I disagree. The most logical conclusion is that Curley and Schultz thought Jerry, a recognized community leader in child advocacy at the time, had boundary issues. Most of your posts assume that Curley and Schultz concluded that Jerry was likely sexually abusing children. There is no evidence to support that assumption.
Jemele Hill goes after Scott Paterno on twitter, avoids his point
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
I disagree. The most logical conclusion is that Curley and Schultz thought Jerry, a recognized community leader in child advocacy at the time, had boundary issues. Most of your posts assume that Curley and Schultz concluded that Jerry was likely sexually abusing children. There is no evidence to support that assumption.
Best description of Jive
It's not there job to determine if Jerry just how boundary issue or if he was a pedo. Once they heard from Paterno and MM, they should have let the authorities take over. They harmed Penn State, either via coverup or by incorrectly assuming that Jerry was just weird.
I agree that it wasn't their job. That's why I believe Curley alerted TSM.
I also believe that they harmed Penn State and they themselves would admit as much (Spanier did by resigning).
But there has never been a question in my mind that they acted with any malice. Jerry was the criminal, not them.
everything above is spot on. They ALL acted as if Jerry was a weird (but good) guy w boundary issues. In hindsight they were tragically wrong. That doesn't make their actions knowingly wrong, or even wrong in the context of what they were told (because we dont know what they were told). They harmed Penn State only to the extent that they gave media (accelerated by our cowardly BOT) the weapon to destroy PSU by ignoring the possibility of honest confusion vs heinous coverup.
Ill repeat this again since the trolls seem to forget it while hyperventilating about TC and his decision re: looping in DPW.
If Courtney looked the statue up correctly he would have informed Schultz that if they wanted to report suspected abuse they'd need to do so via phone call to childline asap and also via writing to CCCYS within 48 hrs....not DPW two weeks later. The focus on DPW by freeh is a red herring. IOW, DPW was only considered in case the admins needed a child welfare authority backing them up (that JS showering behavior was inappropriate and needed to stop) but not to report suspected abuse.
The 2001 emails make it clear. The original plan was to tell DPW and TSM about the incident and PSU's new directives behind Js' back. Then after thinking on it Tim decided to confront JS and if he agreed with their directives and that his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop, there was no need for DPW, also they'll inform TSM with or without JS' cooperation. This is what prompted Spanier email saying he admired TC for going a more difficult route (confront JS vs tell everyone behind his back) and was the more humane approach.
Freeh of course had a field day chopping those emails up and assigning the worst possible interpretation to them and the media ate it up no questions asked. Smh
If Courtney looked the statue up correctly he would have informed Schultz that if they wanted to report suspected abuse they'd need to do so via phone call to childline asap and also via writing to CCCYS within 48 hrs....not DPW two weeks later. The focus on DPW by freeh is a red herring. IOW, DPW was only considered in case the admins needed a child welfare authority backing them up (that JS showering behavior was inappropriate and needed to stop) but not to report suspected abuse.
The 2001 emails make it clear. The original plan was to tell DPW and TSM about the incident and PSU's new directives behind Js' back. Then after thinking on it Tim decided to confront JS and if he agreed with their directives and that his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop, there was no need for DPW, also they'll inform TSM with or without JS' cooperation. This is what prompted Spanier email saying he admired TC for going a more difficult route (confront JS vs tell everyone behind his back) and was the more humane approach.
Freeh of course had a field day chopping those emails up and assigning the worst possible interpretation to them and the media ate it up no questions asked. Smh
Zeno is a boob. And it's a dumb question.
It would have been more clear in 2001, one way or the other, and that was the proper time to report correctly and completely.
What a load of nonsense. This post is just pretty much you saying that you want to blame Paterno in some way for this situation and will find a way to do it. Carry on then.
You aren't disturbed that Joe saw that guy in the facility with his team after hearing what he did, and he never even made a simple inquiry to Tim as to what happened? So sorry that bothers me and many others. In terms of Paterno's guilt on this, I place it very, very low, but ultimately sticking his head in the sand is disappointing.
If you're Mike, and you're distraught to the point where you can't even communicate, how do you go to bed that night knowing you left that little boy with the monster?
Put yourself in Mike's shoes that night. Try to picture that moment when your head hits the pillow and your eyes close for the night. How does one sleep after seeing what Mike supposedly "saw?" What were his final thoughts before he fell asleep?
How does Mike not, like, at least drive by Sandusky's house to see if the kid is there. Ring the doorbell and play dumb. Something. Anything.
Put yourself in Mike's shoes that night. Try to picture that moment when your head hits the pillow and your eyes close for the night. How does one sleep after seeing what Mike supposedly "saw?" What were his final thoughts before he fell asleep?
How does Mike not, like, at least drive by Sandusky's house to see if the kid is there. Ring the doorbell and play dumb. Something. Anything.
Exactly. Great post. He was just as concerned and acted with the same sense of urgency as ALL of the people he told in 2001...not much.
First: clear, clearer, clearest.
It was reported. Zeno is not a boob and it is not a dumb question. He's a person with a spine, a person who, publicly, here and on Twit, asks pertinent questions and makes pertinent comments.
So, where are these "many others" you speak of? All I see is you doing the circle jerk round and round crapping in your hand and flinging it like a monkey on crack!
