No, you're trying to protect the image of our school as a place where people put football ahead of the welfare of children.
Erickson's Notebook Reveals Deceptions, Possible Crimes
- Thread starter rmb297
- Start date
No, you're trying to protect the image of our school as a place where people put football ahead of the welfare of children.
Well, you are INTENTIONALLY propping up Louis Freeh and his little book of lies about Penn State.
Why would any Penn Stater want the world to think that he graduated from a school filled with sociopaths who don't give a damn about children?
Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.
Make a little more room in the circle boys.....here comes the ol' Minnesota/Alabama demographic.....again! Must have heard the dinner bell!
Thanks for stopping by!
The irony here is that the "moving forward" crowd are putting the welfare of PA's children at risk by allowing this false narrative to persist.
As I mentioned earlier, the Tutko case (and others like it) shows that once CYS makes a decision about a family or an individual, it sticks by that decision.
The Tutko case shows repeated complaints by the Tutko children about abuse, their schools reporting the abuse, and CYS not doing anything because of a caseworker's prior decision that the Tutko's were not abusing or neglecting the kids.
I have spoken with a number of families in Centre County who have told me similar stories of CYS refusing to act on reports of abuse.
The parallel to the Sandusky case, obviously, is that he was cleared in 1998, thus any future complaints against him were flatly dismissed -- and as the Tutko case shows -- never documented.
The public - and mdahmus - bought into the spin that child abuse reports to CYS would immediately be investigated, when that is clearly not the case. And that is why the last report on PA DPW showed that kids continued to be abused around 42% of the time AFTER CYS was called to intervene.
It took a death for CYS to make a return visit to the Tutko home.
No, I did nothing of the sort.
I buy into the logic that reporting it to CYS makes it more likely to be investigated than not reporting it to CYS, which is basic, fundamental, common sense that even you agree with, I'm sure, although you'll come up with a reason not to publically.
Also, I buy into the logic that if CYS, Corbett, the state police, and every other person involved did something bad here, it does not lessen the bad things that CSS may or may not have done. Even if the other guys are worse!
Also, I buy into the logic that expecting the Freeh report, which was commissioned to explore what happened AT PENN STATE, to delve into CYS failures is a diversionary tactic designed to confuse and conflate. What did or did not happen at Penn State was the issue in that report.
Also, I buy into the logic that expecting the Sandusky and CSS prosecution teams to go after CYS is stupid, and an obvious attempt to confuse and conflate. If Sandusky and CSS committed crimes, they are crimes whether or not CYS also committed crimes.
Hope this helps. I bought a lot of stuff there, I'd better get back to work.
You can throw in this, too:
Schadenfreude (/ˈʃɑːdənfrɔɪdə/; German:[ˈʃaːdn̩ˌfʀɔɪ̯də] (listen)) is pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.[1] This word is taken from German and literally means "harm-joy". It is the feeling of joy or pleasure when one sees another fail or suffer misfortune. It is also borrowed by some other languages. An English term of similar meaning (but with no noun equivalent) is "to gloat"; which means to feel, or express, great, often malicious, pleasure, or self-satisfaction, at one's own success, or at another's failure.[2]
There were a lot of people who were personally invested in tearing down Penn State, and Joe Paterno. It has tainted everything that has been argued about this case. Let's take these 2001 emails as an example. I have no idea if Freeh's team or anyone at Penn State altered them in any way. I'm completely agnostic on that issue. However, the emails clearly don't say what Freeh purported them to say. They don't contradict Curley & Schultz's testimony in any way. The emails don't say anything about a child being sexually molested, and they certainly don't say anything about covering anything up. You really have to be suffering from some sort of confirmation bias to argue that those emails are proof of some kind of "conspiracy of silence."
Two PSU employees said they believed the incident was reported. No one has proven otherwise.
the bad things CSS may or may not have done. Again, nothing proven.
expecting the Freeh report, which was commissioned to explore what happened AT PENN STATE, to delve into CYS failures It was commissioned to conduct a full investigation of the alleged failures and why they happened. It dedicated a whole chapter to the 1998 incident, but ignored all the evidence that indicated a massive failure by DPW. The Freeh Report also excluded emails proving that it LIED about CYS not being involved in the investigation due to a conflict of interest. CYS was involved all the way to the end of the investigation, according to evidence exhibits in the CSS case.
CSS prosecution teams to go after CYS is stupid The Tutko case just showed that repeated complaints about abuse of children got screened out by CYS. I've spoken with a number of families in Centre County who told me the same thing. Your argument displays just how out of touch you are with reality and it is the same mentality that caused PA to revise its reporting laws and for PSU to waste millions of dollars on training people to report abuse.
