Blaming Joe, Penn State and the admins for what JS may or may not have done is the handiwork of clowns.
ESPiN hypocrisy is numbing!!!
- Thread starter PennStateNate
- Start date
That was an intelligent, well thought-out, post. So many insightful points. Your use of the words "stupid, idiot, and stooge" makes me think you are a walking thesaurus. I'll bet the pro-Sandusky team is proud to have you on their side.
Wrong.
The point, which you missed is that in the PSU case, there was no rape in the shower, and that whole story actually was determined to be false. So ESPN has no choice but to back off that narrative, because they've been proven wrong.
The PSU case is different in that JS was convicted and is in prison for life for crimes against minors ALL accessed from his own state charitable non-profit. C/S/S are still awaiting trial on bogus charges that everyone knows is a smokescreen, including the current AG. But for ESPN to come out and say "we got it wrong" is beyond an reasonable expectation because so far it's been proven the Paterno name is an ATM card and they're not gonna throw that one away - quite unlike ever learning from the mess they made at Duke.
If someday it is proven that that several high profile individuals were involved in corrupt & illegal activities by a Federal Investigation - ESPN will likely acknowledge it. But for that to happen, perp walks have to be made. CSS will be acquitted and we can stop with the "legal technicalities" nonsense, and it was never about the Paterno statue. It would also help if certain prosecutors that landed in the Philadelphia DA's office 'fessed up and were slapped with a lawsuit.
JS was convicted of molestation in the Lasch shower. He was also convicted of rape (janitor incident) in the same building. Maybe you missed it.
"..... use of the words "stupid, idiot, and stooge" makes ME think .....he is talking about YOU".
Citing convictions 10 years later for an incident in which the one and only witness never even filed a police report and was reported OUTSIDE of PSU doesn't prove PSU admins/football coach had ANYTHING to do with enabling that abuse. Nice try Seth....
Also, the OAG wasn't even able to produce a victim for either 2001 or the janitor incident and the janitors themselves effectively admitted they didn't even tell any higher ups at PSU about it, so if it even happened they covered it up and yet your idiot friends fina/beemer want to blame CSS for that instead of going after the janitors...some solid logic there.
The fact remains that 1998/2001 were both reported OUTSIDE of PSU to CC CYS/TSM, respectively, and the one and only witness to 2001 stated on the record no one from PSU EVER told him to keep quiet. Therefore it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to have been a cover up by the admins. Now, a cover up at TSM, that's a whole other story.....but you and your corrupt piece of shit prosecutor friends don't want to go down that road now do they??
Fair point and probably true but it's a shame our entire reputation has been destroyed. As long as the media circles back and stains us with it we will always be associated with that tragedy and lack of sound leadership afterwards.
If you except Sandusky raped kids on Penn St campus or brought victims to Penn St events then right or wrong it hangs on us. Whether you personally move an inch we can't get around the tragedy that occurred at Penn St. To some degree the relationship between Kennedy and his assassination will always stain Dallas. Just the way it is really.
Oh FFS. No one blames the entire population of Dallas TX for Kennedy's murder.
It is absolutely insane that the entire Penn State community has been blamed for Sandusky. And that is the 100% fault of Rodney Erickson and the Board of Trustees.
Leaders of institutions should take responsibility for the actions of their entire organization at the most critical times. This was a critical time. Leaders are at the very least accountable. Ignorance is no longer a go-to defense. It will be intesting to see what the courts say but I find it hard to believe that blaming a dead coach or screaming ignorance will win the day. Even Joe wished he had done more. Stated that clearly. That told me all I needed to know. He was devastated because he hesitated to do the right thing. Maybe even decided against doing the right thing. Only he knew. The leadership seemed stunned and hesitated as well. Penn St deserved better leadership and now as I graduate this Spring I move forward Knowing I'll hear crap throughout my life.
Relax man I didn't say that. I said there is a relationship events and places. I feel it's not fair to peg Penn St with Sandusky and/or cover-up just like it wasn't fair to Dallas after assassination. You need a history and solciology lesson if you think Dallas wasn't negatively impacted by that event. New York will always be associated with 9/11. Penn St will be associated with this scandal for a very long time. Just stated the obvious so relax.
The courts have already quashed the most serious charges against CSS, or did you miss that?
Nobody is screaming ignorance. The PSU admins NEVER had control over JS' access to kids--his access to kids enabled his abuse not access to PSU facilities, you know who did have control of his access to kids? CC CYS/TSM (who were told about 98/01 respectively), those are the leaders who should have taken accountability for any failures re: JS not a damned football coach and some college admins.
