Inquirer, DN sue for Sandusky settlement records
- Thread starter Keyser Soze 16801
- Start date
Indeed. Outstanding. Lay it all out on the table.
"Given the interest in and concern about this case, I think it's very important that the judge makes these records public," said Stan Wischnowski, senior vice president of Philadelphia Media Network and executive editor of the Inquirer, the Daily News, and Philly.com. "Not only would it instill a high level of confidence in the judicial system. But it would also potentially get us closer to the truth in a matter of great public importance to the Commonwealth, its citizens and beyond."
Hear! Hear! Although it would take more than this for any informed member of our beloved Commonwealth to feel confidence in our judicial system, it would no doubt possibly get us closer to truths concerning this debacle.
Last edited:
I trust the alumni elected trustees more than I trust what passes for journalism these days. They are looking to sell papers, they aren't looking for truth.
So they blame Joe on the one hand and want the truth on the other? Is that how this works?
This could make old Ira look like even more of an a$$ than he already is. Guess his kid couldn't put the kibosh on the Inky's plans.
Good...no one should fear the information.
They will do this logic:
Victim X alleges he told Joe in 197X
PSU board paid Victim X
Hence, Joe is guilty of not doing anything.
Mark it down. That's how it will play. They will NOT even think about the fact that it was irresponsible for PSU to pay Victim X or that Victim X is very likely a blatant liar.
Victim X alleges he told Joe in 197X
PSU board paid Victim X
Hence, Joe is guilty of not doing anything.
Mark it down. That's how it will play. They will NOT even think about the fact that it was irresponsible for PSU to pay Victim X or that Victim X is very likely a blatant liar.
It's called freeh-style investigating.
sort of- they will blame Joe on the one hand, but they don't give any portion of a shit about the truth
There are surely a lot of questions to be answered, which is what happens when only a select, small group of people have the relevant information. The following verbiage struck me:
"Under terms of the settlements, the victims agreed not to sue the university or Second Mile, the charity Sandusky founded.
In April 2015, the university approved more settlements with Sandusky accusers with one trustee calling the payout "an extraordinary" sum. In total, the school says it has paid nearly $93 million to 32 accusers."
I hope that, one day, the members of the Legal Subcommittee of the BoT will be required to explain to us why settlements paid for exclusively with University money provided for releases of claims against not only the University but also the Second Mile Foundation. The old principle of "There's no free lunch" should presumably apply here. Why should the Second Mile benefit from releases for which it did not pay, even in part? (I think I know the answer, and it is probably not one which reflects well on the Legal Subcommittee.)
"Under terms of the settlements, the victims agreed not to sue the university or Second Mile, the charity Sandusky founded.
In April 2015, the university approved more settlements with Sandusky accusers with one trustee calling the payout "an extraordinary" sum. In total, the school says it has paid nearly $93 million to 32 accusers."
I hope that, one day, the members of the Legal Subcommittee of the BoT will be required to explain to us why settlements paid for exclusively with University money provided for releases of claims against not only the University but also the Second Mile Foundation. The old principle of "There's no free lunch" should presumably apply here. Why should the Second Mile benefit from releases for which it did not pay, even in part? (I think I know the answer, and it is probably not one which reflects well on the Legal Subcommittee.)
If all of those media outlets get handed information showing that the settlements were based on dubious evidence and they do not report that fact, then we all have bigger problems than whether PSU and Paterno ever regain their reputations
No matter what the docs say..the media will make it look bad for PSU and Paterno
Seriously! Why would Ira's son do something to make his ol' man or his cohorts look bad???
and we do indeed have bigger problems, one of them being the media and how they operate
Pennst8ter is on point here.
They will take any snippet that mentions Joe and take it completely out of context, blast it all over the headlines, take it immediately as truth even if previous prosecutors and investigators had seen/heard this months beforehand and deemed it non-credible.
The very next paragraph could say something like "we did not find any further evidence to support this claim," and they will completely ignore it anyhow.
This is not a good thing at all and not for fear of truth.
They will take any snippet that mentions Joe and take it completely out of context, blast it all over the headlines, take it immediately as truth even if previous prosecutors and investigators had seen/heard this months beforehand and deemed it non-credible.
The very next paragraph could say something like "we did not find any further evidence to support this claim," and they will completely ignore it anyhow.
This is not a good thing at all and not for fear of truth.
Because they can twist it so it DOESN'T make them look bad?
My guess as to including the Second Mile in the release was to prevent a situation where the victim settles with PSU and then turns around and sues the Second Mile (the real culprit IMO), only to have the Second Mile turn around and bring PSU back into their settlement situation by claiming PSU didn't inform them of JS's abuse of young boys.
Ironically, the Second Mile would probably have to proclaim that TC, et al "only told us it was horseplay", which on the one hand would bolster TC's story, but still leave us with the problem of McQuery stating he told TC it was molestation.
So once again, this entire $hit$torm is probably the result of MM giving different stories to different people throughout this entire saga, from the very first discussion with his father and Dranov through the GJ/depositions/trial.
