Correct. I would think Joe would be proud and Dan not so. This would be the first comment I would make to both.
Jay's Open Letter to Sally Jenkins
- Thread starter PSU_1991
- Start date
That's incorrect. He's posted on this board this week -- without checking I think it was on Wednesday.
I disagree. IMHO, Mike's brother has done a nice job with his postings. He's posted about things that he knows, and also admitted things that he did not know. It would surprise me if most of us could be as measured and restrained as MM's brother has been in his postings, especially with some of the statements that have been made on this board about MM.
As opposed to what you seem to be suggesting, I hope that Mike's brother posts more frequently.
I agree with your point about their knowledge now is meaningless to most. but the depositions were part of PMA building a case that Jerry's problems was known to many at PSU and that it should have been disclosed to PMA or dealt with therefore limiting PMA's exposure to claims paid out by PSU.
Again lets have public for all to see the entire very lengthy deposition from MM, Gantor and Brandley and the many others who were deposed. I am not sure if schiano were deposed but the very small limited portion of any info revealed isn't fair to anyone.
Bradley's knowledge of 2001 when asked in 2011 was pretty much meaningless as well but if it were meaningless then why deny and lie about as he did on national TV. Many of the people denying any knowledge instead of yea we know but the right people were told and we know it was being investigated wouldn't have allowed for all of the wild speculation to date from the void in truth.
I don't have any personal knowledge on this issue but, in another thread here (I can't recall which thread it was) Wendy Silverwood linked a letter from a lawyer who had been retained by (I believe) University to analyze the "true" value of the claims which were settled for a collective $92,000,000, and that lawyer stated in his letter that many or most of the claims were settled without even a signed statement from the putative victim detailing the basis of the victim's claim. LOL, let that one sink in for a minute.
If they settled without even getting signed statements from supposed victims, what's the chance that they took depositions or otherwise put claimants under oath? Now, the Board cabal compounds this error by going after the insurer (PMA) to recoup some of the money they threw away so profligately. Amazing. Ira Lubert and his "Litigation" Subcommittee (note the irony in having a litigation committee that is utterly disinclined to vet claims, much less litigate them) are gonna have some very difficult days ahead. Hope it precludes him from taking over as Board Chairman but, given how the Board of Trustees functions, I doubt it.
Last edited:
totally agree. the data should all be made public with "victims" names retracted. But you don't know if TB lied or MM lied. TB, the way he stated it, sounded like he was referencing the 70's, 80's and 90's. He made no claim about when he heard of 2001; he may have been saying he didn't hear until 2010 (when the investigation was under way).
There have been lots of laughable posts (just the normal "crazies" here) suggestion that bradley and schiano should sue mike for defamation slander whatever you want to call it hence the reason for a bit of snark.
Eric Anderson was retained by the team working for PMA. PSU would never ask for such an analysis.
I couldn't care less about Mike McQueary other than to wish he had called Penn State Police the night he claims to have seen Soapy with a kid up against the wall, sexually assaulting him. If he had done so, NONE of the last five years would have been a non-ending nightmare.
He didn't see that. Just ask Towny and Dukie what they were told on that Fri. and Sat. in Feb. 2001. They won't answer. They'd rather cavalierly have fun with it many years later in a chat room at FOS.
Towny, Dukie, what were you told? Spit it out.
Fair enough, and thanks for your input to the suggestion. I can appreciate your point of view.
I have the same JVP magnet on my car as well.
Ill man up. I believe I have suggested it myself possible in this thread in the heat of the moment. Now whether or not I actually would if I were TB or Greg I do not know but I would most definitely be calling Mike out a little bit louder if his depo was untrue with respect to them.
Could not agree more. After Sandusky, MM is the most responsible person for this entire mess. I do have some empathy for him, as no one would have wanted to be in that situation, but he REALLY f'd this up in every possible way both in 2001 and a decade later.
I have answered that many many times on when I was first told and what. I can't help that you don't pay any attention. you are too busy sniping to see anything
Yeah, well, I'm stupid. Indulge me. What were you told that Sat. morning? Anal rape?
I haven't sniped at you, but I must have missed it too. Please share one last time. Thanks.