For some bizarre reason PSU's corrupt BOT decided to own the crimes/take accountability of an ex-employee before the admins (or ex-employee for that matter) had even had their day in court. We know they are trying to hide something we just don't know exactly what it is yet (my bet is TSM/OG BOT=RICO).
What are you talking about? Bilas was critical of Joe when the story first broke,but he has been very outspoken with his position that the NCAA way overstepped with the sanctions.
Paterno did the EXACT right thing, both morally and legally. He was NEVER charged with a crime, in fact only praised by the AG for his actions. You are taking his words out of context and you know it. His words meant "I wish I had known more so I could have done more". Why do you remove the "with the benefit of hindsight" part of the quote?
The tragedy did not occur at Penn State. Sandusky didn't rape any kids on campus, haven't you been paying attention for the last 4 years, or even just in this thread where it has been stated multiple times?
I suggest before you graduate you learn the difference between "except" and "accept". Is your degree going to be in internet trolling by chance?
In the universe of analogies, I guess that is one of them.
Located, apparently, somewhere in the "Bizarro-World" Galaxy
Maybe just maybe BOT knows more about the facts that lead to their actions. I have no idea other than what has been put out there and interpreted 20 different ways. Not sure they are hiding anything. Probably just want to move on. The only institution I can't stand is the Big Ten. They left us out to dry and F us every chance they get. I'll never get over making us go to Pitt in their first year in the ACC. Pitts ass should have been in State College.
If that ^^^ is your most "educated" synopsis, you deserve to "hear crap" throughout your life........for spending 4 years at a major Institute of Higher Education, and failing to develope even the slightest ability to intelligently evaluate information - nor the ability to think critically
Maybe you can join the recent law school grad, and sue PSU for failing to provide you with a meaningful education. I wish you well in your pursuit
With the benefit of hindsight, we all have things that we wished that we had done differently in the past. But we can all only act on the information that we had available at the time. This is as true for Paterno as it is for you or me.
Or do you not understand the meaning of the word "hindsight?"
And if you hear crap the rest of your life it is because you are too much of a coward to stand up to bullies like Mark Emmert, Louis Freeh, and Ken Frazier.
Bilas has been (vehemently) anti - NCAA.....on numerous fronts, including the PSU debacle.
That does NOT meant he has been "Pro-PSU"....and he hasn't been
Well.....judging by that post, I feel that the folks accusing you of being an "Astro-turfer" are wrong.
It appears more likely that you are simply "dumber than a bag of hair"
Looks like you'll also graduate without the ability to reason or present a halfway decent written argument.
Do you think that it helps the PSU cause (and by "PSU", I'm including Graham/Tim/Gary and the Paterno family) to A) insult others if their opinion doesn't match up completely with yours and B) ignore the reality of our situation?
I think one piece of the puzzle sorta proves that there wasn't a cover-up and contradicts your 1st point...That's Joe's testimony where he admitted that the story that Mike told him was "of a sexual nature". If Joe is saying that in court, then I'd believe that Mike told him something a little more serious than he must have told others (either that, or Joe was coached up 10 years later and said something that he didn't really remember). I also think that it pretty much proves no cover-up, since Joe could have gotten away with something along the lines of "I don't recall" if he was really trying to hide/protect something.
Testimony from someone who is trying to remember something that happened 10 years earlier is virtually worthless.
There are all kinds of studies that show that people can't accurately recount events from so long ago.
Add to that the fact that those particular words that you decided to quote were surrounded by other words that Paterno used to indicate that he really didn't remember things accurately.
McQueary did not tell anyone in 2001 that he thought that he witnessed a sexual assault. Period.
Now all you Pitt trolls are sticking up for each other.
Joe said: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
Why do you ignore the qualifiers? Also this testimony was not cross examined and has never been heard. Maybe there is supposed to be a question mark after "It was a sexual nature"? I suggest you read Jay Paterno's book if you are a "real" Penn State fan, and don't post on this topic until you've educated yourself.
You're talking about Butterscotch Elmo?
LMAO......you might want to hitch your wagon to a different star
DUH!!
Since he was replying to my message, Captain Obvious, I think you are on safe ground with that conclusion. (Yet another super-intelligent post to start off the week.)
