Well, certainly not to you.
You must have posted essentially the same point here, what.....20 times?
It's all you've got, and it ain't much.
ESPiN hypocrisy is numbing!!!
- Thread starter PennStateNate
- Start date
You must have posted essentially the same point here, what.....20 times?
It's all you've got, and it ain't much.
How have you been damaged? Other than pride. This topic did not come up in 9 interviews with 4 different companies I just went through. Nothing even related to this topic came up in my pursuit of a job. I got two job offers and probably a third if I didn't accept a position. I'm speaking for me, not my generation sir. I'm just playing with you at this point. No disrespect but you seem foolish. Anyway, how has PENN St been damaged long term? Sincerely educate me if donations have gone down. Have our numbers gone down regarding applications? Do we have a lower quality of education because of the Sandusky events? Anything achedemic or endowment, ect. Of course I'm aware of the consequences PENN St absorbed. i.e. big fine. There doesn't seem to be one important area financially or achedemically that has been harmed long term. Again, what damage do you hang onto that truly is a scar that we at PENN St wear as we leave State College. You'll probably drift toward intangible areas, which is understandable I guess, but if I can lead you away from the tangible arguments maybe I can help "fix you"(my favorite Cold Play song).
My God....
You are one full-blown idiot. Incredibly so.
And just as incredibly, you INSIST on impressing it to the world.
God help us.
Fortunately, you are - at least - young......and that does give some hope....most of us, I hope, are far different people at 40 or 50 or 60 than we were at 20.
As they say...."Youth is a disease, but it is curable with time"
This is some of the longest running trolling we've seen here since "lionrevival" brought his act to the board.
A fake persona, multiple assurances about such identity, passive-aggressive questioning, repetition, etc. Hmmm....
I do get it. Sandusky represented the university by being a coach emeritus. He doesn't need to be paid to represent us. And as was testified by both MM and Joe, C&S were told of acts of a sexual nature. I have no idea how the hell you can say that they weren't unless you think Paterno was a liar.
He was a coach emeritus, was knows as a former PSU coach and had access to our facilities... he certainly did represent PSU.
I'm not sure what 1998 has to do with anything. It is the administrators' jobs to protect Penn State and they failed to do that. They are not supposed to determine the probability of guilt. That is up to the authorities.
It's only worthless to you because you want it to be worthless. It is an extremely important part of his testimony and it showed that Mike really did tell him that he witnessed something terrible. It doesn't matter that Joe didn't know exactly what it was, his testimony showed that he understood it was serious and inappropriate.
It proves nothing of the kind. There is greater weight that Mike did NOT tell him at the time that he witnessed something "terrible". The reaction of his father and Dr. Dranov would have been much different if Mike told THEM he had witnessed something terrible. And if Mike was describing seeing something "terrible", wasn't it his place to report it directly to authorities?
As others have said, it is much more likely that Mike had a different version 10 years later and might well have told Joe a different version 10 years later. Joe was not a witness; he talked to Mike and informed those in his chain.
GTACSA said:
Now you've completely given up defending your ridiculous ideas. I can't say that I am surprised. I'll let you off the hook.
Youre delusional like the rest the weirdos here. The people he told ran the university . They knew how to call the cops .
Of course they told Raykovitz 4-5 weeks later so it's all his fault depending on how you want to shift blame .
PENNST34 said:
Of course it doesn't come up in Job interviews, what kind of idiot would think that a hiring manager would bring that up?
Did you seriously just ask how Penn State has been damaged by the Sandusky Scandal? You have got to be kidding me child. I'm not following you down that rabbit hole of distraction.
If by "playing with me" you mean getting taken school for your ignorant comments, then I completely agree. Please stop trying to change the subject and stand up for yourself. Every time I destroy one of your arguments, you don't defend your argument or make a counter argument, you just try to change the subject. You may think that is a pretty slick tactic, but it's pretty obvious to everyone. Isn't your time going to be better spent studying so you can transition from prospective PSU graduate to actual PSU graduate? Here is a free life lesson for you, learn to lose gracefully. All this flailing around, trying to make Paterno look bad, instead of shining the spotlight on the professionals at DPW/CYS/TSM that failed those kids... it doesn't look good on you.
Coldplay? I see your youthful ignorance is complimented by a lack of taste in music.
getmyjive11 said:
No, you don't get it. He did not represent the university, you just want that to be the case to fit your agenda.