I'd like to hear that too. Perhaps it was on a day I was not on the board. Perhaps you can explain it and we can have Tom pin it.
I don't think IRA gives two shits whether PSU recoups any money paid out. Not his dime nor is it his concern. All he's worried about is keeping the illusion going to hide the real cover-up.
FWIW - I got off the phone earlier with Will Hobson from WaPo. He expected blowback about the piece he put out yesterday. But they ran with it knowing it would produce such.
One of his questions to me is why the anger at Mike McQueary.
I told him that Mike is SO NOT THE ISSUE!
Jeezus - Frank Fina destroyed Mike's life, along with so many others - there are NO WINNERS in this - and the national media needs to stop gyrating about football, Paterno, Mike and statues and take this back to Tom Corbett's Office of Attorney General.
So Will gets me into the circular argument about "is Mike lying" "what did he see" "do you think he's a liar?" "was it sex or not?" ... which again I stressed that Fina DID NOT NEED MIKE'S STORY to properly investigate, charge and prosecute. In the end, the verdict was Not Guilty.
Will admits he knows of porngate, but did not view the images these guys were sharing. I suggested he immerse himself in those images, knowing who is sharing them and their roles in this.
I am composing a return reply email to Hobson. I will encourage him to move the story OFF CAMPUS and start asking more relevant questions that remain unanswered.
So - if anyone would like to add input - I'll include it. You can DM me on Twitter https://twitter.com/wensilver or tag me @wensilver here.
One of his questions to me is why the anger at Mike McQueary.
I told him that Mike is SO NOT THE ISSUE!
Jeezus - Frank Fina destroyed Mike's life, along with so many others - there are NO WINNERS in this - and the national media needs to stop gyrating about football, Paterno, Mike and statues and take this back to Tom Corbett's Office of Attorney General.
So Will gets me into the circular argument about "is Mike lying" "what did he see" "do you think he's a liar?" "was it sex or not?" ... which again I stressed that Fina DID NOT NEED MIKE'S STORY to properly investigate, charge and prosecute. In the end, the verdict was Not Guilty.
Will admits he knows of porngate, but did not view the images these guys were sharing. I suggested he immerse himself in those images, knowing who is sharing them and their roles in this.
I am composing a return reply email to Hobson. I will encourage him to move the story OFF CAMPUS and start asking more relevant questions that remain unanswered.
So - if anyone would like to add input - I'll include it. You can DM me on Twitter https://twitter.com/wensilver or tag me @wensilver here.
Last edited:
Seems like there are a bunch of us regulars who have never seen any such thing.
Frankly, I don't want to, either.
I don't trust a word that comes off his keyboard.
He is in this thing up to his eye teeth. That much is pretty evident. He isn't safe from it yet either. Also pretty evident. Not sure what/why....RVs maybe? It sure is something.
Why he writes on a message board? IDK. Self-destructive maybe? Also, seems to think he is one of the smartest folks. Condescending at best, as we see here.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Has he even heard of the the second mile? Does he have any thoughts or ideas why no one is talking about it or why no investigation there including their board members? That is just for starters but I am sure you have covered that already with him...
Hey. Zippy it. Some of us want a refresher.
...
Not a clue. I believe something to do with a business in State College, iirc the conversations on here. A friend or in-law or relative...something...of MM and dukie. Again, not a clue beyond that. Always insinuates he knows the full story, or most of it, etc, blah, blah, blah.
Covering for something, imho. Somebody will likely say he is a nice guy. Everybody is a nice guy.... until they are not.
Not a clue. I believe something to do with a business in State College, iirc the conversations on here. A friend or in-law or relative...something...of MM and dukie. Again, not a clue beyond that. Always insinuates he knows the full story, or most of it, etc, blah, blah, blah.
Covering for something, imho. Somebody will likely say he is a nice guy. Everybody is a nice guy.... until they are not.
Langumuir: Thanks for the correction. So it is probable that the letter from Anderson puts things into a light more favorable to his client (PMA). But nevertheless, claimants either submitted signed statements to PSU or they did not. Anderson states that they largely did not. That seems to correlate with many of the other reports I have read about the Litigation Subcommittee doling out settlement funds with little or no vetting.
