Joe Paterno legacy forever stained by sins of omission

[Legion of Lions]

His own university hung him. The university he fought to make better in every way. The university he gave 61 years of his life. Blaming others is a farce. Penn State BoT never gave him any benefit of doubt. He was tossed away like the leftovers of some takeout joint.

Suprise!!!!! This entire fiasco was an "inside job".

The entire PSU Scandal illusion falls apart if it were not for the collusion of the OAG & the politically connected (& therefore controlled) OGBOT!!!! Quit giving Penn State's OGBOT ANY form of independence from criminal guilt.

My real issue at this point is....where are the Feds??? The number of laws broken by the OAG is nearly limitless. I thought that was why we had a federal government - to protect those who were abused when states become too corrupt.

 

[bkmtnittany1]

I like this MOTIVE BETTER....$650K hush money was paid to Tom Corbett so he would slow walk any investigation concerning Sandusky because that would negatively effect TSM's "daily" operations. TSM was a cash cow to PA politics providing both cash, access to key individuals (who added more cash), a central "bank" of charitable deductions and charitable "projects" that political "insiders" could "harvest" and, finally it, created its own "insiders club" which could foster "grey (if not illegal) financial deals" for its members. No wonder TSM was allowed to destroy all its records....wonder how many new EXCLUSIVELY TSM victims were lost with that action. So MILLIONS of $$$ is not as good a motive as "Protecting A Football Program's Image". You could get most people to challenge that the motive of Football reputation over MONEY$$$$.

I have said this from day 1....money flowing thru the 2M into a bunch of prominent pockets. And I am still not convinced that there were not a few people on that 2M payroll that liked messing with little boys.

 

[lyndj]

100% of C/S/S's culpability depends on what McQueary told them, plain and simple. And we have no fact and no agreement on what McQueary said at that time. C/S say one thing, McQueary says another. Without supporting notes, recordings, corroboration, etc. this is an unknown and cannot be proven either way. The only possible corroboration is that both Curley and Schultz say they weren't told it was as serious as McQueary would have you believe, and Spanier also confirms that they rolled up a story that wasn't that serious. Others will say the 3 conspired to say this, and it's not really corroborated. However given the complete lack of clarity and proof as to what was said in 2001, in my mind that means reasonable doubt which means not guilty. This is why statute of limitations laws exist. This story will never be fully settled because what was said in 2001 will never be known.

I don't necessarily buy into a conspiracy as much as a decision being made and agreed upon. Again, if it was serious enough for McQ to even report it to his father and then call Paterno, who then called Curley, then it was serious. If you were told that a coach showered with your kid, you'd be alarmed and concerned and want to make sure you understand what did or didn't take place clearly from those involved. If something happens in your house, you want to know who was involved. Period. It's indefensible C/S didn't find out from Sandusky who the kid was and follow up with Raykovitz or DPW with the name of the kid. They admitted to not inquiring about who the kid was. No excuse.

 

[AvgUser]

I read through your reply. You are off-base on several fronts:

Here is the main issue with that belief. It was important enough for him to run home and tell papa, and then be told to call Paterno, then visit Paterno.

But...Dranov and papa testified that it, whatever it was, wasn't serious enough to call police. How do you reconcile that with everything?

--this man was in the shower with a young boy naked and McQ was clearly rattled enough about it to raise the issue.

Not to diminish the seriousness of the issue, they were in a shower...wouldn't you expect them to be naked? I am picking on the statement that you are trying to shock me by stating they are naked. Duh, it's a shower.

Raykovitz is not child protective services people!
.

The boy was a TSM child. He wasn't a prodigy student enrolled at the Unversity. Raykovitz is a mandated report for God's sake's. he was told that Sandusky was in the shower with a youth. Hello????

 

[michnittlion]

Move on folks. Why obsess over some column by some writer in Orlando?

5 years and nothing tangible to change opinion as regards Joe, Sandusky's imprisoned & his appeals aren't making progress, C/S/S had their own trials, and the NCAA probation is in the rear-view window.

All that did suck. But it's also all in the past and means nothing (unless we obsess and thereby let them mean something) to our school's bright future.