Agreed. Our BOT fed the cover up angle because, for whatever reason(s), they were afraid of the OAG. It was easier and likely more favorable for some personally on the BOT to split and denounce C/S/S and Paterno. This whole saga is less complicated than it seems.
Great post Chi. With that in mind how does MM not utter one word of dissatisfaction to Curley when TC called him 4/5 days later to follow up with an action plan (revoke guest privileges, inform TSM) that didn't include uppd coming to take MM's written statement so he could file a criminal complaint??
MM said that no one told him to keep quiet yet he also said he never expressed any dissatisfaction to C/S/P over the years (even though the guy who he was 99% sure was a child rapist was still accessing TSM kids and walking around lasch). Something's not adding up here...
Last edited:
I'm disturbed that people are determined to place a degree of fault on Paterno for this situation, regardless of how high or low they choose to place the level of blame.
I am often in the position of reporting child abuse. I make the calls I am supposed to make, then step out of the situation. I do not follow up with those I report it to. If they have the need to do so, they contact me to gather more information. I do my part, then trust in the others to do their part. I am rarely told of the results.
I often see people that I have reported for abuse continue to have unfettered contact with the children I have reported them for abusing. It is not my place to interfere with the process. It is my place to report, then allow the system to do its job.
Last edited:
The trolls expect Paterno to have spoken up about his dissatisfaction with how C/S/S handled the situation, despite that fact that he didn’t witness anything and only got a watered down version of horseplay. Yet MM, the actual witness is off the hook for not expressing his alleged dissatisfaction with how they handled the situation.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Thanks for your simple, real world example. Truth is the trolls don’t care. They simply want to blame everything on Paterno because of football. They don’t care about the victims. They are sad human beings.
Because they asked him and he said that he trusted Tim would take care of it do he didn't follow up.
But you actually report the suspected CSA, not just tell a superior and move on. And I would ask if you had a subordinate come to you and say that he/she saw something of a sexual nature between a boy and an adult in a shower?
He did report the suspected CSA and move on, just as he was supposed to. Joe was not a detective, or a super hero.
I would assume the subordinate also qualified his statement multiple times with statements like “I don’t know what you would call it”. Since the term "of a sexual nature" isn't actually a thing, I would ask him to clarify what exactly he meant, especially since he qualified his statement twice with statements like "I don't know what you would call it." You know, sort of like a cross examination that Joe’s worthless testimony never received? I would also record the testimony, so it could later be heard to verify its accuracy. I would do this in the moment, and not a decade later. Is it also safe to assume my subordinate isn’t in his mid-eighties and dying?
In my role, it is my responsibility to report directly to the authorities.
Yes, I have had others (I wouldn't call them subordinates as much as peers in other roles) tell me similar things. I will typically respond with two courses of action. First is to sit with them while they make a report to social services. Second is if they are unsure of what they heard from the kid, I will speak to the kid and get their story. I will then make thebreport myself if I feel it is warranted.
The difference in my situation from Paterno's is that I am the point of contact for these situations. In Penn State's situation I would assume Schultz to be the person closest to that role. Joe put the person with the information in direct contact with the person who needed the information. Joe handled it the right way.
The major difference is that you are reporting the incident to authorities. If any of those men did that, there would be no reason to follow; it would be properly reported. It's no longer a PSU issue at that point. Far different than the 2001 incident.
Not at all far different. Extremely similar.
Consider me to be in a Schultz type of position. The information is brought to me, I am in charge of the follow through.
Yeah, and Schultz didn't follow through like you did. Again, totally different.
Look, you get jumped on here for things like this. I am trying to have an informative conversation with you. The scenarios are the same. Not every single detail of this particular situation but the general scenario. We were discussing Joe's response and you said, in essence, he should have done more. I am telling you he did what he was supposed to. Now, if the conversation was about Scchultz I think that is a more interesting topic. I'm not sure why he didn't do more than he did. If the ball was dropped by Penn State, it was dropped by him. But I suppose the trial will explain that to us.
A fairly high percentage of people, freeze, when confronted with a horrific, or heinous crime, in person. I have always been shocked by how few theories don't address this fact, when considering what McQueary saw in that locker room. I'm not talking about what he did, or didn't do, but what he SAW. It is not normal to see a naked, 60 year old man, in a shower, at night, with a child: It's horrific. REGARDLESS of what else was happening.
Didnt Joe follow up with mike a few weeks later? And when asked, mike said he was fine with it? Yet Joe was supose to still follow up with Tim about something he didn't see, didn't sit in on the meeting with mike, even after mike said he was fine with how it was handled?
Such a fraud.
Last edited:
Wouldn't Nassar be the $1000 question since there are over 50 accusations of abuse? I would think the football team and staff would be the $200 question because it seems there is only one victim so far (as of right now).
There is a big difference between the two situations; with that being said, I have been saying all along that Tim and Gary are the ones who I look at as ultimately dropping the ball. That doesn't mean that I can't be disappointed in Paterno's lack of a followup though.
This Old Main idiocy is just more Penn Live bullshit to blame Joe. Same with the knucklehead assertion that Joe "confessed" to Lenny Moore.
The point is you claimed the plan changed after talking to Joe. That's not true. The plan never changed. Why are you certain DPW or CYS weren't called either? Do you have proof of that?
You said it was logical. Please explain the logic.
