I tried. You just don't want to listen. Have a nice day.
Jemele Hill goes after Scott Paterno on twitter, avoids his point
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
I tried. You just don't want to listen. Have a nice day.
getmyjive11 said: ↑
Because they asked him and he said that he trusted Tim would take care of it do he didn't follow up.
Click to expand...
Didnt Joe follow up with mike a few weeks later? And when asked, mike said he was fine with it? Yet Joe was suppose 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?
No comment on this I see
Because they asked him and he said that he trusted Tim would take care of it do he didn't follow up.
Click to expand...
Didnt Joe follow up with mike a few weeks later? And when asked, mike said he was fine with it? Yet Joe was suppose 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?
No comment on this I see
THIS^^ It's the TROLLS that truly have the "Paterno worship" issues
They want him to be a superman who can see all and know all and do all. He was not a trained child pro and had no earthly idea, so he made sure to follow the rules/protocols that exist in PA and every other state for very good reason (go read them all GMJ and the rest of you- for all 50 states plus the Federal guidelines) to put the vague report with people who would know better what is to be done.
Not a superman, but a good and decent man. Who else involved in this case was so quick to express his regrets?
STATE COLLEGE, Pa., Nov. 9, 2011 — I am absolutely devastated by the developments in this case. I grieve for the children and their families, and I pray for their comfort and relief.
I have come to work every day for the last 61 years with one clear goal in mind: To serve the best interests of this university and the young men who have been entrusted to my care. I have the same goal today.
That's why I have decided to announce my retirement effective at the end of this season. At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can. This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.
My goals now are to keep my commitments to my players and staff and finish the season with dignity and determination. And then I will spend the rest of my life doing everything I can to help this University.
When you see the person who is in the Paterno role, and they inquire about how things are going, how much can you say about your follow-up? I understand that, as peers, they may be entitled to more information than a person in more of a subserviant role.
If a co-worker were to ask me about what I did with the information, I would tell them what I did with it (either reported it or didn't report it). If I learned of any more information that was pertinent to them, I would share it with them. If I learned of information that was not pertinent to them, I would tell them that I cannot share that information with them.
Honestly, once I have made the referral it is not uncommon for me to out of the loop after that. Sometimes I know if the case is being investigated, sometimes I don not. Sometimes when the cases are being investigated the investigator will come and speak with me, sometimes they will not.
Hopefully that answered you question. If not, try again and I'll give it another shot.
Last edited:
Not sure if you are supplementing my point on Troll hypocrisy or misunderstanding it.
The plan did change, look at the emails. If DPW or CYS were contacted, CSS would not be where they are right now. It would have been the very first thing that the men would have said to defend themselves.
All Paterno would have needed to know is if it was reported. Once that happens, PSU is off the hook.
On the point of reporting, jive is absolutely correct. If they had reported it (and it seems probable that they did not) they would have covered themselves. I'm looking forward to the trial to hear why they chose not to.
Incorrect. All Paterno had to do was give it to his superior and he was off the hook. You are confusing Paterno with Schultz/Curley and McQueary.
but therein lies the conundrum. Courtney testified he thought is was reported. Schultz alluded to this as well. However, we also know that CYS purges their records if there is no finding of abuse.
HOWEVER, we cannot look at this incident with hindsight. Schultz did his due diligence by consulting with Courtney. Met with McQueary. Allowed Curley to speak with Sandusky. Conferred then with Curley and Spanier.
Even with the emails Freeh provided (out of context and out of sequence), it appears they agreed they needed to inform the party responsible for following up: Second Mile.
Even the OAG, in their amended filing, admitted that even if C/S/S had heard of molestation, they were not legally required (at the time) to report it.
What seems probable, then, is that Schultz asked Courtney what would constitute a "abuse" of a child. They did not hear that from McQueary. They still decided to be prudent and inform Sandusky's employer, who WAS legally responsible at the time to investigate and report the incident.
I get that. But they did an awful lot of work to look into whether or not they should report it. If you are on the fence about whether or not to report, make the report. Better to do it and have it be not accepted for investigation then to not report it and have it turn out to be legit.
As I said, I am interested to see why they took the course of action they did.
well let's reverse engineer the Freeh report . . .
it's intent was to blame the 4 admins. Only "incriminating" emails were included. Freeh claimed his group reviewed 3 million documents, but we've seen what . . . 4 in regards to 2001? presented in the report out of order and out of context?
it is safe to assume that anything possibly exculpatory was left out of the report. So there are likely dozens of emails among the admins that paint a more thorough and deliberative opinion.
Bottom line is they didn't HAVE to report ANYTHING. It strains credulity that they made every effort NOT to report something heinous for the purpose of "protecting" the football program. Yet they DID report what they were told to the entity that WAS legally responsible for follow up/reporting.
At worst, they were unsure what to do and punted to Second Mile.
I am not denying any of that at all. The Freeh report is crap. My point is simply that seemed to be struggling with whether or not to report the information they received from McQueary. Instead of struggling with it they should have just reported it.