Yes. He is well aware of Dr. Raykovitz - I filled him in on the equally mandated to report wife, and the Board members. He did want to know if there are others at TSM that should be criminally investigated - I said "well THAT was something Lynne Abraham was supposed to do and turn over to the OAG" - but of course we all know where that went.
He is interested in the Alumni Trustee's Freeh Report review - and would also like to know anything else about the filing against Second Mile.
Seeing that he grew up in Malvern, he's also interested in any Philadelphia element to this. He's well aware of Ira Lubert, but would need more information before going down that path.
He also referenced Dan Wetzel's piece, the vetting process, the huge amount paid out. He did ask "what do you all want to see happen?"
I suggested an explanation from Trustee Lubert, greater transparency, an apology to the principals and their families that were flamed and defamed in all this, and some goddamned pushback from PSU on the public officials and the licensed child welfare professionals that have yet to answer for their hand in this shitstorm.
Right now, he's knee deep in the Olympics.
Last edited:
Kudos, Wendy. At least Hobson is making noises indicating he is willing to listen. Which is more than most of the media weasels are willing to do. But I'll credit Hobson when I see a more nuanced report published in the Post and, despite your laudable efforts, I'm not holding my breath.
Knowledge of what, exactly? You keep trying to conflate "knowledge" of one thing with "knowledge" of another.
Bradley didn't know anything about Jerry molesting a boy in 2001. No one did.
The only people who claim that they "knew" that Jerry molested a boy in 2001 are you and your North Carolina hillbilly friends who inexplicably kept your mouths shut for 10 years.
Everyone else says that what they "knew" was that Jerry was "horsing around." That sure as hell isn't the same as "knowing" that Sandusky molested a kid.
So who are we to believe:
1) A guy says that he saw Sanduky molesting a kid, ran home to daddy, and then kept his mouth shut for a decade; or
2) A bunch of Penn State coaches who have led decent, honorable lives without a single black mark on their reputations.
We know who the turd is.
Brother-in-law of Mike. The same guy that said I wasn't paying attention.
That's a very well written article. Good job by Jay.
To have more of an impact though, this needs to be a discussion between the two of them on some show with a moderator. They need to be making public statements with the press having access to ask them questions.
To have more of an impact though, this needs to be a discussion between the two of them on some show with a moderator. They need to be making public statements with the press having access to ask them questions.
Yes - I discussed the several outstanding ethics complaints filed with the State Disciplinary Board on Fina. For anyone who has been paying attention, they really need to look thru it via the lens of Duke LAX.
I know he wants something specific, but here is the first thing I would tell Hobson. All the pedophiles in PA just let out of sigh of relief yesterday and said:" Oh good, they are talking about Paterno and football again. If anybody ever puts heat on DPW and the county CPS offices to do their job, we would be in big trouble."
Aoshiro,
Who is the North Carolina hillbilly and friends that you might be referring to?
As for Jay's article, I don't believe I saw jay use quote marks from Mike's testimony, he could of easily quoted directly.
I would invite everyone to go re read the testimony and tell me Mike has changed his story. I would invite you to reconsider Jay's statement as well. I don't believe jay was dishonest but it was a very open to interpretation statement that hit a point across. It was a way of representing Mike's words without being detailed or looking at other interpretations.
I stand behind Mikes testimony. I think he has been direct and honest.
I will let the name calling commence or just re start.
Side note for Tom McA. I will look forward to saying hi in person when you can do it. Thank you.
Who is the North Carolina hillbilly and friends that you might be referring to?
As for Jay's article, I don't believe I saw jay use quote marks from Mike's testimony, he could of easily quoted directly.
I would invite everyone to go re read the testimony and tell me Mike has changed his story. I would invite you to reconsider Jay's statement as well. I don't believe jay was dishonest but it was a very open to interpretation statement that hit a point across. It was a way of representing Mike's words without being detailed or looking at other interpretations.
I stand behind Mikes testimony. I think he has been direct and honest.
I will let the name calling commence or just re start.
Side note for Tom McA. I will look forward to saying hi in person when you can do it. Thank you.
