Just The Facts About Joe Paterno
- Thread starter bplionfan
- Start date
BP, 'upon further review', this info may have come from Jay's 'Paterno Legacy' book.
Regarding the crime McQ witnessed:
Another recent aspect that is widely brushed aside:
Eschbach (sp) testified at the Sandusky relief hearings last month. She testified that she was the person who wrote the GJ presentment that included the two-word phrase 'anal rape'. That phrase was the lit match that ignited the dumpster fire. She also testified that McQ never said that phrase in his GJ testimony. So, she wrote the presentment... next obvious question is did she use those two words of her own volition, or was she told to put those words in? (If so, Fina leaps to mind.)
McQ testified to something going on, of course, but not anal rape. That leap was the undoing of it all and transformed JVP into the bright shiny object that the media could not resist. (I use your phrases, Wensilver, because they perfectly describe these things.)
I think I read about her testimony on here (maybe by Jmmy?), but could be that I heard it from somewhere else, like Twitter. In any event, between that and the other stuff that came out as a result of those hearings (the judge compelling Ganim to testify and telling Shubin to make sure that AF appears and testifies in the next round of hearings, among other things such as the pre-trial bail "negotiation" at the Hilton Gardens that apparently violated JS's rights), I'm thinking a re-trial is more likely than I previously thought.
And it sure gives any intellectually curious journalist something real to pursue and write about, so I suspect we'll not hear another word about it from any 'journalist' ever.
We'll agree to disagree, which is fine.
On the broad strokes we generally agree that the people who had the greatest obligation to protect the kids of TSM were given enough information to stop it and didn't.
We also agree that letting TSM go unmentioned is a travesty. That such a blatant failure of leadership (to be kind) could take place and remain under the radar is disgusting. I'm not sure there's any reason to hope someone will trumpet that part of story someday? It's certainly there for the taking.
An email stating that they were leaving themselves vulnerable if he didn't get the message for starters.
You can choose to believe Spanier's explanation. I do not.
Then there's the matter of 98. I have a difficult time believing it didn't come up in 2001. What possible reason for it not being discussed is there? Spanier was copied in on it when it happened. It was certainly relevant to what they were discussing. I don't see it being left out of the process of what to do in 2001.
Pretending like there's nothing damming to C/S/S in the Freeh report is silly IMO. Where Freeh went off the rails was trying to tie football and Joe to a conspiracy.
JMO.
Interesting observation. I wonder if there's any connection between Freeh's "going off the rails" and the NCAA having provided investigative training and direction to his PSU team.
Excellent point.
There are definitely similarities between the Freeh investigation/conclusion and the NCAA's tactics.
How is that a negative against them? They knew of the "false" accusations in 1998, they damn well better have been worried that more false accusations could lead to legal trouble for PSU.
What are you talking about? Spanier claims he didn't know about 98.
Spanier specifically referenced leaving themselves vulnerable for not reporting it. It's pretty straight forward.
We aren't just talking about Spanier.
You read way too much into Spanier's comments. His comments in no way prove he knew anything. Even low level administrators should be trained to think the exact same way.
Wendy....You get it!!! This is and has always been nothing but a political assassination by one of the most morally bankrupt people in history - Tom Corbett.
Please trace everyone of the "actors" who are central to this manufactured "scandal". THEY ALL POINT BACK TO CORBETT!!!
Among others....Corbett had more than $600,000 worth of motive (that we know of) to engineer pay his political PR "team" to create the "Sports cover-up" story for the TSM organization. What is Penn State's motive - to protect the image of the Football team??? This outweighs $$$$. What dreamworld does the public live in???? Trust the word of a politician over ANYONE????
I am consistently amazed that the debate on this matter always goes to "details" of one statement...what MM's transcript said...what shoes Paterno wore when the "Scandal" broke. It is like re-living the "Paul is Dead" era. Every "back-fill fantasy" imaginable is created... which, in turn, creates more "evidence" BASED ON THAT NEW SPECULATION. As a society we are TRULY DUMB!!!!!
Sorry JZ -But sometimes it is what it is. THIS ENTIRE MATTER IS A WELL ENGINEERED CONSPIRACY. It is a conspiracy of collusion and convenience. Money...REAL MONEY (over $100M).... has flowed into the pockets of every one of the major players in this disaster. And, most importantly, it has been accomplished WITH THE HELP OF A CORRUPT PA GOVERNMENT AND COURT SYSTEM!!!!
The crimes committed here by elected officials and the very institutions that are created to protect citizens MUST BE UNCOVERED AND PROSECUTED. Too much is at stake for the entire state and nation for this engineered deception to continue to succeed.