Legally, yes. And at that time, legally, I don't think he even had to do that because the law was terrible. But I not talking the legality of what he did. I think we all agree that reporting the incident to his superiors was fine. What we are not agreeing on is his lack of a subsequent follow up to Tim or Gary after he saw JS continuing to hang around his facility. That's where the morality part comes in. Look, I'm not saying that this was a huge sin. Of the men involved, I would put Paterno at the very bottom of the list in terms of who was responsible for allowing JS to skate this incident, but I still feel that he has to share in some of the blame. His lack of interest in making sure that this got reported after JS kept showing up is disappointing to me and many others.
but that is more hindsight bias.
Clemente seems to allude to statistics that people who are not certain of what they saw or what was reported to them will overwhelmingly err on the side of not reporting it
Exactly right. They should have just let the authorities handle the situation. One phone call could have changed everything for PSU and those that have been disgraced.
It's not hindsight. You are supposed to report ANY suspected child abuse. If in doubt, you report it.
Exactly. Clemente goes on to explain that this happens bc these types of predators groom communities for YEARS to think they would be the last person to ever hurt a kid. That way if anything borderline is reported they can rely on all that good will they built up in the community to cast doubts into people's heads. JS routinely worked out and then showered with TSM kids (via the psu approved friend fitness program) so that no one would think twice about seeing Js around lasch with kids.
Look at Nasser case at MSU for another perfect example of this.
And I am telling you that Paterno does not belong in that list. You want him on that list, leave him in your list. But the nonsense, provocative language you use that Joe wasn't interested in making sure that it was reported is misguided. He did his part, then seemingly stepped out of the process as he should have. It is not his place to tell the admins how to do their job.
It's not hindsight bias, it's experience that leads me to that statement. Again, I'm not saying what people typically do or do not do. I am saying that a lesson to be learned here is that if you are in question about making a referral, make the referral and let the professionals in that field figure out whether or not it should be investigated.
You bring up an interesting point in this response. If it was reported, there is a pretty good chance it would not have been investigated (and I am still open to the possibility that it was reported and not investigated). That being said, they should have grabbed McQueary and had him make the call. Really, he was the one with the information.
I definitely agree with erroring on the side of caution (we do have both courtney and Schultz saying they thought the same agency as 98 was told about 2001) but we do know TSM was told and they were required to look into any and all incidents so maybe the admins felt it was best to have the child care experts and mandatory reporters there handle MM's vague assumption filled report.
However if MM really did want to report suspected abuse in 01 (as opposed to a shower that made him uncomfortable) why didn't Dr. D take MM "by the hand" that very night and have him call ChildLine or uppd?!? To me the simpist explanation for that is that the sounds alone weren't enough to convice anyone (including MM) that JS was abusing some kid. MM could not verify that any abuse/molestation took place due to the fact he couldn't see any hands/privates. So maybe that's why he never filed a criminal complaint with uppd or call to childline.
We know from the Tutko case that CYS would screen complaints about people they had previously cleared. Id bet good money that if CCCYS was told by psu in 01 it was screened/brushed off. After all this was JS, whose charity CCCYS worked hand in hand with TSM and subbed worked out to them on a daily basis. IMO 98 was worse than 2001 bc you have an actual kid whose mom called uppd about JS suspect showering behavior (with not only V6 but also BK). CYS/DPW seemed pretty eager to brush this off and even brought in seasock against the wishes of schreffler and ADA Arnold to do a 180 on Chambers' opinion.
I can agree with that on its surface.
I can also tell you there are some harrowing statistics about individuals and families who have been destroyed merely by being investigated.
I think Sandusky's "reputation" was at play, and he also had some powerful allies.
The plan did not change. They simply followed through on original plan crafted by Schultz and Curley.
The second part of your last paragraph is likely the bigger issue.
I believe that was the context of Joe's conversation with Curley.
it wasn't "hey we have to cover up for the pedophile"
it was "hey this guy could crush us if we're wrong, so have your ducks in a row"
Did JS then confess to having a problem? Or did he lay on the Aw Shucks it's just ol' Jer being goofy line on him? Then, what did TC do? That case isn't covered in the notes.
You really do like to play dumb don't you? We already know what TC did after the meeting with JS. Apparently JS agreed that his behavior was wrong and needed to stop so there was no need to bring in DPW (as a third party child welfare authority to help the admins get their message across). After that TC worked with JS to inform JR at TSM about the incident (which the notes show TC was going to do with or without JS cooperation) and PSU's new directives (showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop & guest privileges revoked for JS).
Have your ducks in the row for what? Don't be silly, reporting Jerry to the authorities was a no risk proposition.
It WAS reported. The incident was reported to TSM. The "witness" was even "ok" with what was done and confirmed by Joe when he followed up with Mike. Your issue is you are taking Mike description of the incident 10 years later and basing the action on those words now. However, EVERYONES actions back then (INCLUDING MIKE) do not jive with what he said 10 years later. If anything everyone went above and beyond what they needed to do based on what Mike told them which was nothing. Even to this day Mike cant say what he told them. He continues to say "I would have said", "I made it understood", blah blah blah. He states everything but what he now says.
TSM is not the authorities. It was not reported which is why PSU got slammed.
Has anyone even hinted that it was outside of Schultz "well, I thought that maybe we reported it?" Thats not exactly something you would forget about doing.
