ESPiN hypocrisy is numbing!!!
- Thread starter PennStateNate
- Start date
Prayers answered (we hope)
Now, if he could only take GTACSA...."The Undisputed World Champion of the Circle-Jerk"....with him - that would be a reason to celebrate
Oh, he is gonna peek.Prayers answered (we hope)
Now, if he could only take GTACSA...."The Undisputed World Champion of the Circle-Jerk"....with him - that would be a reason to celebrate
Sir you don't have to explain that to me. You are stating the obvious. Time will produce their vindication. My point, which you numbskulls refuse to discuss, is why do you act like you have been harmed personally? What tangible harm has Penn St absorbed that is long lasting? Joe will be vindicated. I'm very confident that Sandusky will be remembered as a criminal and predator that used Joe and Penn St. Joe helped thousands of lives. His legacy will be one of honor and dignity. What else do you expect from a 2016 graduate that was t around to live through the pain? I respect that you dealt with the events but don't act like you're part of the battle like a freaken gang member. Grow up.
Prayers answered (we hope)
Now, if he could only take GTACSA...."The Undisputed World Champion of the Circle-Jerk"....with him - that would be a reason to celebrate
I changed my mind.
I'm shocked! Shocked, I say
You think you're the first half-witted Circle-Jerker that proclaims his exit.........only to return minutes later?
No he was not and it is absolutely dishonest for you to claim otherwise.
Tell you what. Get back to us after you've moved away from Pennsylvania, are getting settled into your new job, and someone "jokingly" calls you a pedophile-enabler because you went to Penn State.
It was Raykovitz's job -- not anyone at Penn State's -- to supervise Sandusky's interactions with kids in the care of The Second Mile. This was Raykovitz's failure. It's incredible that he's still swanning around State College as if he's done nothing wrong.
I'm going to lay this out for you as easy as I can because I simply can't figure out we're your at. So I'm going to have to tell you were you're at.
Mike saw Sandusky wrestling around in the shower with a kid of some age (10? 14? Who knows?) in an otherwise deserted Lasch Bldg at 9:00 on a Saturday night. He doesn't see any sex, or any molesting, or anything of a sexual nature, just wrestling....horsing around, y'know. Mike finishes up his business and goes up to his office and reflects a little and it dawns on him. - Holy Shit, Jerry must be doing something with that kid! He figures Sandusky must be up to no good because there's no explanation for what he saw that could be considered good. So he calls his father and he goes home and they discuss it with the good Dr. Dranov. Since Mike could't say he saw anything of a definite criminal nature going on (and just wrestling around in the shower with kid itself is NOT criminal activity - there has to be an intent of sexual gratification on the part of the adult present for it to be criminal - and it would be impossible for Mike to know exactly what Jerry's intent was) they decide not to call the police. But since Mike's hackles are raised and he feels certain Sandusky was up to no good, they all decide that the correct thing to do is to tell Joe the next day, which is in keeping with typical policies on this kind of thing.
So Mike tells Joe what he saw - kinda. We don't know exactly what he told Joe but it's pretty clear that he told Joe he saw Jerry wrestling around with some kid in the Lasch Showers and he feels pretty certain Jerry was doing something with the kid. What exactly? Who knows? But it was way wrong and way over the line. What line? Sexual? way inappropriate? Who knows? He wouldn't say for certain. He was upset for sure, though. Joe doesn't know what the hell to do with the report so he consults PSU's policy manual and the policy (like ALL such policies EVERYWHERE) tells him to report it to Curley. Then he goes to Pittsburgh for a speaking engagement and talks to Curley and Schultz about it the next morning. He tells Curley and Schultz that Mike saw Jerry horsing around in the Lasch Building showers and that Mike suspects Jerry may have been doing something with the kid and was very upset about it. Having done his due diligence and having put the thing into the hands of people he expects to do the right thing with it, Joe (correctly - since he has not Earthly business doing anything else with it) washes his hands of it goes about his business.
So, Schultz calls the company lawyer and asks him to figure out what to do. While the lawyer is on the job Schultz contacts UPPD Chief Harmon and asks for the 1998 file. What else did he tell Harmon? We don't know. Freeh covered that up. What did he do with the file? Who knows? Freeh covered that up too. Ostensibly he looked into the file and saw that with an almost identical report in 1998 no less an authority than the PA-DPW concluded that horsing around with a kid in the showers ain't criminal activity nor is it behavior that is consistent with the activity of a pedo....but we don't know that for sure, Freeh covered that up as well.