You're choosing to believe this because it's fits your agenda. In reality is there's ample evidence to the contrary.
And you're right, we're not just talking about Spanier. When you see the email he was replying to the context makes it hard to believe what Spanier claims.
Curley's email is clear that informing TSM is part of the plan. That means "the only downside is we leave ourselves vulnerable for not reporting it" is referring to reporting it to the proper agency. He knew what they were required to do, and that they weren't planning on doing it.
Curley's email also states he plans on informing Sandusky they're "aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help". This flies in the face of Spanier's "explanation".
The fact anyone thinks he isn't lying about having knowledge of 98 in 2001 is laughable. There's no way it wasn't discussed. That's just common sense. Curley referencing it in his email is just icing on the cake.
As far as claiming he wasn't concerned about it being anything other than "horseplay", it's hard to believe. People generally don't throw around getting someone "professional help" if they're only worried about "how it would look" as Spanier claims.
The truth is Spanier's professional and educational background make it nearly impossible for him to have seen it as totally innocent. He's a former family therapist that introduced "Sexualization" into the American lexicon. He's had some training in CSA and has a particular interest in sexuality. This goes completely unmentioned here.
I'm not reading into anything other than what's there in black and white.
You're inferring a whole bunch of stuff that is not actually in those emails.
And yet, we haven't SEEN these emails as originally pulled from the server.
You are choosing to believe what Louis Freeh placed in that report - and Freeh has had a history of altering emails. These are the emails he claimed his team to have discovered via a combination of skill and luck. The emails that our OAG somehow had in their possession BEFORE Louis Freeh and his team was even hired.
Imagine that!
I think you have to question everything. Especially when we know Freeh LIED. Especially when we know Fina did NOT need Mike McQueary. Especially when we know Fina & McGettigan were advised NOT to use Cynthia Baldwin as part of their strategy. Especially when we've NOT been informed of the actions or inactions of outside agencies responsible for these kids.
Too much time is spent discussing this particular aspect - which in the end, was never needed to properly investigate, charge and convict. I have yet to see any quality discussion on the individuals involved OFF CAMPUS that not only had a legal obligation to "do more", but a professional one as well.
We can start with Dr. Chambers and her professional peers that discussed 1998. We can then move on to the licensed professionals & agencies that they escalated complaints to. Let's discuss why Matt Sandusky was placed with a phone call and didn't go into licensed care first.
To this day, these people stand in the shadows, ascribing to a Code of Silence - while the Nation churns on about Joe - goaded on by the sports media (who hasn't a clue on how to properly report on the matter) and the PA papers that whiffed on sniffing out a Child Sex Offender hiding in plain sight of PA Child Welfare Professionals.
Imagine that - our own Child Protective Services System that enabled a Sex Offender.
I still maintain that if this was about an Executive Director at the SPCA abusing dogs, the media and the populace would be in the SPCA parking lot threatening to torch the place until they got answers.
Lynne Abraham was allowed to go AWOL on her Second Mile investigation and the media yawns.
and Freeh has had a history of altering emails.
I'm not saying that statement is false but I just googled "Louis Freeh altered emails" and did not come up with any results. Could you direct me to those examples.
Ironically, you're choosing to believe this because it's fits your agenda. In reality is there's ample evidence to the contrary.
Look at Christine Reitano's case.
It's still begs the question of why Freeh lied on the national stage about his team finding those emails, when we all know damned well he got them from Frank Fina & his fellow pornslingers.
It's reasonable to conclude that Freeh cherry-picked the content to suit his agenda and help fuel the AG's case against PSU.
That's the best he could do? 3 crummy emails?
That's IT? Half a BILLION in sum total of costs to this epic mess - all over 3 CRUMMY EMAILS?
We women demand better accuracy when peeing on a plastic stick to determine pregnancy.
Last edited:
Wow, Freeh really is a scumbag. Excerpt from the article...
Freeh's accusation of wrongdoing against Reitano appears to have been made on the basis of a single sworn statement made to his investigators by a private lawyer. In that statement, the lawyer allegedly said that Reitano sought a kickback in a claims case. By Freeh's own admission, the lawyer's statement was not recorded but was reconstructed from investigative notes.
The private lawyer later filed a sworn statement in court saying that Freeh's recounting of what she had said was entirely inaccurate. In a subsequent hearing, Barbier observed from the bench that Freeh had no evidence Reitano had done anything wrong. However, Reitano claims the damage had already been done.