"That is how it will play"??
Seriously? Didn't that ALREADY play out last week?
That horse has already been beaten, killed, and buried (which doesn't mean the Media won't try to resurrect it and start the process all over again
)Getting this information out in the light of day can only be a good thing.
Secrecy and Privilege have been the two greatest obstructions wrt achieving righteous governance over Penn State (have been for a LOOOOONG time)....the less of that, the better.
BTW - that article is horrendously poorly written - - - even by INKY standards........and one HUGE questions is not addressed:
Are the petitions seeking to unseal only the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS (which is what the story reads like)...and, if that is all that is revealed, would be essentially meaningless from an informational standpoint
or
Are the petitions to unseal ALL OF THE RECORDS (depositions, etc) from the PSU v. PMA case - which is an ENTIRELY different - and much more meaningful - beast.
Does anyone know?
Has anyone seen the actual filing?
SSS, The below quote from the Pennlive article - LINK gives hope.
"The court order raises even more difficult questions about the extent of Sandusky's crimes," said Cate Barron, PA Media Group vice president of content. "The depositions of the victims referenced by Judge Glazer in reaching his decisions need to be made public."
I stipulate I don't know all of the details but will be very surprised if any of these documents are unsealed ever. These are civil cases, the state was not a party to them and private parties have the right to enter into settlements with any terms they choose.
My guess is that this ends up getting settled with a limited release and a ton of useful information redacted. In other words a whole lot of nothing
Thanks
That quote actually makes me less optimistic (though I hope that optimism will prevail) - since he references the "depos" of the claimants (first of all, I don't even know for sure if anyone took a "depo" from the claimants)....
And there is no mention of the actual "depos" wrt the case between PMA and PSU
I think we can pretty well guess what kind of info is in the files wrt the settlements between the claimants and PSU - and most of the "value" of that stuff is likely to be more "titular" than substantive ....... What I would like to see is the back and forth between PMA and PSU wrt their arguments for/against coverage payouts by PMA
If you insist on picking at the scab, don't complain about the stench when it breaks open.
Hopefully, it will be strong enough to burn away the putrid odor of you and your ilk
Is it possible one paper was going to file, the others caught wind and decided they better get on board? It appears the overwhelming interest here is forcing their hand to request this documentation.
Either they know they can't get the information but can say they tried and believe it makes them look good or they sense the tide is turning and they need to get on the latest wave to be relevant.
Interesting that now, all of a sudden they want the truth and it wasn't important previously.
Either they know they can't get the information but can say they tried and believe it makes them look good or they sense the tide is turning and they need to get on the latest wave to be relevant.
Interesting that now, all of a sudden they want the truth and it wasn't important previously.
If PSU wanted to protect itself from a plaintiff settling with PSU and turning around and suing the 2nd Mile, PSU did not need to include The 2nd Mile as a released party. PSU could have required the plaintiff(s) to indemnify and hold PSU harmless if it was brought into a lawsuit by the 2nd mile or anyone else. It is an extremely common provision in many civil settlement agreements
They are just looking to pin more JVP and football!
My guess, as others have mentioned, is that once the magic formula was known to be mentioning Paterno or 'football' being informed, at least some bogus claims were paid. And also legitimate claims that mentioned JVP knowing, whether true or not. So if other depos mention Paterno being informed, that will be the story and who knows if we can ever recover fully from that. Forget any vetting or cross-depo questioning or internal emails that put that in proper context. Say the magic words, and PSU said they would cut the deal. The public re-buried JVP.
The Trustees who were in on the decision (and didn't share their thinking with others trustees!) figured that on average, it would all even out while protecting the TSM-connected trustees.
.
I doubt that this suit is going anywhere but why does it matter? What has the media done with the information they already have?
Here's the bigger question. The media already knows that the police and child protection agencies investigated 1998 and came up empty. So why do they blame Joe and PSU for what happened during that time? How many stories have you read that said forget Paterno, what's wrong with the child protection agencies? How many have you read that talked about a culture of corruption at TSM? After last week's shitstorm, how many wrote about how unlikely if would be that Paterno could have kept 3 different ADs and University Presidents (+ coaches and players) quiet for 40 years?
Last edited:
It's a dog gone shame you have turned your back on Dear Old State. Sign of the times
If you insist on keeping a dirty Band Aid on a scab that covers a pus-filled wound, don't complain when it becomes septic.
Exactly!!!! They are simply looking for anything with the word "Joe" so they can concoct another story. They have zero interest in what actually happened or you would at least see one article asking a few of the many legitimate questions we are asking. Starting with cys, dpw, and tsm
They are hoping to find dirt on JVP, but when they see that the settlements state that PSU isn't admitting to guilt, they will try to find another way to spin the information so that they can continue the false narrative
The reason that was put in about TSM was so PSU could sue or recoup some of the payout money from TSM. Never mind the fact that TSM doors were already locked, papers shredded, and basically nonexistent. I'm not sure if that is PSUs official stance, but that's how that situation was explained to me and you can bet that will he their reasoning if questioned.
Similar threads