Since merely horsing around in the showers with a kid itself is not illegal and nothing that Mike did in fact see was of a definite criminal nature, but it is definitely inappropriate activity in this day and age when people get really bent out of shape over a 60 something guy horsing around in the shower with a kid, they decide to do something about it. In the meantime Curley spends about two minutes bringing Spanier up to date. TC: Jerry caught in the showers wrestling around with some kid. GS: Sex? TC: Nope. GS: Molestation? TC: Nope. Just wrestling around. They were being playful. GS: You sure? TC: Yup, we're on it. GS: OK.
Ostensibly based on advice of legal counsel, they decide to confront Jerry and tell him that he's not allowed to bring kids into PSU's facilities anymore. Since Jerry fancies himself an expert in child care and might consider Curley and Schultz mere laymen who don't know what they're talking about, they also form a contingency plan in the case that Jerry refuses to stay out of their showers with TSM kids to contact people that they expect Jerry will respect enough that they might be able to get it through his thick head as to why he can't shower with kids in the Lasch Bldg anymore. That'd be the PA-DPW. They decide to contact the Prez of the Second Mile since they assume it's a second mile kid and tell him....what?.... something....we don't know for sure since Freeh covered that up too. My guess is they were going to tell Raykovitz that the TSM might have a problem with Jerry fooling around with their kids and maybe he should look into it, but who knows? And they also decide that at some point they'll circle back with Joe and let him know what they decided to do about the incident.
Ten or so days later they finally talk to Mike directly to make sure they know what he did and did not witness. Why the delay? Who knows? How'd it go exactly? Who knows? If habitual note-taker Schultz jotted anything down Freeh covered that up as well. It seems it went something like this; GS: Horsing around in the showers? MM: yup. GS: Sex? MM: nope.GS: fondling? MM: not sure - some kind of wrestling - maybe fondling maybe not - couldn't see - can't be sure. BUT definitely not OK. GS: OK.
A coupla days later Curley circles back with Spanier for another couple minutes and tells him what they're gonna do; that they're going to go with the original plan. Spanier's good with it. Then Curley circles back with Joe as he had always planned to. Then he thinks maybe that in addition to telling Jerry he can't shower in Lasch with kids anymore that the right thing to do is to also let Jerry know he's being busted to Raykovitz about the incident and maybe allow him to even be there to defend himself if he likes. Spanier says he's OK with that and thinks it's better to be up front with Jerry than to go around to his bosses at the TSM behind his back. As they had always planned, they keep going to the DPW for advice on the table in case Jerry's an ass about things. Schultz says right on - I'm getting back to my vacay.
They confront Jerry and he says he won't do it anymore. They tell Raykovitz and apparently go so far as to tell him there was a suspicion raised that Jerry might be molesting his kids and Raykovitz tells them they're crazy if they think that. Raykovitz tells Heim and Poole and they say no probs, in the future Jerry can horse around with kids in the showers in one of Heim's hotels and they forget all about it. Some time later Joe circles back with Mike and asks him if he's OK with how everything turned out and Mike says he's fine with it all. And everyone forgets about it.....except for Mike and his bro who like to joke around about Jerry and his weird showering habits on football message boards.
Ten years later the cops and AG are asking Joe to recount what happened and he tells them that Mike saw Jerry in the showers with some kid doing something and became very upset about it. Fondling? Dunno, can't say. Was it sexual in nature? maybe - maybe not. Who knows? He was upset about, capisce? So Joe did something about it.
That's what happened. All the rest is verbal diarrhea. I just don't understand what any of these guys did, including Joe, that was so freaking terrible. In my opinion, the worst guy in the whole thing is Raykovitz since he was in the greatest position to !.) find out the kid was and try and get the story out if him, and 2.) had the greatest moral, ethical,and legal imperative of all involved to "do more" and he literally did do nothing....and yet he's skated off completely. All the guys at PSU who did what they thought was best with the kind of report that even the "appropriate authorities" had already once before weighed in on as being no big whoop have gotten completely buried. And that really sucks. Now, do you understand, broken rubber?
