Well, that's one way to bring up the point. I was noting another that seems to work.
FC: At Penn State, the struggle over Paterno's legacy continues
- Thread starter mn78psu83
- Start date
Well, that's one way to bring up the point. I was noting another that seems to work.
Tell it to the Hillsborough parents.
The truth will out. And when the national media learns that CEOs of major corporations hired Louis Freeh to maliciously and deliberately destroy Joe Paterno's reputation -- the the detriment of the university they were charged with safeguarding -- it's a story they WILL cover.
Here's the thing....PSU reported the 2001 incident to OUTSIDE counsel and also OUTSIDE of PSU to TSM so it's not like they didn't do anything with it (if they wanted to cover it up it would have never been reported outside of PSU, plus JM and Dr. D already knew about 2001 before the admins). College admins weren't qualified to really do anything with MM's report and I suspect that's exactly why they ended up forwarding it to JR/TSM....you know the Phd in Psychology, mandatory reporter running a state licensed children's charity?
By virtue of their state licensing JR and TSM were required by state law/internal policy to look into any and ALL incident reports re: one of THEIR employees. If anyone dropped the ball in 2001 it was TSM not some college admins/football coach. This is the part the main stream media/freeh/ncaa completely/intentionally ignored. TSM had direct control over JS's access to kids, the PSU admins had zero control over JS access to kids. TSM was told about 2001...end of story as far as the PSU admins are concerned IMO.
I'm very pleased that scholarships, bowls, etc have been restored. But the thread is about Paterno's legacy and nothing has changed on that front.
And I never said you should stop doing what you think is right. I'm simply pointing out that it is a waste of time. I do dislike those
that have convinced themselves that Sandusky is innocent or didn't get a fair trial. They are an embarrassment.
"The question many people have is why was there no investigation into McQuery's allegations. Someone dropped the ball and most here seem to think it was the BOT rather than those that were told about Sandusky's shower activities"
Maybe....just maybe....a Top Ten candidate for most inane statement in a BWI Board post.
WTF?????? Who is this Osprey fellow?
It appears that everyone who heard the story told it to somebody. But the problem is that none of them told it to the police and they are the
only ones that matter. So therein lies the problem and source of PSU's "scandal".
No.....just to make it clear....what I am saying is that of the 10,375 areas in which the PSU BOT has earned the scorn of all true Penn Staters (as well as the scorn of any interested human being with any semblance of an ethical core):
Not conducting "an investigation into McQuery's (sic) allegations" wouldn't rank in the top 10,000.......
In fact, except for a rare comment that some on the BOT may have been aware of certain proclivities regarding JS (unrelated to the McQueary "incident"), I can't recall any sentiments even tangentially similar to your statement.
I've discussed the "scandal" with many non Penn State fans over the last few years. And the vast majority believe that because there was no investigation into the allegations,
there must have been a cover up. And they also feel that an investigation would have stopped Sandusky's activities and spared some boys from his grasp.
So your ranking of not conducting an investigation is directly opposite of the feelings of many non PSU fans.
I was wrong....mea culpa.
I should have said "Top FIVE inane statements" in my original reply.
(despite your efforts to "re-write" a strawman to your initial post)
You've entered the CDW/CR realm of those with whom there is no point engaging in "debate"
Congratulations.
LOL
I have maintained for 2 years that TC and GS2 will not see the inside of a courtroom. The FTR charges don't apply unless Pa. violates the ex post facto provision of the constitution. Any hopes of a perjury conviction went out with JoePa( since he seemed to be conflicted with the seriousness or the nature of what MM reported.) MM's testimony stands alone and Dranov remains a sore thumb for the OAG on that count. Kane cannot drop the charges due to the political climate. So, the accused must remain silent while the OAG hopes the whole mess will be forgotten.
Just wondering where Harmon fits into this It is just my opinion that he was in the loop in '01. If so, he is the one that GS would have assumed made contact with CYS/DPW.
Just wondering where Harmon fits into this It is just my opinion that he was in the loop in '01. If so, he is the one that GS would have assumed made contact with CYS/DPW.
So far I have not seen anything resembling a "debate" from you. I'm sure you do much better
when "debating" with those that agree with you.
LOL Sorry....we all have our limitations.
I - personally - fail in being able to find a way to have a meaningful debate on the topic of:
"I wasn't told but I can't prove it. Could you prove you weren't told?"
Maybe - in your crowd -EVERYONE wants to jump into such circle-jerks. Good luck with that.
Sorry.....just not my thing.
Wick Sollers said in April 2012 that he has "indisputable evidence" showing Joe Paterno was not informed of the 1998 investigation.
More to the point, how is the prosecution going to prove that CYS wasn't told?
It's pretty interesting that the prosecution hasn't produced any call logs from 2001.
Quite possible. There is a very small number of people that would be in a position to know about the investigation and, therefore, inform Paterno. If Sollers knows who they are and is confident that they did not tell him, he might say, with a bit a hyperbole added in, that he has "indisputable evidence" that Paterno was not told.
