?

 

[pandaczar12]

The snark in the CNN newsroom, where Ganim isn't particularly well regarded, is that she cranked out the story in order to avoid being sent to Florida.

If what you say is true, there were children down there in harms way, she could have helped by reporting on conditions, and in other ways when not reporting (volunteering, etc.) I guess once again she chose herself instead of the children.

 

[Obliviax]

Clearly you do not understand his s roll. How many arrests do you think he made/directed?

That is immaterial. He had the people that "make arrests" in his employ. Between he and Curley, plus reporting to Spanier, he had the resources. He did some investigation, realized nobody will ever know who the kid was (TSM didn't keep records or know). He realized MM gave different stories to his family, to Paterno and to them. He realized MM didn't actually "see" anything. He heard noises, made some assumptions. he saw JS through a mirror with a kid but by the time he slammed his locker and turned around, there were two people standing apart and looking at him. So he turned it over to TSM, who didn't do anything but tell JS to wear swim trunks. He reported it to Spanier and several others within PSU.

It was a game time decision on Schultz' part. It was the wrong one. Everyone knows that now. But that is no reflection on what a football coach or AD did, IMHO. They did what they were supposed to do. Plus, MM on several occasions, said Paterno followed up with him. If there is fault, beyond JS, it is with MM.

 

[pandaczar12]

That is immaterial. He had the people that "make arrests" in his employ. Between he and Curley, plus reporting to Spanier, he had the resources. He did some investigation, realized nobody will ever know who the kid was (TSM didn't keep records or know). He realized MM gave different stories to his family, to Paterno and to them. He realized MM didn't actually "see" anything. He heard noises, made some assumptions. he saw JS through a mirror with a kid but by the time he slammed his locker and turned around, there were two people standing apart and looking at him. So he turned it over to TSM, who didn't do anything but tell JS to wear swim trunks. He reported it to Spanier and several others within PSU.

It was a game time decision on Schultz' part. It was the wrong one. Everyone knows that now. But that is no reflection on what a football coach or AD did, IMHO. They did what they were supposed to do. Plus, MM on several occasions, said Paterno followed up with him. If there is fault, beyond JS, it is with MM.

The POTUS is not a soldier, yet is still in command of the military.

 

[bdgan]

Oh my... now you are relying on a Facebook post...

No, I'm not as shallow as you. I'm relying on people I trust, many other pieces of evidence, and common sense. I take that all of that information into account and use it to determine what I believe is the most likely scenario.

You take an unsubstantiated anecdote from Sara Ganim that has no context. That's good enough for you because it supports your predetermined belief.

 

[pandaczar12]

Why don't we all help GMJ11 "move on" and put him on block? He's still extremely irritable from the pitt loss, his period, or a combination of both... it's best to not engage.

 

[bdgan]

Would you agree that as a mandatory reporter, Dranov failed in his duties?

He certainly failed if he thought MM reported sexual abuse. Of course he testified to the contrary.

You choose to take MM's changing words as gospel while assuming that every other person MM told is lying. There's no way I can view that as an objective analysis.

 

[Art]

If what you say is true, there were children down there in harms way, she could have helped by reporting on conditions, and in other ways when not reporting (volunteering, etc.) I guess once again she chose herself instead of the children.

Not to defend Ganim, but:
a. it was colleagues being catty. Have no idea whether there is any truth to it.
b. doubt she would have made any meaningful difference as a reporter.

The comment is more a reflection of what her colleagues think of Ganim and what they think she thinks of herself. Certainly doesn't portray her in the most positive light.

 

[pandaczar12]

Not to defend Ganim, but:
a. it was colleagues being catty. Have no idea whether there is any truth to it.
b. doubt she would have made any meaningful difference as a reporter.

The comment is more a reflection of what her colleagues think of Ganim and what they think she thinks of herself. Certainly doesn't portray her in the most positive light.

A) Given her standards for sources, this far exceed them and I believe it.
B) She could have tried. She expected an elderly football coach to put on a cape and stop an ex-employee based on limited info. I'd expect more from her.

 

[kevina001]

Except that Paterno himself said it was of a sexual nature.

Where is the tape of this interview? It has to exist, right? Can it be FOIAed?

I ask because I'd love to know what Joe actually said. Did Joe say it was of a sexual nature, or did he ask if it was of a sexual nature, the way you would if you weren't sure?

 

[Zenophile]

If you receive a report of suspected CSA, you need to contact police and/or the pa childline. As a mandatory reporter, I hope you know this.

Yoo hoo ~> https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/cnn-headline-on-paterno.183210/page-8#post-2969601

 

[pandaczar12]

Where is the tape of this interview? It has to exist, right? Can it be FOIAed?

I ask because I'd love to know what Joe actually said. Did Joe say it was of a sexual nature, or did he ask if it was of a sexual nature, the way you would if you weren't sure?