Wow, if I didn't know better I could have sworn you were Kenny Frazier with that same old rhetoric of "maybe there's something the OG BOT knows that we don't". Guess what pal, if there was something else the most serious charges against CSS never would have been quashed and Freeh would have included it in his 8.5 million dollar piece of crap report. All freeh found were people to interview with an ax to grind against Joe/PSU football and cherry picked emails which he assigned the worst possible interpretation to.
We already know for a FACT that PSU reported both incidents (98 and 01) OUTSIDE of PSU to the child care experts at CC CYS and TSM. If the child care experts dropped the ball from there then that's on them not the admins. Yet for some reason the BOT wants everyone to believe the PSU admins/football coach are to blame...hmmmm....that's odd don't you think?
The only facts the BOT knows that we don't are the ones concerning their own malfeasance. Why do you think they've been fighting so hard to prevent their fellow trustees from getting access to the freeh source docs? If the source docs supported the current narrative they would have happily handed them over and never tried to obfuscate them in the first place.
If the BOT wasn't hiding anything they never would have opposed their fellow trustees from getting access to the freeh source files and they never would have sided WITH the NCAA in court during the Corman litigation.
Sandusky was the pedophile but our administrators and Joe were not and have never been convicted of anything. They're the ones we want to see the apology for.
You might reread Paterno's own words to the GJ, Sassano and Jenkins. Your alternate universe is just that.
Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
"J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on. We didn’t get in to what the inappropriate action was, but it was inappropriate. And that’s how I knew about it.
SASSANO: So he did not elaborate to you what this sexual activity was, only that he witnessed some sexual activity between Sandusky and a young boy?
J. PATERNO: Well he, well he, to be frank with you it was a long time ago, but I think as I recall he said something about touching.
SASSANO: Touching?
J. PATERNO: Touching.. whatever you want to call them, privates, whatever it is."
PATERNO: I wish I knew. I do know this, when young Mike McQueary came over to see me the next day (in 2002), he was very upset and I said why, and he was very reluctant to get into it. He told me what he saw, and I said, what? He said it well looked like inappropriate, or fondling, I'm not quite sure exactly how he put it. I said you did what you had to do. It's my job now to figure out what we want to do. So I sat around, it was a Saturday, waited til Sunday because I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing. And then I called my superiors and I said hey we got a problem I think. Would you guys look into it? Cause I didn't know, you know. We never had, in 61 years, until that point, 58 years I think, I had never had to deal with something like that. And I didn't feel adequate.
JENKINS: Did you understand the seriousness of what Mike McQueary was telling you at the time?
PATERNO: Well not really. I knew it was serious and I wanted to do something about it. And that's why I went up the chain of command.
JENKINS: Mike McQueary testified at the preliminary hearing that he couldn't bring himself to tell you graphic details, did you feel vindicated by that?
PATERNO: I felt that way, but I didn't want to speak for Mike. But Mike sat here at this table, and he was obviously very, very shaken, and you know, he didn't want to get specific. And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it.
Well, I'm going by memory, but if it wasn't rape it was involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
How about we look at Joe's written statement re: the 2001 incident (the only thing he knew for sure was the some inappropriate action was taking place, not the graphic details included in the false GJP):
"If true, the nature and amount of charges made are very shocking to me and all Penn Staters. While I did what I was supposed to with the one charge brought to my attention, like anyone else involved I can’t help but be deeply saddened these matters are alleged to have occurred.
Sue and I have devoted our lives to helping young people reach their potential. The fact that someone we thought we knew might have harmed young people to this extent is deeply troubling. If this is true we were all fooled, along with scores of professionals trained in such things, and we grieve for the victims and their families. They are in our prayers.
As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators.
I understand that people are upset and angry, but let's be fair and let the legal process unfold. In the meantime I would ask all Penn Staters to continue to trust in what that name represents, continue to pursue their lives every day with high ideals and not let these events shake their beliefs nor who they are."
We had a thread here not too long ago where demlion, one of the sharpest individuals around and a practicing attorney, was recalling as best he could some details about this case from 4+ years ago. And he thought he recalled, but admitted his memory might not be exact.
And, here we have GTASCA (and other BOT apologists) absolutely hanging their case on 80-year old Joe Paterno's recollection of a conversation he had 10 years prior! Not something he personally saw, but a conversation. It's like they think it was etched in stone. And this is proof positive??
The case for a coverup by PSU athletic officials gets weaker all the time. Yet the dead-end guys still grasp on to this single fragile reed and won't admit that it just might not mean what they claim.
"It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky."
Perfectly consistant with his testimony; what was your point?
Last edited:
