ADVERTISEMENT

Jemele Hill goes after Scott Paterno on twitter, avoids his point

ChiTown Lion--please keep doing what you are doing. Your twitter replies to her are tremendous. I'm sure your point is totally lost on her, but I find it amusing. You'd think she might have a thought like, "gee, this over the top sanctimonious BS sure is annoying, This must be what Penn Staters felt like 5 years ago!" But nope, she's too dumb.
 
ChiTown on twitter right now:

raw
 
ESPN is complete and total garbage outside of live sports and 30 for 30 which they have nothing to do with except funding and airing. Mostly stupid ex-jocks and wannabees that are great at pointing out the obvious - when I watch a game I turn the sound off so I don't have to listen to those morons tell me what I just saw as if I were blind. The only color they provide is the color of stupid with their insiped comments. It ain't rocket science to describe a football game.
 
Someone tell that dizzy chick the 1998 incident was investigated and the DA found insufficient evidence to prosecute. Even if Joe knew about it, what could he have legally done?? Maybe Jamele can enlighten us.

Also tell her Freeh is on record as saying the "report" was his opinion. Opinions rely on someone's subjective interpretation of facts. It's my opinion Jamele Hill is a moron. See how easy it is??

Just to be clear, the conclusion was NOT insufficient evidence to prosecute in 1998. The conclusion was that the report was "UNFOUNDED". They could have made one of three determinations: charge, unable to determine, or unfounded. They determined it was unfounded (i.e., the equivalent that it was fabricated or, if true, didn't rise to the level of being actionable). That is a critically important legal distinction. In short, it would have been absolutely impermissible for anyone to use 1998 against Sandusky for any purpose at any time in conjunction with his employment or otherwise

And for good reason (forget about it in the context of Sandusky but in the case of anyone else): a finding that a report is "UNFOUNDED" (meaning it was false, fabricated, or without any evidence of support that a criminal activity occurred) should never be used against someone; that's why the law is written. Someone falsely accused shouldn't have to live with that stigma. Had Paterno or Penn State (or the Second Mile for that matter) done ANYTHING to Sandusky because of 1998, they would have been acting outside the law.

I am forever amazed that the media is wholly unable to comprehend that fact
 
what these people refuse to understand or acknowledge is that Joe was told about an incident that he did not witness involving a person who no longer worked for him, and that he did exactly what he was supposed to do by reporting it to the people he was supposed to report it to

the most recent NCAA guidelines would in fact have him do exactly as he did
 
"Paterno TESTIFIED he was told of misconduct & kicked it upward. The facts are out. Legally, clear. Morally, reprehensible."

"Let this sink in: When McQueary reported the shower incident to Paterno, he already knew about the '98 investigation. Didn't do anything."



Maybe I'm a little thick, my brain don't work too well. But what the F do/did these people want Paterno to DO? Joe didn't witness anything. McQuery told him about something that he thought was strange. McQuery's own father and the doctor he talked to the night of the incident didn't think it rose to the level to have to call the police. If Joe knew about the '98 investigation, he also knew that Sandusky was never charged. So, without the benefit of hindsight, if someone isn't charged you think, "Well, I guess he didn't do anything wrong."

Joe kicked it upwards, to the guy who was in charge of the police on campus. WHAT WAS HE SUPPOSED TO DO? Go make a citizen's arrest? Go buy a gun an execute Jerry himself? There are police and district attorneys and child protective services etc etc etc. It's their job to arrest and convict and stop predators. Joe was an intermediary who was told a story from someone who saw something he thought was strange, but it wasn't convincing enough for MM to call the police or to actually intervene when he was in the locker room.

People got sick of hearing about holier than thou Joe and wanted to bring him down when they had the opportunity. That's the end of the story. And once they have their minds made up about it, anything that contradicts that narrative is a "conspiracy theory". All of this cemented together by the BOT who was run by a bunch of guys who wanted to use PSU to protect their interests in The Second Mile. The logical guilty organization who walked away without a scratch.

It's like Chinatown.

6a00d8341c4f7053ef019101d14078970c-600wi

4648202.jpg
 
Players and coach have yet to be named. Anyone have the court docket?
LOL

When it's available maybe Barry will explain it to you. And why do you care? You're one of the move-on crowd from five years ago, you and smerch the muskie or whateverTF his name was. Your typical comment, amid a fifty+ page scandal thread, was "Who cares, we have a football team to talk about." That and the dark years are back is your legacy.

How about them apples!
 
LOL

When it's available maybe Barry will explain it to you. And why do you care? You're one of the move-on crowd from five years ago, you and smerch the muskie or whateverTF his name was. Your typical comment, amid a fifty+ page scandal thread, was "Who cares, we have a football team to talk about." That and the dark years are back is your legacy.

How about them apples!

Keep your attacks and your garbage off of this thread. Nobody cares about your obsession with me and your stalking. It's pathetic.
 
Eddie Robinson only has 154 Div I wins
The NCAA did a little deal a number of years back where if a coach had a certain number of DI wins all of his other wins got counted as DI wins. Like, to give two examples, Bobby Bowden at Samford and Jim Tressel at Youngstown State.
 
People here want PSU to take a stance that is contrary to public opinion. When it is pointed out that PSU's reputation is vital to the future well-being of the University, many here say "who cares what people think! I don't care!"

Well, that doesn't seem to be the case... quite the opposite actually.

I actually think you have no idea how you contradicted yourself in that post
 
I didn't contradict myself at all. People here care very much what others think.

People want PS to do the right thing- and then wouldn't care what people think

Right now PS hasn't done the right thing and therefore damaged our reputation so yes we care what people think

See how you contradicted yourself

We care because "the public" has fallen for a FALSE NARRATIVE that was created by what PS did ( or didn't do whichever way you want to look at it)
 
Effin' love it - keep slayin' her
Isn't if offensive to paint such a large group of people with the same brush by passing judgement? Seems to me she is just begging to go down the same dirt road as old Keith O.
 
People want PS to do the right thing- and then wouldn't care what people think

Right now PS hasn't done the right thing and therefore damaged our reputation so yes we care what people think

See how you contradicted yourself

We care because "the public" has fallen for a FALSE NARRATIVE that was created by what PS did ( or didn't do whichever way you want to look at it)
How do you know it is a false naritive? Hill was railing on Paterno's morals, but said that she understood he did nothing illegal. There is no false narrative with that, just her opinion.
 
How do you know it is a false naritive? Hill was railing on Paterno's morals, but said that she understood he did nothing illegal. There is no false narrative with that, just her opinion.

I KNOW because I work in field
I know because he did exactly what he should have, with the info he had, in his role, at that time
I know because you will not find another expert in the field who will say otherwise
I know because the morality card is BS
I know because he looked it up in da manual and reported as he should have and then backed away......again ....as he was SUPPOSED to do.......that is what makes the morality card BS btw
I know because I'm the one who these reports would come to in my organization
I know because I rewrote our PandPs based on the CPSL law changes because of this mess
I know that because of my experience I know who effed up
I know because it's a fact that the Freeh report was BS
I know for a thousand other reasons but let's just stick with ----- I KNOW
 
I KNOW because I work in field
I know because he did exactly what he should have, with the info he had, in his role, at that time
I know because you will not find another expert in the field who will say otherwise
I know because the morality card is BS
I know because he looked it up in da manual and reported as he should have and then backed away......again ....as he was SUPPOSED to do.......that is what makes the morality card BS btw
I know because I'm the one who these reports would come to in my organization
I know because I rewrote our PandPs based on the CPSL law changes because of this mess
I know that because of my experience I know who effed up
I know because it's a fact that the Freeh report was BS
I know for a thousand other reasons but let's just stick with ----- I KNOW
An opinion is not a false narrative. It's her opinion, and she's allowed to have it. You working in the field means nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _fugazi_
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT