FC: At Penn State, the struggle over Paterno's legacy continues

[wjb78]

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.

It seems the good will for JVP and recognition of his character has in fact extended across the country, based more upon an embrace of Res ipsa loquitur regarding the man than from any particular crusade of strident worshippers. Curiously this acknowledgement hasn't found its way into the boardrooms of the executive committee or other hallowed halls of PSU leadership, but then that's where this whole disaster finds its roots.

 

[Op2]

What an arrogant, absurd statement.

Note that I'm not saying that Penn State is not much of a university. I think it's a great university. I'm just saying that the notion it's all due to a football coach is an insult to everybody and everything else about the university.

 

[WeR0206]

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.

I wish I could say the same out here in SoCal but I can't. Most people out here believe the freeh report/NCAA/PSU BOT narrative.... that Joe/PSU football valued winning games over basic human decency. Hell, I'd bet more than half of the people here don't even idealize that BASIC facts that both 1998 (if they even know about '98 which is doubtful--thanks to freeh's focus on supposed 2000 janitor and 2002(sic) MM incidents-certain rape) and 2001 incidents were reported OUTSIDE of PSU and 2001 was forwarded to the director/Phd in Psychology/Mandatory reporter/part time contractor of CC CYS --> JR of TSM.

Most people don't know that JS was RETIRED in 2001 and that JS wasn't even indicated or had his 1:1 access to kids revoked re: naked bear hug from behind in the shower in 1998 when a mom called PSU police to complain --who then didn't cover up but looped in CC CYS. The kid's psychologist and her numerous colleagues in 1998 agreed that JS was showing pedo grooming behavior. CYS/DPW then swiftly brought in Seasock who then sandbagged the whole operation.

Most people don't know that Joe didn't really like JS and that he let his own grandkids be around him after 1998/2001. Most people don't know that in 1998 Joe didn't want JS to be bringing kids around lasch but for 8.5 million dollars freeh couldn't figure out who overruled him.

Most people don't know that MM the one and only witness said that no one at PSU ever told him to keep quiet. How in the EFF is there a cover up with out the cooperation of the one and only witness and the first two people (his Dad and family friend--folks not part of PSU) he spoke to that night??? The current narrative makes absolutely zero sense yet the media disgracefully gobbled it up while gleefully reeled in the ratings -- facts, logic, and reputations be damned!

The current narrative is alive and well in certain parts of the country....my hope is after the Gordon Zubrod (U.S. attorney for Middle district of PA--ala guy who brought down Kids For Cash judges--something most people outside of PA are familiar with because it made national news), U.S. Postal Inspector, Spanier vs. Freeh, Paternos vs. NCAA/PSU/freeh, Alum Trustee vs. PSU, CSS trial, etc. are finalized/adjudicated the current narrative will receive a death blow.

The NCAA sanctions getting dissolved helped to crack at the foundation of the house of cards (and get people to start asking questions) but it hasn't come all the way down yet.

 

[GTACSA]

please define "police".

• 911 Operator?
• Beat Cop?
• Desk Sargent?
• Prosecutor?
• Police commissioner?
• Batman?

Thanks.

Please define "please" and "define."

 

[royboy]

Please define "please" and "define."

Bill Clinton would be proud of you.

 

[GTACSA]

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!

"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."

Isn't the written report limited to mandatory reporters, which C and S were not?

So if there was no identifiable victim how could CPS investigate? They would, according to you, notify local law enforcement and it is easy to determine if there is a record of that contact. My guess is that there is no such record which means that the CPS received no report from Curley and Schultz. At which point the fact has been established that not only did C & S not contact the police, but they never contacted CPS.

What SM knew and did, or didn't do, is tangential to my interest in this topic; which is Penn State centered. Obviously if SM dropped the ball, like Penn State, then that is a tragedy as well and they should be held accountable.

Finally my objection to Penn State is not based on legal duty; but rather moral duty.

 

[GTACSA]

Bill Clinton would be proud of you.

And he would have been proud of you as well.

 

[GTACSA]

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.

I too live in Alabama and I have not found that people think he was railroaded. Many may still think highly of him, as I do, but they don't give him a pass on his actions. Having said that, which is based on interactions a few years ago, I'll ask my friends if they think Joe was railroaded and how they generally feel about him today. I'll let you know; hell I might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[indynittany]

"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."

Isn't the written report limited to mandatory reporters, which C and S were not?

So if there was no identifiable victim how could CPS investigate? They would, according to you, notify local law enforcement and it is easy to determine if there is a record of that contact. My guess is that there is no such record which means that the CPS received no report from Curley and Schultz. At which point the fact has been established that not only did C & S not contact the police, but they never contacted CPS.

What SM knew and did, or didn't do, is tangential to my interest in this topic; which is Penn State centered. Obviously if SM dropped the ball, like Penn State, then that is a tragedy as well and they should be held accountable.

Finally my objection to Penn State is not based on legal duty; but rather moral duty.

It comes down to what it always has, McQueary is claiming one series of events and everyone else is claiming another. I have seen no evidence that supports the narrative that C/S/S were at any time concerned that what was reported to them was criminal or sexual. In fact, no one involved, including Mike, acted as though there was a victim of CSA.

 

[Aoshiro]

So if there was no identifiable victim how could CPS investigate? They would, according to you, notify local law enforcement and it is easy to determine if there is a record of that contact. My guess is that there is no such record which means that the CPS received no report from Curley and Schultz. At which point the fact has been established that not only did C & S not contact the police, but they never contacted CPS.

What SM knew and did, or didn't do, is tangential to my interest in this topic; which is Penn State centered. Obviously if SM dropped the ball, like Penn State, then that is a tragedy as well and they should be held accountable.

Finally my objection to Penn State is not based on legal duty; but rather moral duty.

Your guesses don't count. What is the evidence that McQueary's report (whatever the heck he reported) was never passed on to either the police or child welfare authorities?

 

[WeR0206]

They would, according to you, notify local law enforcement and it is easy to determine if there is a record of that contact. My guess is that there is no such record

It's pretty sad/pathetic that after all this time and 8.5 million to freeh that we still have to speculate about this now isn't it? Why do you think it is that freeh never found out? Speaking of things we have to guess about....Why didn't freeh include the email Schultz sent to Harmon on monday 9/11 (instead of just making a footnote about it) in which Harmon responded (freeh included this) confirming they had the 98 file in their archives? Why didn't PSU waive ACP with Courtney so we could all see once and for all exactly what Schultz told Courtney that Sunday 9/10 and exactly what his counsel was? If you haven't figured it out, it's because they don't support the current narrative. It's also the reason PSU/freeh are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any and all parties from getting access to the unredacted freeh source files.

What SM knew and did, or didn't do, is tangential to my interest in this topic; which is Penn State centered. Obviously if SM dropped the ball, like Penn State, then that is a tragedy as well and they should be held accountable.

Uhh...it's not possible to talk about this topic without talking about TSM's role. JR at TSM did contract work for CC CYS. For all we know CC CYS would have differed 2001 to JR as the PhD expert in this situation to make a ruling for CC CYS and JR was already told about the incident and PSU's new directives (hello red flags!!) directly by TC when he was complaining on his doorstep about JS's inappropriate showering! CC CYS has caseworkers and JR was a PhD in psychology....I'd say he drew a lot of water in the CC child welfare community. In 1998 CYS/DPW already showed they wanted nothing to do with properly investigating JS.

Are you not at all curious about why the OAG broke the constitution to go after some college admins instead of charging the guy, JR, who actually had authority over JS and his access to kids and was informed about 2001 and was required by law to have been told about 1998?? Why is the OAG trying to claim that some college admins should have known better than child care experts/Phd's in Psychology??

 

[Aoshiro]

I too live in Alabama

Well that certainly explains a lot.

 

[mhentz]

"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."

Isn't the written report limited to mandatory reporters, which C and S were not?

So if there was no identifiable victim how could CPS investigate? They would, according to you, notify local law enforcement and it is easy to determine if there is a record of that contact. My guess is that there is no such record which means that the CPS received no report from Curley and Schultz. At which point the fact has been established that not only did C & S not contact the police, but they never contacted CPS.

What SM knew and did, or didn't do, is tangential to my interest in this topic; which is Penn State centered. Obviously if SM dropped the ball, like Penn State, then that is a tragedy as well and they should be held accountable.

Finally my objection to Penn State is not based on legal duty; but rather moral duty.

I absolutely love jackasses who think there is some moral duty....obviously based on a moral code that they alone define...that trumps the law. GTACSA, you'd have made a great klansman. They always thought the way you do. You know what we have when we base our society on moral duties, codes and imperatives that GTACSA defines instead of the law? The dark ages, that's what.

 

[GTACSA]

Your guesses don't count. What is the evidence that McQueary's report (whatever the heck he reported) was never passed on to either the police or child welfare authorities?

Other than the fact such a report has never surfaced when if it did exist then this whole mess goes away for the defendants; duh.......

You are grasping at straws.

BTW I hope there is proof that the report was relayed to the police or to CPS; just haven't seen it yet.

 

[GTACSA]

Well that certainly explains a lot.

I'll take that as a comical comment much in the same way you would take the same comment from me as relates to where you live. Correct?

 

[simons96]

I absolutely love jackasses who think there is some moral duty....obviously based on a moral code that they alone define...that trumps the law. GTACSA, you'd have made a great klansman. They always thought the way you do. You know what we have when we base our society on moral duties, codes and imperatives that GTACSA defines instead of the law? The dark ages, that's what.

would now be a good time to remind him even the OAG concedes C/S/S/P did nothing illegal in 2001??

 

[GTACSA]

I absolutely love jackasses who think there is some moral duty....obviously based on a moral code that they alone define...that trumps the law. GTACSA, you'd have made a great klansman. They always thought the way you do. You know what we have when we base our society on moral duties, codes and imperatives that GTACSA defines instead of the law? The dark ages, that's what.

Two points. First: morality is embedded in our society. There is no legal duty to donate to charity and help those less fortunate than we are, but many do. Likewise no legal duty to stop and help someone in distress, but many do. I could go on for pages but this should suffice if you are open minded.

Second: I recognize that not everyone has the same moral code; that is certainly evident by the two positions on whether the Penn State officials had a moral duty to notify the police. I will not criticize you for your position which you share with many nor will I call you names; and you should, if you have an open mind, not criticize my position which is shared by many and refrain from your sophomoric slurs.

 

[GTACSA]

would now be a good time to remind him even the OAG concedes C/S/S/P did nothing illegal in 2001??

I already posted: "Finally my objection to Penn State is not based on legal duty; but rather moral duty."

 

[richmin3]

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.

I disagree. It's hard to believe that he could be tried and convicted in 7 months. The wheels of justice grind exceeding slow and considering the scope of this trial ie: witness etc. How the state managed to convicted him
in that short of time in this day and age is nothing short of a miracle. It begs the question how can the state charge Spanier,Curley and schultz over 4 years and counting and not been brought to trial? On lesser charges no less.

 

[rifraf]

"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."

Isn't the written report limited to mandatory reporters, which C and S were not?

So if there was no identifiable victim how could CPS investigate? They would, according to you, notify local law enforcement and it is easy to determine if there is a record of that contact. My guess is that there is no such record which means that the CPS received no report from Curley and Schultz. At which point the fact has been established that not only did C & S not contact the police, but they never contacted CPS.

What SM knew and did, or didn't do, is tangential to my interest in this topic; which is Penn State centered. Obviously if SM dropped the ball, like Penn State, then that is a tragedy as well and they should be held accountable.

Finally my objection to Penn State is not based on legal duty; but rather moral duty.

In a previous exchange we had awhile ago, you stated that the decision the PSU admins made was a moral choice but you also indicated that you were not saying their morality was less than yours just different. In this post you indicate you object to the moral choice made by PSU. Are you saying that in fact you believe the PSU admin/Paterno made a poor moral choice? Would you feel that way if MM never told anyone he witnessed abuse? I am just trying to understand you how you reach your conclusion of a moral failing.

 

[WeR0206]

So if there was no identifiable victim how could CPS investigate?

First off if anyone had a "moral obligation" to notify police/CC CYS about 2001 it was JR...not only did he have a moral obligation but he was LEGALLY obligated as well...yet no charges for him...hmmm.

How did you expect PSU admins to investigate then? PSU did pretty much everything they could from their end (confronted JS, revoke his guest privileges, and tell JR/TSM about the incident and their new directives, they also followed up with the one and only witness who never told them more needed to be done and never voiced any dissatisfaction).