You will never hear that tape, if you tried it would be conveniently lost or destroyed. If that tape supported what GMJ11 and his ilk were saying, we would have heard that tape hundreds of times on every major media outlet. The fact that it's never been played is all you need to know.

 

[kevina001]

been a busy weekend, sorry if this has already addressed, but I am f**king confused today

according to Ganim's new "story", Mike claims Joe said that 2001 was the "second" complaint about Sandusky

what was the first? 1998? 1976? the other 1970s report?? WTF??

do people really not understand how words work??

Unfortunately I can't answer your question, because Ganim never says which incident this is referring to. In fairness (assuming her reporting abut the police report is correct), I'm sure the police report doesn't say when the other incident was either. It's unlikely Joe would have told Mike any details about it. A good reporter would have probably followed up on this to find out more, but we know what we are dealing with here...

It is logical to assume that Paterno was referring to the 1998 incident. After all, Louis Freeh did a THOROUGH investigation, and this is the only other incident that was found to be known by Paterno.

But doesn't this report from Ganim fly in the face of her claims that Paterno knew of incidents of abuse in the 1970s? Why would Paterno say he heard of one other similar incident, when according to Ganim, he knew of several? Was he just covering his ass in a private meeting with Mike? Or is Ganim full of shit? Which of those two is more likely?

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Unfortunately I can't answer your question, because Ganim never says which incident this is referring to. In fairness (assuming her reporting abut the police report is correct), I'm sure the police report doesn't say when the other incident was either. It's unlikely Joe would have told Mike any details about it. A good reporter would have probably followed up on this to find out more, but we know what we are dealing with here...

It is logical to assume that Paterno was referring to the 1998 incident. After all, Louis Freeh did a THOROUGH investigation, and this is the only other incident that was found to be known by Paterno.

But doesn't this report from Ganim fly in the face of her claims that Paterno knew of incidents of abuse in the 1970s? Why would Paterno say he heard of one other similar incident, when according to Ganim, he knew of several? Was he just covering his ass in a private meeting with Mike? Or is Ganim full of shit? Which of those two is more likely?

it is so hard to figure out which lie to believe

gmj doesn't help clarify things.

 

[Obliviax]

Unfortunately I can't answer your question, because Ganim never says which incident this is referring to. In fairness (assuming her reporting abut the police report is correct), I'm sure the police report doesn't say when the other incident was either. It's unlikely Joe would have told Mike any details about it. A good reporter would have probably followed up on this to find out more, but we know what we are dealing with here...

It is logical to assume that Paterno was referring to the 1998 incident. After all, Louis Freeh did a THOROUGH investigation, and this is the only other incident that was found to be known by Paterno.

But doesn't this report from Ganim fly in the face of her claims that Paterno knew of incidents of abuse in the 1970s? Why would Paterno say he heard of one other similar incident, when according to Ganim, he knew of several? Was he just covering his ass in a private meeting with Mike? Or is Ganim full of shit? Which of those two is more likely?

Seems to me, the logical explanation is Joe may have been referring to 1998. But Joe always said that he never new of 1998, or at least didn't know of a sexual charge against JS in 1998. The police could have been making it up, MM could have misspoken, MM could have recounted the conversation wrong....it is so immaterial at this point. What I found interesting is MM is writing his memoirs. He's always been supportive of JVP. So, it will be interesting to see how he walks that tightrope (supporting JVP yet defending his position).

 

[LundyPSU]

Seems to me, the logical explanation is Joe may have been referring to 1998. But Joe always said that he never new of 1998, or at least didn't know of a sexual charge against JS in 1998. The police could have been making it up, MM could have misspoken, MM could have recounted the conversation wrong....it is so immaterial at this point. What I found interesting is MM is writing his memoirs. He's always been supportive of JVP. So, it will be interesting to see how he walks that tightrope (supporting JVP yet defending his position).

Curley testified that he discussed 1998 with Joe.

 

[pandaczar12]

Curley testified that he discussed 1998 with Joe.

Link?

 

[denniskembala]

It's hard for the law and order profession to do their job in 2001 when no one reports the incident to them, eh?

Butt hurt Pitt clown, now on ignore

 

[AvgUser]

1998 is immaterial in everything. Law Enforcement and CYS investigated and the incident was deemed to be unfounded. The "professionals" were involved. What anyone knew about 1998 was that it was a false alarm, a rumor, something that was not true, unfounded...pick whatever words you want.

That is a fact.

Only in hindsight and with the benefit of a trial did this become a notable event. Still, this is the true spark and the true failure in everything that followed. It not Paterno. Its not CSS. it nothing at all do to with football.

It is all with law enforcement, CYS and even the mother who let the incident die without issue. They were all satisfied and all content. Even Alicia Chambers let the situation die.