 

[bjf1991]

It's indefensible C/S didn't find out from Sandusky who the kid was and follow up with Raykovitz or DPW with the name of the kid. .

Good Grief, Charlie Brown

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

As long as the courts keep agreeing with MM's version of events it will be impossible to turn the narrative. About the only thing they didn't agree with MM about was that JerBer had his penis in an anus of a 10 year old boy that night in the shower. Everything else... they bought, hook, line and sinker.

 

[lyndj]

Oh please....and yet it wasn't serious/definitive enough for MM to call UPPD/CYS or for JM/Dr. D (two folks trained in how to report suspected child abuse) to have MM call UPPD or CYS that night. Instead sleep on it then tell a football coach (aka handle it as an inappropriate HR complaint not a criminal complaint). Also it wasn't serious enough for MM to give one sliver of dissatisfaction when Curely called him 4 or 5 days later to follow up with PSU's action plan of banning JS and informing TSM, a plan which didn't include UPPD coming to get Mike's statement nor JS getting arrested and questioned.....

Yep, that's makes perfect sense if MM was 99.999% sure a kid was getting raped that night as he has contented in court...as opposed to him not being sure about anything other than the shower was inappropriate/weirded him out.

In summary here is the metadata that shows what MM reported in 2001 wasn't as definitive/serious as he made it out to be 9 years later in his first written statement to the OAG/LE in general in 2010 re: 2001 incident:

1. Lack of filing a FORMAL police report/written statement to UPPD in 2001. As the one and only witness it was incumbent on him to do this if he wanted something formally done to look into JS if he felt the admins informal investigation wasn't enough.
2. MM/JM consider calling the police that night but don't, Dr. D goes on to say that what MM reported that night didn't warrant a call to UPPD/CYS
3. MM's lack of dissatisfaction with TC's action plan that didn't involve UPPD coming to get his statement and JS getting arrested. He was apparently perfectly ok with them letting TSM handle this report.
4. In Spanier's trial not one single witness produced by the state corroborated MM's version of events, that he reported a "sexual" shower in 2001.

Read: I stated that McQ does not get a pass as he is the first person who should have done something other than running, same goes for his Dad, Dranov and all those adults thereafter. They are all to blame, but this happened on PSU's campus, not Dranov's house or McQ's house, therefore it was C/S responsibility to make sure they handled the situation thoroughly. If they never inquired who the kid on their campus was--they didn't handle it thoroughly.

 

[lyndj]

Good Grief, Charlie Brown

Yes, good grief is my reaction to this whole situation.

 

[lyndj]

I read through your reply. You are off-base on several fronts:


But...Dranov and papa testified that it, whatever it was, wasn't serious enough to call police. How do you reconcile that with everything?


Not to diminish the seriousness of the issue, they were in a shower...wouldn't you expect them to be naked? I am picking on the statement that you are trying to shock me by stating they are naked. Duh, it's a shower. --Yes, just meant that they didn't have swimsuits on (as suggested by the idiot Raykovitz). But my point still stands which is that it raises serous issues regardless of what McQ thought, if you are in a high level position in an organization as C/S were--that report is concerning no matter how serious/non-serious the witness thinks it is.




The boy was a TSM child. He wasn't a prodigy student enrolled at the Unversity. Raykovitz is a mandated report for God's sake's. he was told that Sandusky was in the shower with a youth. Hello????

--really?? So because the kid was a TSM kid, you wash your hands and don't find out who the kid is?? He was in the showers on YOUR freaking campus!!!! What is not clicking here??? Unbelievable. Bottom line, you can't take interest in the welfare of a child if you don't know who the hell the kid is to begin with nor do you bother to ask anybody. It should have been a common sense reaction.

 

[CDLionFL]

The Orlando Sentinel is a POS rag. I finally canceled them 5 years ago specifically because of a column that asshat Diaz wrote right after the Freeh (of facts) Report came out. I emailed Diaz to tell him how much of a hack he was and he responded but I never read his response as I had no more time for his stupidity. He and his hack friend Bianchi are two of the worst around. And for someone in ORLANDO to write something about this 5-6 years after the fact is someone that is BEGGING to be noticed.