Freeh has never recanted his original allegations, though attorney Greg Paw, who has taken the lead in the case on behalf of Freeh Group International Solutions, admitted to Barbier that there is no evidence Reitano did anything wrong.
http://louisianarecord.com/stories/...eepwater-horizon-fraud-corruption-allegations
I looked at the Reitano case and the allegation that Freeh misstated the statement of a witness he interviewed. There was no reference to the altering of emails.
Did I miss something?
Gotta
Troll
About
Child
Sexual
Abuse
Troll
About
Child
Sexual
Abuse
What evidence exists that C/S/S might be guilty of some charges?
For them to be guilty of failure to report they have to be mandatory reporters and you have to believe that MM told them about sexual assault. I guess that's possible but it seems unlikely that both are true.
But the larger issue has nothing to do with simple failure to report. It has to do with the notion that they intentionally covered up for JS in order to protect football. Where is there an ounce of evidence that this happened?
Yes.
You missed July 12th, 2012 when Freeh LIED to us in the Westin Ballroom - and on a national stage - about finding those emails.
Stop with the deflection - you can't get my goat on this issue.
Freeh LIED to me, you and the rest of the world that day - and he did it with ease. And he did it with the full knowledge of MY Office of Attorney General standing off in the shadows.
That should bother you. If it doesn't - then this convo is over.
Well it appears then you were incorrect in stating that Freeh had a history of altering emails. That's fine.
I have always thought that Freeh had no right to hold that press conference which was classless grandstanding.
I
Ladies and gentlemen, meet Wendy Silverwood. All she does is win.
No there isn't. There's Spanier's claims and that's all.
That's why all you can do is deflect without substance. Curley's email plain as day references 98. Are you going to pretend Spanier had no idea what "the first situation" was or why Curley wanted to assist him in getting "professional help"?
There's no getting around 98 being discussed in 2001. That means Spanier is lying about at least one thing.
Using these emails as proof of a conspiracy to protect PSU football is a huge stretch to say the least. To dismiss them completely, especially when they expose obvious lies, is putting blinders on.
Guess that is why she is always posting about how nobody listens to her or takes any action based on her input.
Just exactly what does she win?
If you are simply going to keep repeating your non-fact based opinion, could you at least do it in a timely manner? Some of us have lives, and can't wait for you to keep up.
You've done nothing but post your agenda driven version, that makes no logical sense. If you want to have a discussion like an adult, please stop deflecting and simply stay on topic.
Last edited:
I'm not arguing that Freeh proved some conspiracy to protect football.
I've openly stated Freeh's conclusions about Joe and football are asinine. All you have to do is compare Joe's testimony to the others he was supposedly part of a conspiracy with.
I'm talking about the evidence that C/S/S are lying when they claim they were told it was innocent horseplay and never suspected it was more.
It's clear that 98 was discussed in 2001. They're claiming it wasn't. Spanier is claiming he didn't know anything about it until 2011. That is an outright lie. He claims that he was never concerned about anything other than "how it would look". That's another lie.
Read the emails. You're being intentionally obtuse if you can't see they're talking about something more than horseplay. Spanier is a former family therapist that has done significant studies on sexuality. He knows what grooming is.
They decided it was better to pass the buck to TSM rather than report it themselves. Considering how TSM has escaped any scrutiny it's obvious TSM had major political clout. 3 administrators putting politics first isn't unheard of.
But keep pretending it's all a misunderstanding that's been manipulated, and that they wouldn't lie.
I'm not so sure they are lying about what MM told them. It makes no sense to me that:
MM's Dad said that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault
Dranov said that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault
Joe said that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault
Curley said that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault
Shultz said that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault
Why would we believe some but not others?
I don't recall evidence that Curley knew about 1998. I do recall evidence that Shultz was told about 1998. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless, it's quite possible that Shultz's comment that he didn't know about 1998 meant that he didn't know that JS had abused kids. After all, no charges were filed.
I'll agree with this much. I think Shultz was covering his rear end during his testimony. I think a lot of people have been covering their rear ends starting with the BOT, TSM, child agencies, Corbett, John McQueary, Dranov, etc. But that doesn't mean they were knowingly allowing JS to molest kids or that they were conspiring to keep things quiet in order to protect football.
WTF are you talking about. Here, let me google that for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=louis+freeh+altered+emails
Asshole!
You keep relying on Freeh's inferences about what those emails say.
I read them and take them at face value.
They say nothing about a sexual assault.
They say nothing about conspiring to keep something secret.
They essentially support exactly what the three accused say: That they received a report of some unacceptable behavior by a FORMER employee, and they were making a good faith effort to address it. Everything else is BS cooked up by Fina and Freeh.
Similar threads