 

[bdgan]

A) Given her standards for sources, this far exceed them and I believe it.
B) She could have tried. She expected an elderly football coach to put on a cape and stop an ex-employee based on limited info. I'd expect more from her.

Ganim didn't dig deep because it wasn't in her interest to dig deep. Child sexual abuse is a story that would attract modest attention. Certainly not a Pulizer and certainly not a job at CNN. Paterno turning his head on child sexual abuse is a HUGE story.

 

[LundyPSU]

Link?

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/03/tim_curley_graham_spanier.html

 

[PSU Dave]

A better course of action would have been to contact police in addition to notifying Curley. I don't know why anyone would dispute that.

What EXACTLY did MM tell Joe that would have made that a better course of action?

 

[YYZ86]

What?

I asked people who say what you say to speak to or call people at child agencies and ask if what JP did at that time (2001) was correct, and if going beyond what he did would be the right thing to do.

 

[Zenophile]

I asked people who say what you say to speak to or call people at child agencies and ask if what JP did at that time (2001) was correct, and if going beyond what he did would be the right thing to do.

I've done this myself. The answer was surprisingly interesting.

Not surprising is that our friend here, who knows everything about what Paterno should have done, has no interest in pursuing this information.

 

[pandaczar12]

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/03/tim_curley_graham_spanier.html

According to this link, Curley Testified that he "touched base with coach", not that he "discussed 1998 with Joe". Touching base implies "talking briefly to someone," per its definition Discussion implies "the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." Two completely different things. Care to try again?

Touching Base Example:
"Joe, one of your employee is being investigated for a crime, I can't tell you anything else."

"Thanks Tim, I'm anxious to hear where it stands."

"Joe, turns out that after the professionals looked into, they found no wrong doing... so forget about all this."

 

[pandaczar12]

I've done this myself. The answer was surprisingly interesting.

Not surprising is that our friend here, who knows everything about what Paterno should have done, has no interest in pursuing this information.

I have a buddy who works exclusively with troubled kids, and is a mandetory reporter. He has nothing but awful things to say about CYS/DPW, and state that even if Joe had called, likely nothing would have happened. He also said that JVP did the right thing, and he HATES Penn State.

 

[LundyPSU]

According to this link, Curley Testified that he "touched base with coach", not that he "discussed 1998 with Joe". Touching base implies "talking briefly to someone," per its definition Discussion implies "the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." Two completely different things. Care to try again?

Touching Base Example:
"Joe, one of your employee is being investigated for a crime, I can't tell you anything else."

"Thanks Tim, I'm anxious to hear where it stands."

"Joe, turns out that after the professionals looked into, they found no wrong doing... so forget about all this."

I guess that is possible...

 

[YYZ86]

I've done this myself. The answer was surprisingly interesting.

Not surprising is that our friend here, who knows everything about what Paterno should have done, has no interest in pursuing this information.

This is such an emotional issue, that people like Jive go with their gut. I understand that completely, and try not to attack them. Some simply hate JP and PSU, but others truly are saying what they believe is right. That is why when anyone approaches me on this issue, I ask them to do that.

 

[kgilbert78]

Seems to me, the logical explanation is Joe may have been referring to 1998. But Joe always said that he never new of 1998, or at least didn't know of a sexual charge against JS in 1998. The police could have been making it up, MM could have misspoken, MM could have recounted the conversation wrong....it is so immaterial at this point. What I found interesting is MM is writing his memoirs. He's always been supportive of JVP. So, it will be interesting to see how he walks that tightrope (supporting JVP yet defending his position).

We'll see what his editors tell him to do. If they tell him it won't sell unless Joe stuff is in there, which way would you bet?

 

[Zenophile]

This is such an emotional issue, that people like Jive go with their gut. I understand that completely, and try not to attack them. Some simply hate JP and PSU, but others truly are saying what they believe is right.

While I believe that you're giving GMJ far too much benefit of the doubt, I'm with you.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Curley testified that he discussed 1998 with Joe.

Joe was directly asked whether he knew about another incident, under oath, in his GJ testimony. He stated:

"I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it. You did mention - - I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and i can not honestly say I heard a rumor."

Joe doesn't confirm or deny that he heard of another incident. He gives the impression that he MAY have heard a "rumor", and just fluffed it off as bogus.

Because the state's lead investigator (Lauro) not only sent Sandusky a personalized letter, but made a personal phone call to Sandusky assuring him that the 1998 charges were "unfounded", and not to worry about anything, Joe could have very EASILY just forgot about it. ESPECIALLY if he wasn't directly involved in the investigation and was told over a decade earlier it was bogus.

On the other hand, McQueary never said a THING about Joe telling him of a "second incident" until two weeks AFTER the GJP made 1998 public. Funny he forgot about that little insignificant piece of info until the rest of the Universe knew about it.