Are you not reading the qualified quotes that says "I don't know what you call it", etc?
getmyjive11 said:
Joe's testimony is qualified sufficiently to make it worthless, it also wasn't cross examined, and it has never been heard to verify accuracy. So let's ASSUME that none of that matters, it does, but let's assume. Joe has a history of doing the right thing for decades. You ignore that for some reason. When Joe testified, he was influenced by more knowledge than was available in 2001. Joe was human too (84 YO), and his recollection could have easily been swayed by this new knowledge, and his desire to do the right thing. That still doesn't mean he was told of an inappropriate action in 2001. No matter what way you slice it, you've got no evidence that Joe was told of inappropriate actions in 2001. Which is consistent with EVERYONE's actions in 2001.
So you continue your crusade to vilify Joe, who did the right thing with whatever hearsay he was told... yet you are not shining the spot light on the "professionals" at DPW/CYS/TSM that actually failed those kids.
At least it was sorta in English this time!
Notice how he really doesn't address any of your excellent points, and just really wants to call you names? I also love how he points out that time lag for reporting to Raykovitz, but doesn't see the irony in the time lag for MM reporting it to Paterno. After witnessing a crime, the urgency to report it decreases exponentially over time. If MM really did witness a crime, his waiting until morning is infinitely longer than C/S/S taking the time to interpret the watered down hearsay and deciding to report to Raykovitz. But I guess you need to run a university to know how to call the cops?
"...so I'm assuming you think Joe being told about this was a hugely traumatic event and that's been shown to not be the case."
That's right; assuming a McQueary type report is not an every day event in ones life. It doesn't have to rise to the level of "hugely traumatic" but you got the point. "Shown not to be"; I'm sure in your mind it wouldn't have stuck with you had you been in Joe's shoes.
Now there is an insightful, logical and responsive post in reply. I guess that's all you got. Facts can be an inconvenient truth, huh?
So much misplaced anger on this site. Jerry, the BoT, and the media brought down PSU.
The flip side roy is that MM said he had to slam his locker. Dr. D talked about seeing how upset MM was and MM kept going on about the sounds. They also felt the need to tell Joe and if it was nothing at all, why bother the HC with something non criminal or minor? Why would Joe take it to TC if it was nothing at all? I'm not in the pool thinking the GJ was 100% accurate as it wasn't nor could it be. We don't know what Mike saw. We have no idea what words he used to describe this to his father, Doc, or Joe. It apparently made him uncomfortable somehow and we later find out what Jerry was doing to other kids. We'll never know exactly what occurred that night. Anyone claiming emphatically that nothing happened or anal rape had to occur are FOS.
There is a ton of misplaced anger all over this situation as Jerry took down a ton of good people. Then you have people blaming the CYS and DPW as if they were the ones that caused this. Jerry caused this. C/S/S didn't cause this either. The media stoked the flames and the old guard BoT jumped on a sword they did not have to. The BoT caused the harm and PR nightmare more so than anyone else with their awful response. Everyone here is still finger pointing 4 years later and there is a small group here that want to give Jerry the free pass. Not you roy, but there is a little justice for jerry cult that blames the world instead of Jerry. These are the same people that blame the crowd their kid hangs out with as their kid never screws up.
The flip side roy is that MM said he had to slam his locker. Dr. D talked about seeing how upset MM was and MM kept going on about the sounds. They also felt the need to tell Joe and if it was nothing at all, why bother the HC with something non criminal or minor? Why would Joe take it to TC if it was nothing at all? I'm not in the pool thinking the GJ was 100% accurate as it wasn't nor could it be. We don't know what Mike saw. We have no idea what words he used to describe this to his father, Doc, or Joe. It apparently made him uncomfortable somehow and we later find out what Jerry was doing to other kids. We'll never know exactly what occurred that night. Anyone claiming emphatically that nothing happened or anal rape had to occur are FOS.
There is a ton of misplaced anger all over this situation as Jerry took down a ton of good people. Then you have people blaming the CYS and DPW as if they were the ones that caused this. Jerry caused this. C/S/S didn't cause this either. The media stoked the flames and the old guard BoT jumped on a sword they did not have to. The BoT caused the harm and PR nightmare more so than anyone else with their awful response. Everyone here is still finger pointing 4 years later and there is a small group here that want to give Jerry the free pass. Not you roy, but there is a little justice for jerry cult that blames the world instead of Jerry. These are the same people that blame the crowd their kid hangs out with as their kid never screws up.
Last edited:
Seems reasonable. So many of these discussions become circular and speculative.
I'll take a break and go back to my other time-tested ways of wasting time.
Obli, this is less a comment on your post than it is a comment on the post that you quoted and were replying to:
Black Elmo 2 said: ↑
"Since when did Joe Paterno allow "policy" to keep him from doing the right thing, or advocating that others do the right thing? Joe chose to pass the buck on this one, and unfortunately for him, he made a poor decision. It was a risk he shouldn't have taken."
"Since when did Joe Paterno allow "policy" to keep him from doing the right thing, or advocating that others do the right thing? Joe chose to pass the buck on this one, and unfortunately for him, he made a poor decision. It was a risk he shouldn't have taken."
I went looking for this post and other similar ones that Black Elmo 2 made, but they seem to have disappeared. You can click back through the your quoted post, and then his, to see that it was deleted. They were on page 5 of this thread.
I wrote a blog post on this very subject. It was written as a speculative deposition of Freeh. However, the facts and links in it were not simply made up.
https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/freeh-deposition-in-paterno-v-ncaa-lawsuit/
Frazier made an update to the board in January 2012 in which he stated Freeh would test all Penn State policies for any gaps that led to failures in the reporting process. And even Freeh stated in his presser when he released the report that, "In our investigation, we sought to clarify what occurred, including who knew what and when events happened, and to examine the University’s policies, procedures, compliance and internal controls relating to identifying and reporting sexual abuse of children."
A procedural gap analysis, or simply an assessment, or at minimum a copy, of the procedures in place in 2001 was not included in the Freeh report, even though it should have been according to both Frazier and Freeh.
---- Here's the Sexual Assault Policy in effect in 2001
Penn State Policy AD12 - Sexual Assault
https://web.archive.org/web/20000817201026/http://www.guru.psu.edu/policies/ad12.html
Reporting requirements from the version linked above, in effect in August 2000, referred to the Protocol to Assist Victims of Relationship, Domestic and Sexual Violence: "Guidelines for how and when to report sexual assault to University and/or law enforcement officials are contained in the Sexual Assault Protocol"
---- Here's the "Protocol" that was referenced in the Reporting section of AD12
Protocol to assist victims of relationship, domestic and sexual violence
Penn State, Fall 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20120617...affairs.psu.edu/womenscenter/pdf/protocol.pdf
Admittedly, this version was not in effect in February 2001. I've been unable to uncover that version. But even this version was been removed from the university website. Regardless, the following excerpts provide some insight into what was likely in the "Protocol" in February 2001:
Non-students may be victims while on campus. These victims are entitled to receive the same kind of sensitive treatment and emergency care options as student victims, with the exception of the payment provision of the sexual assault medical policy.
It is important for victims to feel a sense of control in the process of recovery. Therefore, it is important to respect the decisions of the victim; regardless of what the staff member thinks may be best. When certain protocols require that the incident be reported, the victim must be informed of the mandated notification.
The University encourages victims of relationship, domestic or sexual violence to report to law enforcement authorities. Whether or not to report to the police is a decision the victim needs to make, except in certain circumstances when reporting is required by the University. If staff are uncertain about whether they need to report an incident, they should consult with their supervisor and, if necessary, with the director of University Health Services.
It is important for victims to feel a sense of control in the process of recovery. Therefore, it is important to respect the decisions of the victim; regardless of what the staff member thinks may be best. When certain protocols require that the incident be reported, the victim must be informed of the mandated notification.
The University encourages victims of relationship, domestic or sexual violence to report to law enforcement authorities. Whether or not to report to the police is a decision the victim needs to make, except in certain circumstances when reporting is required by the University. If staff are uncertain about whether they need to report an incident, they should consult with their supervisor and, if necessary, with the director of University Health Services.
----
Recall that Paterno didn't know what to do in 2001 so he reviewed PSU guidelines, and then contacted his supervisor. He did not contact police. Did he review a prior version of the above policy? That seems a reasonable question to ask. His own words suggest that he did. Regardless, he followed the basics of this Fall 2001 version. What exactly is the moral thing to do when policy clearly explains why it is a victim's choice whether to report to police. And note - federal law, in the form of the Clery Act, requires this policy statement be made in all university policies. And that portion of the Clery Act went into effect in 1992 as result of an amendment known as the Ramstad Act.
If Freeh actually performed a gap analysis, then we would expect the results of that to include a specific recommendation to create a policy specific to child sex abuse reporting, which indeed happened. Policy AD72 was created 5/14/2012 http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD72.html and AD12 was rolled into AD85 in January 2014 http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD85.html but not before the "Protocol" was removed from university websites for good sometime between June 2012 and July 2013. [This begs the question, why did BE2 delete his post? Is he working for the university and they're concerned about publicity on this topic?]
If we extend what a gap analysis should have uncovered, you'll see there a notable catch-22. The CPSL laws had somewhat strict rules on what kinds a child abuse reports they could take in 2001. It has to do with the legal definition of "perpetrator", which Sandusky did not meet as he was not a direct caregiver. This was a topic of much debate in the 2012 Task Force on Child Protection report, and also in Children and Youth Committee hearings in 2013.
In theory, CYS workers should refer reports to police and/or the district attorney. If they don't, then it would be up to the reporter. In regards the 2001 incident, if CYS was contacted and they refused to take the case because of a legal definition of who a "perpetrator" can be, then it begs the question - when Paterno discussed this with Curley, did he mention the Penn State policy AD12 and the "Protocol" that says it's the victims choice on whether to contact police? That policy also says if police must be contacted, then the victim must be notified. So what is to be done when the victim is unknown?
So why didn't Freeh report on the procedural gap analysis that was promised by both Frazier and himself?
It is worth noting that the CPSL laws have changed and among those that went into effect at the end of 2014, one changed the legal definition of "perpetrator" such that Sandusky would have met the criteria (also, priests would now meet the criteria, too). However, other changes in the law added criteria that wasn't in the law before with respect to the child victim. As the law exists now, the child victim must be "identifiable". That was one of the other issues in the 2001 incident, the child victim had not been identified. So whether you test what's known about the 2001 incident against the CPSL laws at the time, or against the CPSL now, it remains unclear whether CYS would have even accepted a report for investigation.
In order for that 2001 incident to be taken further, the child victim should have been identified first to see if they or his parents wanted it reported. The best place to figure out who it might have been would not be Sandusky, but rather The Second Mile. And that's precisely where Curley eventually went. Hopefully we all learn more about that meeting once Curley goes to trial (or when all charges are dropped), but until then, it's guesswork about what really went down and was discussed at that meeting. And even though there was one statement made about that meeting in the Freeh report, I suspect it was mostly self-serving and/or selectively chosen to support Freeh's "reasonable conclusions". At page 72 is the only evidence in the entire Freeh report that supported Freeh's contention that concerns over publicity were what drove a cover-up, and that statement was provided by none other than an attorney for The Second Mile with regard to Curley meeting with Jack Raykovitz.
Wow...fantastic post and great information. Makes complete sense. Especially after 1998, TSM should have had complete records of when a SM kid was visited, by whom and so on.
Tangentially, the "joe made policy, he didn't follow it" argument is a canard. I recall following the team during the Madiera reign when players got in trouble for taking a bike out of a trash bin, driving a bike without a light after sunset, and shooting arrows into a wall. There were also some claims by women that they had been assaulted. (point here being that there were major issues to deal with). PSU policy was that a kid had to go through PSU's kangaroo court, couldn't be accompanied by an attorney, and was suspended from school activities until the situation was resolved. Joe argued that an investigation could cost a player two years, even if he was completely innocent. That while players enjoyed certain perks that went along with their status, they were also targets. As such, the standard student rules didn't fit their status as players. I don't know of a single incident where Joe was wrong.
Back to your excellent point, I totally reject people (like Elmo) that try to conflate Paterno with Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. They all had different roles and responsibilities. Joe wasn't involved, almost at all. He was simply a middle man who did exactly as policy dictates.
Thanks for your post...helps me understand how Schultz could be totally exonerated if he contact TSM.
JIMMY IS A FREAKING BEAST!!!!!!!!!
Thank You JW.
Guys like Jimmy, Ray B, Bob Daman and others......I don't know how they do it - - - but thank goodness we have folks who have done such incredible work from the beginning - cataloguing and memorializing so much of what has gone down.
Thanks guys (and girls)
Last edited:
And Wendy and Eileen Morgan. This is the sort of effort that PennState34 does not get. An outstanding wrong has been done to the whole PSU community and these persons mentioned have done the yeoman's work sifting through the deceit in order to right that wrong. They won't be denied and deserve endless gratitude.
LaJolla Lion said:
Why did MM take it to Joe? Very simply, he was in CYA mode. The situation was in a gray area where no crime was being committed, but it just seemed a little off. If it ever turned out that JS was a pedophile, then Mike could say he reported what he saw.
Joe took it to TC because he followed university policy. As a manager/supervisor, that's what you do. You take that sort of thing seriously. Even if MM said "It was probably nothing, but I found it odd that JS was in the shower with a kid, and thought you should know." Maybe university officials could use that information to review his facility access?
Why would he CYA if nothing wrong occurred? Again it's nice to have these guesses, but we'll never know for certain what MM saw, heard, or his exact conversations he had.
OK, so let me get this straight, sailor; so you contend that since Joe used the words "it was a sexual nature" that's absolute proof that he KNEW Mike was talking about buggery and sodomy, and that is in perfect spite of the fact that Mike testified that he never used words like rape or sodomy at any time or while talking to any one during the whole affair and also that he testified that he was purposefully vague when talking about it to Joe. Is that correct? And furthermore, when Joe qualified it with "I don't know what it was" he was really saying that he knew full well it was buggery and sodomy but he just couldn't locate those exact words in his lexicon to describe buggery and sodomy. Is that all correct? I'm just trying to understand. It's very confusing to me since what you've described is sex and nobody (outside of the grand jury presentment which we now know to be a total fabrication) ever claimed that Mike told Joe he saw Sandusky having sex with the kid.
My roommates and I were talking about this thread last night. We all agreed there is a faction that will never get past this topic. Any reasonable discussion breakdowns into what you posted sir. Look at my posts on all threads and you look foolish. The old boy network go-to You're right about one thing though. This thread is tired and dumb. There are basically 12 of you that need to get a life. The discussions is lame I agree. Done with you guys.
Please stop being a numbskull, young man. What has happened has to be made right. Until it happens to you, and it will happen, you will never get it. Joe and certain admins have been accused, and generally convicted, of being enablers of child rape. Please get that through your thick skull. This is not underage drinking or putting dog shit in a mailbox.
Explain to me why it is not Raykovitz's fault. The kid was legally entrusted into his care, why should he bear no responsibility for the kid's safety?
First off I never categorized any statement as absolute proof. McQueary testified he was not specific with Joe (which I said in a previous post) but Joe was clear in his testimony and interviews. He said that it was some inappropriate sexual activity with a young boy, which involved fondling or touching private parts. He also told Jenkins that he'd never heard of, of rape and a man. Based upon those facts as spoken by Joe I believe it is a reasonable conclusion that Joe understood the serious and sexual nature of Sanduskys actions.
Now you can discredit Joe, say he didn't know what he was talking about; that he didn't remember what McQueary had told him 10 years earlier but he was willing to make up testimony which would cost Sandusky the end of his life as he knew it based upon how he was coached on what to say. You can say he was dishonest in not admitting he had no recollection of the MM conversation. I hope you don't mind that I will not go down that road with you in disparaging the name of Joe Paterno. Heck you can even wish that Joe had been cross examined like another poster keeps bringing up so that Joe would have been shown to have been untruthful in his direct testimony; as if destroying Joe on cross examination is really in his best interest.
In the end your defenses of Joe end up destroying the image of a truly exceptional man.
One of the first things a lawyer learns is that the law does not intend an absurd result.
If I'm not mistaken, your analysis concludes that based on the applicable law and University policy in 2001, if a 12 year old boy was subjected to a criminal sexual assault, witnessed by an employee of Penn State, and his identity was unknown, there was nothing that could be done to ensure that outside authorities (including the police) could be notified.
I actually answered this question already in my previous post:
pandaczar12 said:
As a long time manager of many employees, this sort of CYA activity happens all the time from people who saw something that they were unsure of, yet want to CYA about.
Stop using testimony from ten years later, please. You have no idea what was said to Joe, or what possible behavior he became aware of, ten years later. This 'something sexual' you hang your hate on is a reflection by an old, sick man many years after the fact. What was once, to him, inappropriate behavior, once informed of the elevated nature of the charges, may have influenced his language many years later(maybe supplied by Scott).
It is the nature of the response in 2001 that is critical, not what was said ten years later.
Last edited:
PENNST34 said:
So you were discussing an internet message board with your friends, and we are the ones that need to get a life?!?!? Oh the Irony.
GTACSA said:
For like the 800th time, no he was not clear. He was anything but clear. You can keep repeating the same crap over and over, but it's never going to be true. When will you drop the vendetta against a football coach, and focus on the "professionals" that actually failed those teens? Every reply you make here posting misinformation about JVP could be time spent helping to stop future abuse!