If... CSS committed crimes Clearly, the FTR charges are false, which is the entire basis for the narrative that PSU put football above kids.
Last edited:
If we're "Truthers" what does that make mddumazz and friends? Falsers? Falsifiers? Falsies?
Does anyone know?
Does anyone know?
The people of Liverpool, England refused to accept a false narrative that 96 Liverpool fans died because of crowding caused by drunken and ticket-less soccer hooligans rushing the terraces.
They fought for 23 years until they obtained justice.
True Penn Staters will fight for as long as it takes for truth and justice to prevail.
No amount of name calling and/or derision is going to stop us.
They fought for 23 years until they obtained justice.
True Penn Staters will fight for as long as it takes for truth and justice to prevail.
No amount of name calling and/or derision is going to stop us.
Mdahmus:
Serious question. Why are you so invested in supporting Freeh's narrative? I am not specifically referring to whether the emails were altered or not. Even if you we believe they are completely accurate that does not change the fact that the Freeh report is libelous garbage. It was not reasonable to conclude anything based on the evidence presented in the report. A more reasonable conclusion would have been that because he could not interview the key witnesses and the criminal trials are still pending, no firm conclusions can be drawn at this time.
Thoughts?
To add on to that. Freeh's claim that the 2001 "after talking it over with Joe" email was proof that Joe led some nefarious cover up for JS is a complete red herring. Unfortunately everyone, including freeh's media cheerleaders, bought it hook line and sinker and none of them (including freeh in his 8.5 MILLION dollar report) bothered to look up what the actual suspected child abuse reporting statutes from 2001 said.
If Courtney looked up the statutes correctly he would have advised Schultz that suspected child abuse needs to be reported to CC CYS in writing within 48 HOURS and via phone call report ASAP....NOT telling DPW 2 weeks later. By the way, if a report is looked into and deemed unfounded the records are expunged. So, no one can really prove a report was made if that's the case. However there may be a call log but seeing how CYS is a complete dumpster fire right now good luck getting accurate records from feb/march 2001....
The 2001 emails themselves show the admins contemplated bringing in DPW 2 weeks later IF JS didn't agree with their new directives that his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop as well as no more guest privileges.....aka "if their message is not heard and acted upon". They would bring in DPW as an "independent child welfare agency" if JS tried to pull the 'I'm a founder of a children's charity I know better than you' card. At no point do the emails mention reporting suspected child abuse/molestation to DPW or any other agency. That was all freeh fantasy made up without even talking to the people who sent/received the 2001 emails.
I repeat....The admins in 2001 DID NOT contemplate bringing DPW two weeks later for reporting suspected child abuse, they contemplated it in case they needed a 3rd party authority figure (independent agency concerned with child welfare) to drive home their message to JS that his inappropriate later night showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop.
The 2001 emails/notes also say that they were going to inform JS's boss/mandatory reporter JR at TSM with or without JS's cooperation. How in the world does freeh interpret that as the language of people trying to cover up/enable JS???? Only a person with a preconceived outcome that they were paid to write...that's who.
Page 84 of the Freeh Report has a statement from Courtney to Baldwin saying that he believed someone from PSU reported the incident to Centre County CYS.
In the next paragraph, it states that Schultz called Courtney one day prior to his grand jury appearance asking about the incident -- which Schultz believed was in 2003. (So much for Baldwin prepping Schultz for his GJ appearance!) This likely explains Schultz's testimony that he believed the McQueary incident got reported and his reference to 2003 in his testimony -- though I believe he conflated the Anwar Phillips case with the McQueary case (IMHO).
The two week time lag actually corresponds quite well with the timelines in the 1998 case. I wrote about that here. http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/10/does-2001-timeline-reveal-dpwcys-was.html
That scenario would have involved Harmon as the guy who made the 2001 report (or not) and relaying information to Gary as to when the investigation was done -- so that PSU could talk to McQueary and Sandusky and figure out what to do about Jerry showering with kids.
In the next paragraph, it states that Schultz called Courtney one day prior to his grand jury appearance asking about the incident -- which Schultz believed was in 2003. (So much for Baldwin prepping Schultz for his GJ appearance!) This likely explains Schultz's testimony that he believed the McQueary incident got reported and his reference to 2003 in his testimony -- though I believe he conflated the Anwar Phillips case with the McQueary case (IMHO).