In your view you can't absolve CYS for not doing anything if there was no known victim and then condemn CSS who the victim was also unknown to in your next breadth. You can't have it both ways pal. That's why the state's case against CSS makes no logical sense. CSS/JR all testified to pretty much the same thing re: 2001 -->late night inappropriate shower/horseplay between JS and a kid that made a PSU GA uncomfortable. With that in mind why did the OAG break the Constitution to throw the book at some college admins and not even charge the PhD in Psychology/director of JS's charity/part time CC CYS worker JR who's recollection of the incident was the same as the PSU admins?? If anyone didn't do enough (EWOC, etc.) in 2001 it was JR/TSM NOT some damned college admins.

If the kid was unknown All CYS would have to do is get in contact with SCPD/UPPD and go over to TSM and ask them who the eff JS was with the night of 2/9/01. If they didn't know then why not, etc. etc..then work the case from there. Why wasn't TSM required to notify CC CYS about the late night inappropriate shower of JS's that had the PSU AD on their doorstep complaining about and implementing new policies over??

My overall point is this. Since CSS/JR all testified to the same thing re: 2001 why are they being held to a higher standard than JR?

 

[bjf1984]

And GTACSA announces his candidacy for "Emperor of the Circle Jerk"

There is stiff competition......but he is giving full effort in his come-from-behind attempt.

 

[GTACSA]

And GTACSA announces his candidacy for "Emperor of the Circle Jerk"

There is stiff competition......but he is giving full effort in his come-from-behind attempt.

It looks like recess just let out. Once you graduate we hope you'll be able to participate in the discussion.

 

[GTACSA]

In a previous exchange we had awhile ago, you stated that the decision the PSU admins made was a moral choice but you also indicated that you were not saying their morality was less than yours just different. In this post you indicate you object to the moral choice made by PSU. Are you saying that in fact you believe the PSU admin/Paterno made a poor moral choice? Would you feel that way if MM never told anyone he witnessed abuse? I am just trying to understand you how you reach your conclusion of a moral failing.

I believe the 4 officials at Penn State made a choice that was different than what I would have made based on my moral code; who am I to judge them since I hold no such position. I merely believe they should have notified the police.

Now if MM had never told anyone he witnessed abuse, then I would not have disagreed with their lack of notification. Unfortunately the testimony under oath from Joe has established that MM did tell him about the abuse.

 

[royboy]

I believe the 4 officials at Penn State made a choice that was different than what I would have made based on my moral code; who am I to judge them since I hold no such position. I merely believe they should have notified the police.

Now if MM had never told anyone he witnessed abuse, then I would not have disagreed with their lack of notification. Unfortunately the testimony under oath from Joe has established that MM did tell him about the abuse.

That's not clear at all, and is inconsistent with other accounts of those who spoke with MM that night.

It's your arrogant insistence on calling this a fact that is irritating. It is your opinion, and not a fact.

 

[fairgambit]

That's not clear at all, and is inconsistent with other accounts of those who spoke with MM that night.
It's your arrogant insistence on calling this a fact that is irritating. It is your opinion, and not a fact.

You're right.

 

[lein]

Bill Clinton would be proud of you.

Thar depends on the definition of "be"

 

[ChiTownLion]

WeR is simply en fuego tonight.

 

[ewb75]

I too live in Alabama and I have not found that people think he was railroaded. Many may still think highly of him, as I do, but they don't give him a pass on his actions. Having said that, which is based on interactions a few years ago, I'll ask my friends if they think Joe was railroaded and how they generally feel about him today. I'll let you know; hell I might be pleasantly surprised.

I hope you are surprised. And it may just be me. But almost all Bama fans that I am around tell me this. And even most Auburn fans. I will say Auburn fans were harder on him in the beginning. I am in south central Alabama- south of Montgomery. Maybe it is just the area and my peers. I spend a great deal of time with Tide and Tiger alum. Out of curiosity, what area are you located?

 

[Op2]

If you're taking your cues from Alabama and Auburn fans you've lost the path entirely.

 

[GTACSA]

That's not clear at all, and is inconsistent with other accounts of those who spoke with MM that night.

It's your arrogant insistence on calling this a fact that is irritating. It is your opinion, and not a fact.

If you want to ignore the plain meaning of Joe's words in both his statement to the police in February 2011 and in his testimony to the Grand Jury that's your right. Go at it but don't expect those who chose to read the plain language and arrive at a different conclusion to change.

Sometimes it is what it is.