So there are two schools of thought...both of which I support -- pepper the bastard with tweets and emails telling him that he's a dumbass....or just ignore the troll.

 

[humpydudas19]

You have to wonder about the brain capacity/function of witless wonders who spend their lives lying about, and attempting to slur Paterno and Penn State.

 

[bjf1991]

--really?? So because the kid was a TSM kid, you wash your hands and don't find out who the kid is?? He was in the showers on YOUR freaking campus!!!! What is not clicking here??? Unbelievable. Bottom line, you can't take interest in the welfare of a child if you don't know who the hell the kid is to begin with nor do you bother to ask anybody. It should have been a common sense reaction.

Good Grief.

With Dr Raykovitz on the stand, the Spanier Trial was BEGGING the defense to establish the following facts:

A – That Dr Raykovitz was the recipient of a report that – at the least:

Sandusky, their employee (and founder) was showering, alone, and – at the least – “horsing around with” – a 2nd mile child in the shower.


B – The incident evolved in such a manner that it – at the least – made the witness to the event very uncomfortable

C - That – as a result – the reporter (PSU/Curley) had taken the actions of BANNING Sandusky from bringing 2nd Mile kids on campus.

These are ALL uncontested facts.


That Dr Raykovitz’s response (along with 2nd Mile Trustee Bruce Heim) was “If you’re telling me Sandusky is a pedophile, you’re crazy”…


And that the actions taken by Raykovitz were limited to telling Sandusky only that he was to wear swim trunks when showering with children in the future.

These are ALL uncontested facts.

The defense was practically dragged - begged - to bring forward the conclusions that Raykovitz and the 2nd Mile:
- did not investigate the incident
- did not identify and meet with the child and the child’s parents/guardian
- did not make a report to DPW or any other agencies

The Defense - bewilderingly (to say the least) - refused to do ANY of this.

Otherwise, the defense would have then been set up to then ask Dr Raykovitz…..

"What should have been the protocol - - - when a report comes to you that your employee/founder was, AT THE LEAST, showering alone with a 2nd Mile Child, and engaging in, AT THE LEAST, "horseplay" that led the observer to be very concerned, and that, AT THE LEAST, led the folks on site to BANISH Sandusky from bringing children onto their premises."
Allow Dr Jack to answer that question with:

"The proper protocol was for me - as the professional director of a licensed, state-regulated child welfare agency - to tell Jerry to wear swim trunks"...... and then watch the courtroom burst into laughter


And the defense, in knowing that the required protocol was to initiate an investigation – and identify the child – and notify the parents etc etc

[At which point, by the way, the trial of the "PSU Three" is over…….as the simple argument becomes:
It is impossible to be guilty of endangering the welfare of a child by failing to “report”….when a report WAS made to the officials who SHOULD HAVE, who were DUTY BOUND TO, based on such a report – to investigate the incident.
At that point, not only do CSS walk away as free men – whether one feels that is important or not, whether one feels that is proper or not…….
but also opens the door – kicks down the door – to FINALLY investigating the 2nd mile, and drastically “changing the narrative” of the entire affair.]

 

[dbsteel]

They all(MM, Joe, Curley, Shultz, Spanier, and the victims) F'ed up. The limited info, rumors and whatever should have been passed on to the police. At that point PSU would have been in the clear.



The victim wanted to confront Joe. Why didn't he confront Sandusky and go to the police?

Joe never should have been involved but once he was he needed to pass the info to the police. At that point he would have been totally in the clear. The same goes for MM, Curley, Shultz, Spanier and anyone that had info, rumors or whatever. I doubt it would have prevented any abuse but PSU would have been in the clear. Until the victims go to the police nothing would have been done to Sandusky.

Right. Should have called the police, and the whole thing would have ended. Probably the guy who supposedly saw it but yet didn't pull the kid out of the shower. The whole "let's throw it up the chain till it stops" was crap.

 

[WeR0206]

Read: I stated that McQ does not get a pass as he is the first person who should have done something other than running, same goes for his Dad, Dranov and all those adults thereafter. They are all to blame, but this happened on PSU's campus, not Dranov's house or McQ's house, therefore it was C/S responsibility to make sure they handled the situation thoroughly. If they never inquired who the kid on their campus was--they didn't handle it thoroughly.