The two week time lag actually corresponds quite well with the timelines in the 1998 case. I wrote about that here. http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/10/does-2001-timeline-reveal-dpwcys-was.html
That scenario would have involved Harmon as the guy who made the 2001 report (or not) and relaying information to Gary as to when the investigation was done -- so that PSU could talk to McQueary and Sandusky and figure out what to do about Jerry showering with kids.
Last edited:
One would think an investigation would question the validity of McQueary's accusations. One would also think an investigation would try to confirm Courtney and Schultz's recollection that the matter was reported.
But of course they wouldn't, since they couldn't interfere with the OAG's case or conclude something different. Everyone has talked about collusion or direction by the NCAA and Freeh. What about between the OAG and Freeh? Guess that might explain the 'high fives' between the OAG and Freeh investigators after PC and the report came out.
But of course they wouldn't, since they couldn't interfere with the OAG's case or conclude something different. Everyone has talked about collusion or direction by the NCAA and Freeh. What about between the OAG and Freeh? Guess that might explain the 'high fives' between the OAG and Freeh investigators after PC and the report came out.
Yeah, the ONLY principals who didn't collude in this case were C/S/S and JVP.
There's literally an infinite web of collusion betwixt/between NCAA/Freeh, OAG/Freeh, Corbett/Tomalis/Frazier, Surma/Surma, OAG/Ganim, Frazier/Tomalis/Freeh, etc.
In Septmeber 2009, Sassano suggested getting a subpoena for Centre County CYS. However, this didn't occur until January 28, 2011, two weeks after Schultz testified to the grand jury about thinking a report had been made 'to the same organization as 1998' (paraphrasing). If you look at the rest of the timeline in Moulton, you'll see there were quite a few interviews of current and former Centre County CYS workers. Consider this FYI, since even if a CYS worker had been interviewed who indeed took a call in 2001, what is the likelihood that they would admit they did nothing with it (if indeed that's what happened) or if they even rembered what happened. One interesting side note - prior to Moulton, the only testimony about contact with CYS was Sassano who spoke with one person (Erin Rutt, per Moulton) at CYS, but he was never asked about all the interviews conducted by Cranga & Shaffer.
Edit: Sassano testified on 11/16/2011 (p.169) and 7/30/2013 (Volume 2/2, p.26) to speaking with the director of Centre County CYS at the time Carol Smith (he didn't say when exactly he spoke with her). I did a search of Moulton for Carol Smith and she wasn't mentioned (although she may be one of the many 'employees' mentioned, just not by name). Moulton does mention Sassano's interview with Erin Rutt on 8/15/2011. Rutt was a Clinton County CYS worker who coordinated with Second Mile. She was involved in the initial AF reports in Nov '08 (Moulton p.38-40, 86, 89, & 146).
Last edited:
You do mean figuratively, don't you?
I think I just had a Sterling Archer moment there.
I don't find your conclusions reasonable at all. I don't find the Freeh report "libelous garbage". It insufficiently supports its conclusions if judged by the standards of criminal court. That's about the worst I can say about it.
So you think that the world should believe that Penn State had a culture in which football was put above the welfare of children.
Aren't you special.
every time I think he cannot possibly say something more idiotic and douchey, he gives us another gem like that, right?
if the worst dumass can say about the Freeh report is that it would get laughed out of criminal court, you have to wonder what the BEST he can say about it is . . .
I just don't understand why someone who thinks that half a million Penn Staters are such horrible human beings wants to have a damn thing to do with us anymore.
If that's the worst you can say, then I suspect you haven't actually taken a hard look at the report.
For starters, where are Appendices 1, 4, 7, 8, and 9? If any college student turned in the Freeh Report as a paper, it would have gotten at best, an incomplete.
Next, if graded, it would receive an F. The findings in the executive summary are not supported in the text of the report. In fact, the the majority of the findings are REFUTED by the first 40 pages of the report.
Its reasonable to conclude than an untrained monkey could have drawn that very same conclusion.
That said, who the hell was the judge and what was his/her/their standard(s)?
Last edited:
Ray, you are way too demanding. What the heck do you want for a measly $8,100,000?
Not even close. You are assuming that your attempts to establish reasonable doubt are the same thing as refuting the claims. Even if you succeed in establishing reasonable doubt, you have not disproven the original claim - those are two different things.
No, I'm suggesting that you guys are conflating "reasonable doubt" with "disproven".
In fairness, unproven and reasonable doubt aren't quite the same thing. And Freeh's claims are unquestionably the former.
Similar threads