 

[Art]

If you want to ignore the plain meaning of Joe's words in both his statement to the police in February 2011 and in his testimony to the Grand Jury that's your right. Go at it but don't expect those who chose to read the plain language and arrive at a different conclusion to change.

Sometimes it is what it is.

Plain meaning, like "fondling." Where did MM testify that he saw that?

 

[bjf1984]

If you want to ignore the plain meaning of Joe's words in both his statement to the police in February 2011 and in his testimony to the Grand Jury that's your right. Go at it but don't expect those who chose to read the plain language and arrive at a different conclusion to change.

Sometimes it is what it is.

"Sometimes it is what it is"

Yep....and when Mr GTACSA comes to the party, "what it is"... is a colossal circle jerk.

 

[Osprey Lion]

"Sometimes it is what it is"

Yep....and when Mr GTACSA comes to the party, "what it is"... is a colossal circle jerk.

You seem quite obsessed with "circle jerks". You made quite a few posts in this thread and
none have added to the discussion.

 

[bjf1984]

You seem quite obsessed with "circle jerks". You made quite a few posts in this thread and
none have added to the discussion.

Sorry if it offends you (actually....not), but not everyone wants to join in with Op2, GTACSA, yourself, and the rest of the mental "master baiters".

 

[Marshall30]

That's not clear at all, and is inconsistent with other accounts of those who spoke with MM that night.

It's your arrogant insistence on calling this a fact that is irritating. It is your opinion, and not a fact.

Part of the Litany of the Obsessed.

 

[ewb75]

If you're taking your cues from Alabama and Auburn fans you've lost the path entirely.

I am not even certain what you are trying to say there. First glance led me to believe that it was condescending and pretty arrogant. Maybe even falling into the stereotyping of whole groups for whatever reason. I always find it funny when I get that from a fellow Penn Stater. After everything that we have gone through thanks to Sandusky, and all the stereotyping and name calling, it still amazes me that we have some that still possess such arrogance that they are willing to do the same. Oh well, to each his own....

And if that is not how you meant it, Op2, my apologies. But considering where I live, pretty certain Bama and Auburn fans are going to be the majority of my sample groups. Although, as I stated earlier, I find that it runs pretty well the gamut of all SEC fans and ACC fans in this area of the country.

 

[WeR0206]

If you want to ignore the plain meaning of Joe's words in both his statement to the police in February 2011 and in his testimony to the Grand Jury that's your right. Go at it but don't expect those who chose to read the plain language and arrive at a different conclusion to change.

Sometimes it is what it is.

All of Joe's statements before the OAG influenced him line up exactly with Dr D/CSS/JM/JR testimony--that MM wasn't really sure what he saw but felt uncomfortable about it.

What about the "plain meaning of Joe's below words??

Here's Joe's original statement to Baldwin:

Here's Joe's interview with Posnanski:

Here's why Joes testimony changed between his Baldwin interview and written statement to OAG/GJ:

 

[rifraf]

I believe the 4 officials at Penn State made a choice that was different than what I would have made based on my moral code; who am I to judge them since I hold no such position. I merely believe they should have notified the police.

Now if MM had never told anyone he witnessed abuse, then I would not have disagreed with their lack of notification. Unfortunately the testimony under oath from Joe has established that MM did tell him about the abuse.

Then I think our different view on this issue is not one of moral choices but our assessment of the circumstances. I understand you feel Paterno's use of 'sexual in nature', etc. leads you to conclude MM communicated abuse. However taking Paterno's testimony in total, comments he made in his last interview and biography, the actions of all involved in 2001, plus the fact that no one MM talked to in 2001 has confirmed his 2010 telling, it is my belief that MM did not communicate abuse in 2001. In short any assessment of the moral code of MM, JM, Dranov, Paterno, and C&S all comes down to what you believe MM reported. Hopefully the trial, if it happens, can answer that for everyone. If we ever know the facts, I suspect we will be in agreement as to whether the individuals involved made the right choices - one way or the other.

 

[bjf1984]

All of Joe's statements before the OAG influenced him line up exactly with Dr D/CSS/JM/JR testimony--that MM wasn't really sure what he saw but felt uncomfortable about it.

What about the "plain meaning of Joe's below words??

Here's Joe's original statement to Baldwin:

Here's Joe's interview with Posnanski:

Here's why Joes testimony changed between his Baldwin interview and written statement to OAG/GJ:

Nicely done WeR....channeling your inner "JimmyW"