The point of highlighting Dr. D's reaction (not bad enough to call police) was to corroborate the fact that MM didn't report a sexual shower/99.9% child abuse in 2001, not to say that it happened under his watch, all of the abuse happened under TSM's watch, not PSU. The PSU admins did handle the situation seriously, the only thing they could control re: JS was his ability to bring kids onto PSU campus, a right they revoked after 2001. TSM/CYS were the only folks who had control over JS' access to kids and were the only ones who could answer who the eff JS was with that night and they completely failed to (as far as we know) do that. That failure is on TSM not the college admins who had no insight/control over JS' access to kids.

It's not the job of college admins to play detective and find out who the hell a TSM employee was with, you know what would have helped with that effort? MM filing a police report so LE could do the sniffing around and interview JS, JR, et al to find out who JS was with that night. But as we all know that never happened, thanks Mike!

The only person who knows for sure who JS was with that night was JS (but can't trust his word), the next best place to find out who the kid was --> JR/TSM, you know, the folks TC forwarded his report to and had a legal and professional obligation to get to the bottom of it and make any reports to CC CYS if needed.

 

[kgilbert78]

Move on folks. Why obsess over some column by some writer in Orlando?

5 years and nothing tangible to change opinion as regards Joe, Sandusky's imprisoned & his appeals aren't making progress, C/S/S had their own trials, and the NCAA probation is in the rear-view window.

All that did suck. But it's also all in the past and means nothing (unless we obsess and thereby let them mean something) to our school's bright future.

Because it will never be left in the past by the press, etc. At least not in my lifetime. We've already seen this with the Frat case.

Plus, for many of us, it's about our personal honor. This was specifically impugned by not only the NCAA but by our own administration. That's something that is ongoing and not in the past.

As another poster on these boards said about our administration:

Don't insinuate that I, and every other Penn State alum, put football ahead of children's welfare and then come ask me for money.

Or, I might add, anything else.

 

[step.eng69]

As another poster on these boards said about our administration:

Don't insinuate that I, and every other Penn State alum, put football ahead of children's welfare and then come ask me for money.

Or, I might add, anything else.

Powerful...

 

[lyndj]

The point of highlighting Dr. D's reaction (not bad enough to call police) was to corroborate the fact that MM didn't report a sexual shower/99.9% child abuse in 2001, not to say that it happened under his watch, all of the abuse happened under TSM's watch, not PSU. The PSU admins did handle the situation seriously, the only thing they could control re: JS was his ability to bring kids onto PSU campus, a right they revoked after 2001. TSM/CYS were the only folks who had control over JS' access to kids and were the only ones who could answer who the eff JS was with that night and they completely failed to (as far as we know) do that. That failure is on TSM not the college admins who had no insight/control over JS' access to kids.

It's not the job of college admins to play detective and find out who the hell a TSM employee was with, you know what would have helped with that effort? MM filing a police report so LE could do the sniffing around and interview JS, JR, et al to find out who JS was with that night. But as we all know that never happened, thanks Mike!

The only person who knows for sure who JS was with that night was JS (but can't trust his word), the next best place to find out who the kid was --> JR/TSM, you know, the folks TC forwarded his report to and had a legal and professional obligation to get to the bottom of it and make any reports to CC CYS if needed.

You seem to still be missing the point--if something happens on your campus it is in your best interest to know who was involved in said incident. C/S failed to even find out who was involved in the incident. You're passing it off to 2nd Mile but that s*it did not happen AT 2nd mile, it happened at PSU. And again, if there was zero concern, why would McQ seem rattled by it (as told by Paterno)?? That is not to say McQ's story on exactly what happened didn't change but there is no dispute that he was concerned.

And you are correct, the only person who knows for sure who JS was with that night was JS BECAUSE no one else every inquired who the heck he was with. Why is that difficult to understand?