Your conclusion, I believe is based on a few false or at least unproven positions. First you assume that MM actually reported abuse. Yet none of the 5 people he told have corraberated that assertion. Second you assume Paterno reporting to PSU administration was inappropriate. However that is exactly what he was supposed to do. Lastly you assume to know exactly what the C&S actually did. There here has been a lot of back and forth on this board about what PSU council did or did not know or do, whether a report was made to CYS, etc. I have a hard time deciphering opinion from fact in much but it seems to me no one 'knows'. I am not sure if trials will ever happen but they appear to be the best hope for understanding what happened. As it relates to Paterno's legacy I choose to give a man who gave his whole life in service to PSU the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe a man whose whole life was about helping young people would knowingly abandon children to a predator. He reported what MM told him promptly to the university administration - people he believed had the authority and resources to investigate. He answered honestly at the GJ and has never been charged with a crime. In his last interview and his biography he stated he was not aware of 1998 and said MM was not specific in his description of the shower incident (I believe MM confirmed this) and he never understood children were being abused. He has been the only one, when confronted with the reality of JS, has expressed regret by his 'with the advantage of hindsight...'. It short, in my opinion, Paterno when faced with the vague but unsettling report from MM tried to do the right thing and there is no evidence to the contrary. He should be judged by whether it was right given what was known at that time and acknowledging he had no experience with pedophilia. His legacy may not be repairable for many, but it does not mean the false and completely unproven belief that Paterno knowingly covered for a known pedophile should go unchallenged. Finally I have had many folks stop me outside of Pa. when wearing a PSU t-shirt and almost universally they speak highly of Paterno and express regret about his treatment.
Promise me that you will come back in less time than that when things have changed. And that you come back with your hat in your hand, and humbly acknowledge you were wrong, and that you will never post on this, or any other internet message board under this, or any other board name, for a period of 2 years.
Promise me.
It is clear in both Schultz's and Curley's testimony that the report of MM was not communicated to the police which is the primary entity which should have received the report..
Not necessarily. The statutes at the time of 2001 stated that suspected child abuse must be phoned into ChildLine ASAP and a written report provided to local CYS within 48 hours. CYS can handle the aspect of looping in local LE.
If CC CYS was made aware it's part of their procedures to loop in local LE if they haven't already been informed. Plus, I think it's VERY likely that Harmon is the person who made the call to CC CYS...so in that case PSU told both local LE AND CC CYS AND TSM. It's up to the state to prove certain steps DIDN'T happen. Don't forget (as simons likes to remind us) the state's own claims are that CSS broke no laws in 2001 but only in 2007+ when the law changed (they're essentially trying to charge them ex post facto).....talk about mental gymnastics on the state's side--they have to break the U.S. Constitution/SOL just to charge the admins...smh
Also, FTR requires that the person doesn't make a report or prevents a report from being made....even if C/S/S are considered mandatory reporters in 2001 (which even the state admits they weren't) how in the world does C/S informing JR at TSM, a mandatory reporter and director of state licensed children's charity who was required to look into any and all incident reports no matter how benign, prevent a report from being made??? In the rational world C/S's report to TSM should have caused a report to CC CYS by JR to be made but it didn't...and the state had no curiosity to look into that issue further and instead decided to break the Constitution to try and throw the book at some college admins.....yeah....nothing to see here!
please define "police".
- 911 Operator?
- Beat Cop?
- Desk Sargent?
- Prosecutor?
- Police commissioner?
- Batman?
Thanks.
Ah yes, who can forget the missing verse in Genesis 1. The one that should be between Verses 30 and 31. Let's call it Genesis Chapter 1, Verse 30 and one half:
"Then God Said:
'In the valley that it is in the middle of the land that shall be called Pennsylvania, let there be a University. And let this University have a football team. And let this football team be led by my son Joseph, who is a man that shall be made in my image, perfect and without a single flaw. And let this football team's colors be Blue and White, the same colors as the sky that I created a few verses ago, back in Verse 8.' "
That is the single most insulting thing anyone can say about Penn State. If an entire university was made by a football coach then it's not much of a university.
No I think the single most insulting thing some can (and did) say about Penn State is that it's a community and culture that values football more than protecting children from getting raped. Nothing can top that. I don't agree with the comment you responded to but your response was pure hyperbole given what has been said about Penn State and anyone connected to it over the past 4 years.
I refer those people to Malcolm Gladwell's excellent article on Sandusky and his ilk
Well, Osprey, I no longer live in Pennsylvania either. But here in Alabama, Paterno is rather fondly regarded and remembered as a great coach and person. If the topic of the scandal actually comes up, it is usually with the folks down here saying how Joe was railroaded and unjustly blamed. Now I am certain that there are folks down here that feel the way Pitt fans feel. But from the very beginning of it all, the way overwhelming majority has been supportive of Joe and PSU as a whole. Or, at least that has been my experience and every other PSU fan's I know experience.
According to the people posting in this thread, there seems to be almost unanimous support for Paterno and PSU everywhere in the country. So that would
indicate that his good name has been restored or never tarnished and there no reason to continue the crusade to restore his legacy that seems to be a main topic on this board.
Well I cannot speak of the entire nation, only my area. I do know that I read some venomous things from people in other areas. The thing I notice is this: usually it is from someone that is a fan or alum or associate of one of our current or historically "heated" rivals. In other words, people who are probably not capable of having an open mind on the subject. I know that is stereotyping. But in general, that is what I find. If there is a scathing commentary, I usually find that it is from a Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, or even Michigan person. Most SEC fans I find to be fond of Joe. Same with most current ACC fans. Maybe it is just me.
As far as continuing the crusade as you call it, I can only speak for myself. I simply would like to know the truth. That is all I have ever said from day one. If Joe was guilty, so be it. But if he was scapegoated, I would like to know that too. Since I live where I do, it rarely comes up anymore. And like I said before, when it does, it is even rarer that it is confrontational or even something that I need to give facts about. The NCAA doing an about face actually went a long way towards rectifying those in this area that thought Joe was an enabler. Even though they did not say anything about Joe's culpability, people here recognized it as such. So, maybe it is just the section of the country I live that feels this way.
Hey Osprey, I travel extensively, wear PSU gear everywhere and have to come to find there are many people who were not fooled by any of the board, Freeh, ncaa, espn, etc. bs.