^^^^^^ Nailed it.
There's a good reason why PSU refused to waice ACP so we could see exactly what Schultz told Courtney and exactly what Courtney advised him to do and also why freeh inexplicably didn't show the contents of the email Schultz sent Harmon the morning of Monday 2/11/01 and never even bothered to interview Harmon, who was the freaking chief of UPPD in both 98 and 01. A logical person would think Harmon would be one of the first people a real investigator would want to interview. Smh.
The reason none of the above happened is because it would destroy the current narrative the pieces of shit on our OG BOT were trying to create and perpetuate.
Joe Paterno's January 2011 and October 2011 recollections of the 2001 incident are all over the place. In his October 2011 interview, he got every other fact wrong about who he talked to, when he talked to them, and where the meetings took place. But, according to the OAG, the one thing he said about "privates" was reliable?
Speaking of reliable, I wouldn't put much faith in "it was a sexual nature" being accurate. Given all the equivocating Paterno was doing about what he heard -- and the amount of dishonesty we've seen from the OAG (Fina admonished for deceiving a judge, Fina switching crimes scenes at the trial, etc.) the OAG's reading of his testimony into the record can't be trusted.
With a simple switch of two words, the AG turned a question into a statement.
Paterno agreed with MM. You can't get past that fact and think that nothing happened. It's just silly if you do.
Holy crap, how am I vilifying Paterno? This is pathetic... seriously sad. Joe testified and you are making excuses for why you think he wasn't honest in that testimony. I am taking Paterno for his word... Yet you think I am vilifying him?
You really have jumped the shark.
So traumatic that Joe FORGOT he told Curley the next morning.
So traumatic that Joe FORGOT it happened on the weekend he attended the Dapper Dan Dinner.
So traumatic that Joe FORGOT he talked to Gary Schultz.
So traumatic that he FORGOT Curley and Schultz came to his house to discuss it.
Please stop the ridiculous arguments. No one in this case, not McQueary, not Schultz, not Curley, and not Spanier remember the details of what was said. McQueary is on record repeatedly stating he doesn't remember what he said.
McQueary told five people what he saw. None called the police or child welfare.
Erickson's notes show that in 2001, McQueary gave a "benign description" and in 2010 his description was "more vivid."
All of this goes to show you why there are statutes of limitations on crimes....and the FTR charge should have never been filed in the first place. Fina had to lie about the date and the LAW to charge Curley and Schultz.
Corbetts OAG is certainly not to be trusted. The person who read Joe's GJ testimony answers into the record was none other than Corbett cronie James Barker. The same guy who Kane fired and had escorted out of the building. I wouldn't trust him further than I could throw him.
How is it possible after all these years and all the damage to PSU that we still haven't seen the original transcript or audio recording of Joe's testimony??? We are left relying on some corrupt Corbett cronie's word. Yikes. This guy switching a few words around is nothing compared to the other malfeasance of corbetts henchmen fina et al.
You are presenting a false argument.
No one is questioning Joe's honesty, just the accuracy of his memory.
If you take the total of things Joe got wrong in his police interviews against the things he got right, it's not even close.
Quite simply, the AG cherry picked information to make it look like Paterno backed Mike's story. Paterno's November 6, 2011 statement clarified his grand jury testimony, stating he was NOT told of any explicit details.
In December 2011, McQueary testified he didn't provide Paterno with any details or use any sexually explicit language. He didn't even use the word "fondling." McQueary testified he couldn't see Sandusky's hands, so how accurate could Paterno's testimony be if he's recalling something that wasn't said to him.
Suggest you read up on memory recall and the accuracy of long term memory.
And I'm convinced you're a complete moron seth. Joe getting his own attorney instead of trusting queen for a day baldwin turned out to be quite the good call on his part. Otherwise he probably would have seen his name listed next to curley and schultz when the charges were announced.
There's a reason why she was pissed when Joe spurned her, it messed with Surma's grand plan. I believe Scott has said the sexual in nature verbiage only came about when Joe started getting interviewed by fina and his OAG cronies. I wouldn't be surprised if fina kept mentioning that term during the interviews hoping it would find its way into Joe's GJ testimony. So then idiots like yourself could latch themselves onto it as if it was the end all be all of the matter.
So if he forgot those items why did he remember the conversation with McQueary. Either he remembered the general substance of it as related during his sworn testimony and interviews or he didn't, Based on what you are saying, he really didn't remember. Thus we are left with an extremely honorable man either fabricating testimony on his own or being coached by third parties to testify as to facts he didn't remember which would help put a man in jail for the rest of his life.
What I find sad is that in an attempt to defend Joe, you and others create a scenario which paints Joe as a dishonest person who was less than truthful not only in interviews, but under oath after swearing to God he was telling the whole. After being asked what McQueary told him, instead of telling the truth (as you and others have laid out) by answering "I don't remember", he said what he said.
Really?
That's how it went down. You're the one living in fantasy land. See any unicorns, lately?
Fair enough. Going to Atlanta in summer. But I would not accept that back hand from anyone and will present my academic experience with pride and honor. I got F'd with over spring break playing poker with some of my Philly crew. I punk em back. No big deal. Nobody means anything. Like I said in a previous post. Penn St helped me get a job and this crap never came up one time. Why can't some of you understand the Sundusky stuff is kinda out there but at least in my case is no threat to anything relevant.
Nobody with half a brain will attack you. I've lived in the South for a long time and they aren't screaming enabler. I guess some here really had some bad luck. You're too young to realize how and why those older than you admired Joe. Oddly enough the older generation doesn't understand that you are too young. This board is full of misplaced anger.
What I don't understand is why you guys keep going on about Joe's testimony. Why is it that you avoid Frank Fina's actions? I think you need to ask more questions about Fina's line of questions while in State College, the types of questions he asked and to who, the overall excessive prurient tone of those interviews and compare it to his conduct in other cases,
You might be suprised at what you might find.
Accuracy of his memory? How the hell do you pull "it was of a sexual nature" out of the box if you didn't have a good memory of what is going on? Why didn't he just say that MM came to him upset and that he didn't recall the exact conversation?
Sooooo many excuses for Paterno's testimony. None of them make any logical sense. Either he is told the truth or lied. If he lied, he screwed PSU. If he told the truth then it is very likely that C & S screwed PSU. Regardless, we got screwed by our leaders.
getmyjive11 said:
As much as I enjoy taking you to task, and how easy it is... I'll take it easy on you since others are making you look foolish.
Whatever you think. It's a basic concept regarding Paterno's testimony and not one person here can admit that Paterno either lied and screwed Penn State, or he told the truth, thus making it the administrators above him that screwed Penn State. Either way, we had people in charge who failed us. It's not that important to me to figure out which one did... it literally means nothing at this point because in the end, PSU would still be on the hook for this.
Don't worry. I'm sure elmo will stop by shortly to remind us all how fina has the highest of ethics and is above reproach...
You don't even understand the meaning of the phrase "jump the shark", how can you expect anyone to believe you understand something complicated like we are discussing?
You keep attempting to make something gray into either black or white. You keep vilifying Paterno instead of putting the spotlight where it needs to be, which is really pathetic.
It is almost comical that people can attempt to vilify JVP. Is anyone looking at the Christopher Lee saga, past and present, Sandusky, TSM and the Altoona situation with abuse and the RCC? If the issue is child abuse and failure to protect hundreds of children, if not thousands, is JVP the common thread? Wake up people. It is the people who have been drawing Commonwealth Checks for decades who are culpable. Where are their names? Judges, prosecutors, police, CYS, DPW.
This is why Tommy Boy, Porn Dog Frankie and The Misanthropes had to pull the rabbit out of the hat.
This is why Tommy Boy, Porn Dog Frankie and The Misanthropes had to pull the rabbit out of the hat.
Don't agree. The reaction of the BoT screwed the school. The acted on behalf of the judicial system and made others guilty. Only one person screwed PSU, Jerry Sandusky. He took down a ton of honest people who trusted him. Since those guys never have spoken on the subject, you can't know what their side of this was. You do agree there are two sides to every story, but you haven't heard both sides. It's possible they actively hid something, but they have never had their story heard.
Jerry had a trial and his defense was null. His victims spoke though. These guys were accused but have never once really told their side of things.