 

[bjf1991]

You seem to still be missing the point--if something happens on your campus it is in your best interest to know who was involved in said incident. C/S failed to even find out who was involved in the incident. You're passing it off to 2nd Mile but that s*it did not happen AT 2nd mile, it happened at PSU. And again, if there was zero concern, why would McQ seem rattled by it (as told by Paterno)?? That is not to say McQ's story on exactly what happened didn't change but there is no dispute that he was concerned.

And you are correct, the only person who knows for sure who JS was with that night was JS BECAUSE no one else every inquired who the heck he was with. Why is that difficult to understand?

Uh...... because it's irrelevant?

The folks who DID have access to the information necessary to disseminate "who the kid was" ..... were those very same folks who the "report" (in whatever form, in whatever form you want to believe it was delivered, even in its MOST "watered down" version) was presented to.

And ain't no one with an IQ over room temperature, who wouldn't logically assume that those folks with those two required pieces of information - - - - both the "report", and access to the information needed to identify "the kid" - - - wouldn't, shouldn't, or at least couldn't, do exactly that.


Jeebzus

 

[lyndj]

Uh...... because it's irrelevant?

The folks who DID have access to the information necessary to disseminate "who the kid was" ..... were those very same folks who the "report" (in whatever form, in whatever form you want to believe it was delivered, even in its MOST "watered down" version) was presented to.

And ain't no one with an IQ over room temperature, who wouldn't logically assume that those folks with those two required pieces of information - - - - both the "report", and access to the information needed to identify "the kid" - - - wouldn't, shouldn't, or at least couldn't, do exactly that.


Jeebzus

Name the folks you are referring to.

 

[bjf1991]

Name the folks you are referring to.

Shirley, you can't be serious?

 

[lyndj]

Shirley, you can't be serious?

I don't know who Shirley is--and I'm serious. If you're going to have a discussion, be adult about it and spell out names. If you choose not to, fine, then my discussion with you is done.

 

[WeR0206]

Uh...... because it's irrelevant?

The folks who DID have access to the information necessary to disseminate "who the kid was" ..... were those very same folks who the "report" (in whatever form, in whatever form you want to believe it was delivered, even in its MOST "watered down" version) was presented to.

And ain't no one with an IQ over room temperature, who wouldn't logically assume that those folks with those two required pieces of information - - - - both the "report", and access to the information needed to identify "the kid" - - - wouldn't, shouldn't, or at least couldn't, do exactly that.


Jeebzus

This ^^^^^^^^^^^

No way @lyndj is so dense to not see what you illustrated above.

THE PEOPLE WHO COULD HAVE ID'd V2 WERE AT TSM....PSU forwarded the report to TSM. At that moment it's out of their hands and in the hands of the child care experts and folks legally required to get to the bottom of it and take any further appropriate actions via their mandatory reporter requirements.

If MM did make a written report to UPPD in 2001 the first place they would have went to find out who JS was with (aside from asking him directly which they would take with a grain of salt) would be JR and TSM. There is no arguing around this. TSM was the ONLY entity that was supposed to keep track of who was accessing their kids and when, etc..no other entity would know that info.

It's absolutely preposterous say that the admins made a mistake in 2001 by trusting the child care experts and mandatory reporters at TSM to follow the law and do their damned jobs.

 

[bjf1991]

This ^^^^^^^^^^^

No way @lyndj is so dense to not see what you illustrated above .

One would think

 

[royboy]

I don't know who Shirley is--and I'm serious. If you're going to have a discussion, be adult about it and spell out names. If you choose not to, fine, then my discussion with you is done.

 

[lyndj]

This ^^^^^^^^^^^

No way @lyndj is so dense to not see what you illustrated above.

THE PEOPLE WHO COULD HAVE ID'd V2 WERE AT TSM....PSU forwarded the report to TSM. At that moment it's out of their hands and in the hands of the child care experts and folks legally required to get to the bottom of it and take any further appropriate actions via their mandatory reporter requirements.--Because it's not like Sandusky wasn't on PSU's campus and they couldn't call him in and inquire? No, that would be too damn practical. It would have been too much extra work.

If MM did make a written report to UPPD in 2001 the first place they would have went to find out who JS was with (aside from asking him directly which they would take with a grain of salt) would be JR and TSM. There is no arguing around this. TSM was the ONLY entity that was supposed to keep track of who was accessing their kids and when, etc..no other entity would know that info.
Well, you don't know if you have no interest in inquiring about it!!

It's absolutely preposterous say that the admins made a mistake in 2001 by trusting the child care experts and mandatory reporters at TSM to follow the law and do their damned jobs.

Yeah, well, I tend to feel C/S didn't thoroughly do theirs.

Bottom line, we do not see eye to eye on this situation. The only thing we're in agreement with is that TSM got off the hook big time, MM is a coward, and there was no conspiracy. So I'll agree to disagree with you and @bfj1991 on how thoroughly this was handled. I think it was sloppy at best and something people tend to do in close knit organizations. If Sandusky was a stranger, I have no doubt it would have been handled completely differently.

 

[WeR0206]

Yeah, well, I tend to feel C/S didn't thoroughly do theirs.

Bottom line, we do not see eye to eye on this situation. The only thing we're in agreement with is that TSM got off the hook big time, MM is a coward, and there was no conspiracy. So I'll agree to disagree with you and @bfj1991 on how thoroughly this was handled. I think it was sloppy at best and something people tend to do in close knit organizations. If Sandusky was a stranger, I have no doubt it would have been handled completely differently.

I agree that in hindsight they didn't handle it as thoroughly as they should have, they admitted as much during the Spanier trial. My point is they handled it appropriately knowing what they did at the time (no police report by the witness, no dissatisfaction expressed by witness when admin's action plan was communicated).

If the one and only witness never felt strongly enough to file a police report and never expressed one word of dissatisfaction or that more needed to be done (like say have someone from UPPD come get my statement so JS can be arrested and questioned) when TC followed up with MM 4/5 days after their initial meeting (a fact freeh just happened to leave out of his "report"), then why would the admins at the time think the report wasn't handled properly?

IOW, from the admin's perspective, if the one and only witness gave ZERO indication he wasn't satisfied then why would the admins think otherwise?

 

[lyndj]

I agree that in hindsight they didn't handle it as thoroughly as they should have, they admitted as much during the Spanier trial. My point is they handled it appropriately knowing what they did at the time (no police report by the witness, no dissatisfaction expressed by witness when admin's action plan was communicated).

If the one and only witness never felt strongly enough to file a police report and never expressed one word of dissatisfaction or that more needed to be done (like say have someone from UPPD come get my statement so JS can be arrested and questioned) when TC followed up with MM 4/5 days after their initial meeting (a fact freeh just happened to leave out of his "report"), then why would the admins at the time think the report wasn't handled properly?

IOW, from the admin's perspective, if the one and only witness gave ZERO indication he wasn't satisfied then why would the admins think otherwise?

Here's the thing: It was not their job to make sure MM is satisfied with their actions, it was their job to make sure they covered their bases as leaders of PSU and that they left no stone unturned that could come back to bite the school later (surprise!). What was the point of seeking counsel only to choose to ignore the advice? Why put all of your trust in TSM to handle the situation appropriately when you know the perpetrator in question founded the organization and was Chairman of it? And to double down, you knew this wasn't his first time at the rodeo?? Was the kid's parent every notified? Oh right, they were hoping TSM would follow up on that one, even while TSM was telling Sandusky to wear a swimsuit next time. wtf. I appreciate the conversation though and realize it's been covered ad nauseum.

 

[WeR0206]

Why put all of your trust in TSM to handle the situation appropriately when you know the perpetrator in question founded the organization and was Chairman of it?

Uhh, because the one and only witness refused to file a written statement/police report, the folks at TSM were 1000X more qualified to handle MM's vague assumption riddled report, and TSM was REQUIRED BY LAW to look into it and make appropriate reports to CYS, LE, etc..

They didn't need to hope TSM would follow up/look into it, TSM was REQUIRED to. That failure is on JR/TSM not the college admins as the OAG is desperate to perpetuate. It wasn't the PSU admins job to make sure TSM followed the law, that duty fell to the very OAG making the absurd accusations against the PSU admins in the first place, unreal.

Again, you (and the OAG) are essentially faulting the PSU admins for not having the foresight that TSM/JR would completely ignore all state laws and internal policies by only suggesting that JS wear swim trunks in the future as a response to PSU revoking JS' guest privileges due to another inappropriate shower.

The admins had no control over JS' access to kids (TSM did), the one thing they did have control over was his guest privileges on campus which they revoked and then made TSM aware.

 

[marshall23]

You would have to live in a dream world to deny that JR and BH didn't and don't know who "V2" is.

 

[bkmtnittany1]

People have been told from the beginning of this whole sordid mess to stay away from the 2M. Why? Simple, $$$$$$$ and corruption. And NOBODY in the state is clean. Look what happened to the last AG who took on the 'good-ole boy' network.

 

[Nit16]

As long as the courts keep agreeing with MM's version of events it will be impossible to turn the narrative. About the only thing they didn't agree with MM about was that JerBer had his penis in an anus of a 10 year old boy that night in the shower. Everything else... they bought, hook, line and sinker.

There's something about you and your posting that is despicable. Just sayin.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

There's something about you and your posting that is despicable. Just sayin.

Nit16... different handle, same asshole

 

[Royal_Coaster]

You seem to still be missing the point--if something happens on your campus it is in your best interest to know who was involved in said incident. C/S failed to even find out who was involved in the incident. You're passing it off to 2nd Mile but that s*it did not happen AT 2nd mile, it happened at PSU. And again, if there was zero concern, why would McQ seem rattled by it (as told by Paterno)?? That is not to say McQ's story on exactly what happened didn't change but there is no dispute that he was concerned.

And you are correct, the only person who knows for sure who JS was with that night was JS BECAUSE no one else every inquired who the heck he was with. Why is that difficult to understand?

So how would the administrators find out the name of the kid who was with Jerry? I suppose they could ask Jerry, but he could simply make up some name, right? They could take out an ad in the CDT, but I don't know if they'd get a serious response to "anyone with any information on the kid that got buttf***ed in the showers at Lasch Building on February 9, call Graham Spanier at xxx-xxxx." And we all know JackieR is innocent and had absolutely no inkling there was anything amiss re: Sandusky. Even though his wife said they had to keep him away from certain kids before.

 

[Bayou Lion]

Here's the thing: It was not their job to make sure MM is satisfied with their actions, it was their job to make sure they covered their bases as leaders of PSU and that they left no stone unturned that could come back to bite the school later (surprise!). What was the point of seeking counsel only to choose to ignore the advice? Why put all of your trust in TSM to handle the situation appropriately when you know the perpetrator in question founded the organization and was Chairman of it? And to double down, you knew this wasn't his first time at the rodeo?? Was the kid's parent every notified? Oh right, they were hoping TSM would follow up on that one, even while TSM was telling Sandusky to wear a swimsuit next time. wtf. I appreciate the conversation though and realize it's been covered ad nauseum.

The biggest mistake the admins made was not getting MM statement written down. It would have made this whole situation much easier to understand and prevented the story from being trumped up at a later date.

 

[bjf1991]

The biggest mistake the admins made was not getting MM statement written down. .

It's hindsight, of course, but that ^^^^ is (and always has been) one of the tragedies
On one hand, hard to believe no one documented in reasonable detail ..... on the other hand, WTF can anyone do about that since 2009?

 

[kgilbert78]

It's hindsight, of course, but that ^^^^ is (and always has been) one of the tragedies
On one hand, hard to believe no one documented in reasonable detail ..... on the other hand, WTF can anyone do about that since 2009?

If they thought it wasn't that important, then I could see why. You also have the change in PSU's computer systems between 2001 and 2011, which could have cause a lot of stuff to be lost or inaccessible (read the story about finding the original e-mail at Carnegie Mellon [link] that proposed the original emoticons--the files existed but in computer files that required old computers be restored to actually read them) . If anything went to the state it would have been purged per state law after a certain period of time had passed. Finally there's the alleged Schultz file, which I believe has not been entered into evidence anywhere (which is why I call it alleged).

 

[Nit16]

Nit16... different handle, same asshole

Scum