Latest in Paterno v NCAA

[rmb297]

@rmb297 , Ray, check out Appendix B of the Moulton Report, Madeira's letter to Richard Sheetz. Notice how it lays out how the JS case went from Clinton County CYS, to the Clinton Co. DA to Madeira and then on to the OAG's office. By strange coincidence, that's all laid out in Ganim's March 31st article. Also, just by reading that letter to Sheetz, one might get the impression AF's report was in early 2009. Once again, Ganim's article incorrectly mentions the JS investigation came to light in 2009, just like she also got the year wrong JS "quit" volunteering at CMHS.

Thanks, Chris.

Well, that letter certainly could have been leaked to the Patriot News by the OAG or by Centre County. My money would be on the OAG because the Patriot News already was on the story in September 2010.

Interestingly enough, Ganim in her early writings got the year wrong (2010) about when he retired from TSM, even though the Patriot News had the IRS forms showing that Sandusky was not paid in 2009. I think that was intentional because they also stated that Jake Corman joined TSM in 2010 -- after Sandusky retired, when, in fact, Corman joined the Board in 2009.

 

[pandaczar12]

"Joe would have had no problem doing the right thing." as in giving sworn testimony against a man he had known for over 30 years but didn't like; testimony not based on his own recollection but rather based on what the police or DA told him; and testimony that could be expected to help obtain a conviction against JS on sexual assault charges perpetrated against a young boy?

Your definition of "doing the right thing" is a bit different than than that normally applied to the phrase.

Oh, so you think that helping to put a pedophile behind bars is not "doing the right thing"?

 

[LundyPSU]

Glad I grabbed some coffee before catching up on this thread from the weekend

 

[Obliviax]

There is no "of" in the record..."It was a sexual nature". I always thought that was odd phrasing.

In reading that in context, it also occurs to me that this was a question, and not an answer. Clearly Joe knows he's being asked if the report he got from MM was about touching that was of a sexual nature. He immediately says something like "I don't know what you would call it". Again, this underscores the ambiguity of the situation back in 2001.

 

[91Joe95]

"Joe would have had no problem doing the right thing." as in giving sworn testimony against a man he had known for over 30 years but didn't like; testimony not based on his own recollection but rather based on what the police or DA told him; and testimony that could be expected to help obtain a conviction against JS on sexual assault charges perpetrated against a young boy?

Your definition of "doing the right thing" is a bit different than than that normally applied to the phrase.

Joe never testified against anyone. Joe testified very briefly about an interaction with MM. MM's own testimony contradicts the key portion of Joe's very brief and truncated testimony, to say nothing of Paterno's myriad of qualifiers. If Joe's testimony in its very brief form had ever been stated in a trial, the jury would be stuck trying to figure out who they believed more, Joe or MM.

 

[WeR0206]

That's complete bull$hit - Joe never qualified whether that description fit MM's endless SPECULATION based on what he HEARD then saw (which is completely irrelevant) OR whether it was specific ONLY to what MM described ACTUALLY SEEING AND EYEWITNESSING which we know that MM has CONSISTENTLY, to everyone he spoke with - including in a court of law under oath - said that he saw NO SEXUAL ACT and NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE DID. More complete bull$hit spin of testimony on your part - how sadly typical.

What you pointed out is exactly why Joe not being cross examined makes his GJ testimony worthless and certainly not something to hang your hat on when trying to figure out anything re: 2001 or charging CSS with perjury etc.. A supposed lawyer such as GTA would know this.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!!

 

[GTACSA]

Oh, so you think that helping to put a pedophile behind bars is not "doing the right thing"?

My initial post was in response to the defamatory statements made against Joe by posters who claim that Joe's testimony was coached and that he had no independent recollection of the MM conversation.

You now bring up a new query; is it the right thing to help put a pedophile behind bars with fabricated testimony. I would answer no; how about you?

 

[Marshall30]

My initial post was in response to the defamatory statements made against Joe by posters who claim that Joe's testimony was coached and that he had no independent recollection of the MM conversation.

You now bring up a new query; is it the right thing to help put a pedophile behind bars with fabricated testimony. I would answer no; how about you?

Shut up you jack off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GTACSA]

Shut up you jack off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't it time for your counseling session?

 

[Aoshiro]

I had heard about a janitor incident prior to 2009

You had heard, prior to 2009, that Sandusky had been seen molesting a boy in the showers?

This is really disturbing to me. I don't really understand the thought process here. It's one thing for people to gossip about so-and-so doing so-and-so's wife or something like that.
But this isn't idle gossip. This is people purportedly talking about Sandusky abusing a child. Weren't people concerned about his access to kids via The Second Mile? What did you think when you heard about it? Did you urge your source to report what he/she knew to CYS? Did you think about calling CYS or ChildLine? I am really scratching my head. If what you are saying is true it really reflects badly on you and everyone else who heard what you heard. I don't understand how people could be so cavalier about something like that.

 

[jjsocrates]

You had heard, prior to 2009, that Sandusky had been seen molesting a boy in the showers?

This is really disturbing to me. I don't really understand the thought process here. It's one thing for people to gossip about so-and-so doing so-and-so's wife or something like that.
But this isn't idle gossip. This is people purportedly talking about Sandusky abusing a child. Weren't people concerned about his access to kids via The Second Mile? What did you think when you heard about it? Did you urge your source to report what he/she knew to CYS? Did you think about calling CYS or ChildLine? I am really scratching my head. If what you are saying is true it really reflects badly on you and everyone else who heard what you heard. I don't understand how people could be so cavalier about something like that.

Well, to be fair - is Misder2 the most powerful man in the state of Pennsylvania?

Because only the most powerful man in the state of Pennsylvania had the power to cut through the incompetent and corrupt bureaucracy that is DPW, CYS, and the OAG.

Its not like one person could have simply picked up the phone and called ChildLine...

 

[pandaczar12]

My initial post was in response to the defamatory statements made against Joe by posters who claim that Joe's testimony was coached and that he had no independent recollection of the MM conversation.

You now bring up a new query; is it the right thing to help put a pedophile behind bars with fabricated testimony. I would answer no; how about you?

That is clearly not the question I asked. Why do you have to try and twist everything to fit your agenda? Just like you do with Joe's testimony. All this twisting you are doing should be clue #1 you are not correct.

 

[colt21]

Thanks, Chris.

Well, that letter certainly could have been leaked to the Patriot News by the OAG or by Centre County. My money would be on the OAG because the Patriot News already was on the story in September 2010.

Interestingly enough, Ganim in her early writings got the year wrong (2010) about when he retired from TSM, even though the Patriot News had the IRS forms showing that Sandusky was not paid in 2009. I think that was intentional because they also stated that Jake Corman joined TSM in 2010 -- after Sandusky retired, when, in fact, Corman joined the Board in 2009.

Just a quick note - I looked at those IRS forms but it was a while ago. If you are referring to the Form 990 and the fact that JS didn't show up on the compensation listing for 2009 it doesn't mean he wasn't paid at all - it just means he didn't meet the required threshold to report the payment there.

I can't recall exactly what it was then but I thinks its only for those $100k+ now

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

That is clearly not the question I asked. Why do you have to try and twist everything to fit your agenda? Just like you do with Joe's testimony. All this twisting you are doing should be clue #1 you are not correct.

No doubt, GTACSA makes Nadia Comaneci look like a rank amateur as a gymnist and contortionist.

 

[Misder2]

My initial post was in response to the defamatory statements made against Joe by posters who claim that Joe's testimony was coached and that he had no independent recollection of the MM conversation.

You now bring up a new query; is it the right thing to help put a pedophile behind bars with fabricated testimony. I would answer no; how about you?

I strongly strongly agree with your first paragraph, you actually got it right.

 

[Marshall30]

Isn't it time for your counseling session?

Shut up you jack off!

 

[GTACSA]

That is clearly not the question I asked. Why do you have to try and twist everything to fit your agenda? Just like you do with Joe's testimony. All this twisting you are doing should be clue #1 you are not correct.

I have no agenda, only a position based upon the facts as they have been developed to date. I twist nothing; just because you disagree with my conclusions based upon the record doesn't mean I'm twisting.

Until and if the record changes; my position as supported stands.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

What you pointed out is exactly why Joe not being cross examined makes his GJ testimony worthless and certainly not something to hang your hat on when trying to figure out anything re: 2001 or charging CSS with perjury etc.. A supposed lawyer such as GTA would know this.

No, doubt GTA is an agenda-driven, spinning, disingenuous dirtbag when it comes to the actual "rules of evidence" prescribed by the court - he takes whatever liberties he likes to spin clearly irrelevant conjecture and inadmissible evidence in court to his own liking.....IOW, he's your typical, average, run-of-the-mill Corbutt-esque, dirtball, @sshole, zero ethics or principles, disingenuous, douche-bag lawyer.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I have no agenda, only a position based upon the facts as they have been developed to date. I twist nothing; just because you disagree with my conclusions based upon the record doesn't mean I'm twisting.

Until and if the record changes; my position as supported stands.

You don't create "the record", nor does your bull$hit "spin" constitute legitimate court-admissible evidence or "support" blowhard.

 

[91Joe95]

My initial post was in response to the defamatory statements made against Joe by posters who claim that Joe's testimony was coached and that he had no independent recollection of the MM conversation.

You now bring up a new query; is it the right thing to help put a pedophile behind bars with fabricated testimony. I would answer no; how about you?

For your dogmatic view of Joe's testimony to hold up, that would mean every relevant and important question was asked of him in the grand jury proceedings. I would say no; how about you?

 

[pandaczar12]

I have no agenda, only a position based upon the facts as they have been developed to date. I twist nothing; just because you disagree with my conclusions based upon the record doesn't mean I'm twisting.

Until and if the record changes; my position as supported stands.

I doubt even you believe that. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Adlee73]

There is a substantive difference between "sexual nature" and "sexual in nature" in describing activity between JS and a young boy? Really?

Lets go with your post and agree arguendo that the DA's gave Joe that phrase and he repeated it during his testimony even though he was never told that by MM..

How many people would testify under oath against a man they had known for over 30 years that they had heard "sexual in nature" used to describe contact between a young boy and that man when in fact he never remembered hearing that reference and only repeated what he was coached to say?

Do you really think that helps Joe?

Let me say it more slowly. JOE...NEVER...TESTIFIED... THAT...MIKE...SAID...THOSE...WORDS...TO...HIM. Joe was simply using that term as a descriptor not a quote from Mike. Joe's lawyers have sent statements to CSS attorneys verifying they heard the term given to Joe by the prosecutor's minutes before he entered the courtroom to testify. That was the first known time Joe used that term & it's documented that Joe's version was "horsing around" both before & after.

 

[GTACSA]

Shut up you jack off!

Let me say it more slowly. JOE...NEVER...TESTIFIED... THAT...MIKE...SAID...THOSE...WORDS...TO...HIM. Joe was simply using that term as a descriptor not a quote from Mike. Joe's lawyers have sent statements to CSS attorneys verifying they heard the term given to Joe by the prosecutor's minutes before he entered the courtroom to testify. That was the first known time Joe used that term & it's documented that Joe's version was "horsing around" both before & after.

So you say that Joe always called it "horsing around" which likely would not have landed JS in jail; and then based upon coaching by the prosecutor he fabricated the description of what he had been told by MM to actions which constitute sexual assault which could result in prison time?

If true you might be right; Joe really didn't like Sandusky!

 

[Adlee73]

@rmb297 , Ray, check out Appendix B of the Moulton Report, Madeira's letter to Richard Sheetz. Notice how it lays out how the JS case went from Clinton County CYS, to the Clinton Co. DA to Madeira and then on to the OAG's office. By strange coincidence, that's all laid out in Ganim's March 31st article. Also, just by reading that letter to Sheetz, one might get the impression AF's report was in early 2009. Once again, Ganim's article incorrectly mentions the JS investigation came to light in 2009, just like she also got the year wrong JS "quit" volunteering at CMHS.

That's probably because it came to light for her in 2009. Around February 2009 to be specific & the person who most likely told her was Madeira.

 

[PSUPride1]

So you say that Joe always called it "horsing around" which likely would not have landed JS in jail; and then based upon coaching by the prosecutor he fabricated the description of what he had been told by MM to actions which constitute sexual assault which could result in prison time?

If true you might be right; Joe really didn't like Sandusky!

Pardon me if this is covered ground but what exactly do you believe happened in this case relative to Joe and the admins. Again, I apologize if this is covered ground but I'm typically in the Den so I don't know your views on this situation.
Do you believe Joe Paterno enabled JS and all that entails? Do you believe the PSU admins enabled JS and all that entails?
Thanks.

 

[PSU Paul]

No, but there is substantive difference between "It was a sexual nature." and "It was a sexual nature?" It is impossible for you to prove that Joe said the former and did not say the latter.

Exactly. During questioning I'm sure it's not uncommon for someone to rephrase a question out loud back to themselves as they are thinking of the answer. ... was it of a sexual nature?? .... and then goes on to answer his own question - I don't know what you would call it. The question mark makes a huge difference and it sounds like we'll never know the exact way it was said - with or without the ???

 

[WeR0206]

So you say that Joe always called it "horsing around" which likely would not have landed JS in jail; and then based upon coaching by the prosecutor he fabricated the description of what he had been told by MM to actions which constitute sexual assault which could result in prison time?

If true you might be right; Joe really didn't like Sandusky!

He didn't fabricate it, he was speculating...hence the "I don't know what you'd call it" RIGHT AFTER HE SAID IT. For someone who claims to be a lawyer you don't seem to understand the English language very well.

Joe didn't know whether the horsing around was in sexual nature or not b/c MM only got a freaking two second glimpse through a mirror and couldn't see anyone's hands or privates.

As Joe said in his GJ testimony and statements to the press re: 2001 the only thing he knew FOR SURE was that the shower was inappropriate and it upset/made MM uncomfortable. That's it genius. And guess what? That lines up exactly with what CSS/JR testified to re: 2001.

 

[Adlee73]

So you say that Joe always called it "horsing around" which likely would not have landed JS in jail; and then based upon coaching by the prosecutor he fabricated the description of what he had been told by MM to actions which constitute sexual assault which could result in prison time?

If true you might be right; Joe really didn't like Sandusky!

No "Mr. Lawyer". Perjury means he had to know it was a lie. Describing something as sexual because the prosecution manipulated you into thinking that was the right terminology to use is not perjury nor is it slander.

 

[GTACSA]

Pardon me if this is covered ground but what exactly do you believe happened in this case relative to Joe and the admins. Again, I apologize if this is covered ground but I'm typically in the Den so I don't know your views on this situation.
Do you believe Joe Paterno enabled JS and all that entails? Do you believe the PSU admins enabled JS and all that entails?
Thanks.

I don't for one moment think that either Joe or the administration enabled JS in his actions.Failure to report one incident of suspected child abuse does not constitute enabling.

I suspect that in the context of the 1998 incident, the 2001 report constituted an Oh Shit, WTF reaction. They knew the 1998 incident was unfounded and could have rationalized not reporting in that light. It involved a most unsavory subject that nobody ever really wants to face head on. With the passage of time the whole incident fell into an "out of sight out of mind" mode.

There was a serious lapse in judgment; nothing more and nothing less. Speaking for myself, and I suspect for others, we all have at least one, if not more of those lapses throughout our lives. It certainly didn't erase all the great accomplishments of Joe's career.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I don't for one moment think that either Joe or the administration enabled JS in his actions.Failure to report one incident of suspected child abuse does not constitute enabling.

I suspect that in the context of the 1998 incident, the 2001 report constituted an Oh Shit, WTF reaction. They knew the 1998 incident was unfounded and could have rationalized not reporting in that light. It involved a most unsavory subject that nobody ever really wants to face head on. With the passage of time the whole incident fell into an "out of sight out of mind" mode.

There was a serious lapse in judgment; nothing more and nothing less. Speaking for myself, and I suspect for others, we all have at least one, if not more of those lapses throughout our lives. It certainly didn't erase all the great accomplishments of Joe's career.

Thank God we have you around to educate the unwashed masses.



Now, just one more little bit of education, if you don't mind:

What would it take to sufficiently offend you - enough to chase you back to your circle-jerk-palooza on TOS?

 

[Black Elmo 2]

And of course Paterno clarified this later when he explained he only meant horsing around, nothing sexual. Oh wait. He didn't !!

 

[Mixolydian]

And of course Paterno clarified this later when he explained he only meant horsing around, nothing sexual. Oh wait. He didn't !!

When someone says "I don't know..." as many times as Joe did in his brief, vague testimony, there is nothing to clarify. Later? Later Joe was dead. That would be clear to anyone except a dumb fuk, so I see why you and GTA struggle with it.

 

[pandaczar12]

I don't for one moment think that either Joe or the administration enabled JS in his actions.Failure to report one incident of suspected child abuse does not constitute enabling.

I suspect that in the context of the 1998 incident, the 2001 report constituted an Oh Shit, WTF reaction. They knew the 1998 incident was unfounded and could have rationalized not reporting in that light. It involved a most unsavory subject that nobody ever really wants to face head on. With the passage of time the whole incident fell into an "out of sight out of mind" mode.

There was a serious lapse in judgment; nothing more and nothing less. Speaking for myself, and I suspect for others, we all have at least one, if not more of those lapses throughout our lives. It certainly didn't erase all the great accomplishments of Joe's career.

But the incident was reported to his employer. Which was going above and beyond, since all anybody was told about was horseplay.

I know you "think" they knew of something more serious than horseplay, despite all the evidence to the contrary you can't let go of Joe's completely unreliable testimony. But why on earth would they contact TSM and tell them a watered down version? Why wasn't MM screaming from the roof tops that they didn't do enough? Why didn't MM intervene that night if he saw more than horseplay? Your fantasy version has too many holes in it.

 

[PSUPride1]

I don't for one moment think that either Joe or the administration enabled JS in his actions.Failure to report one incident of suspected child abuse does not constitute enabling.

I suspect that in the context of the 1998 incident, the 2001 report constituted an Oh Shit, WTF reaction. They knew the 1998 incident was unfounded and could have rationalized not reporting in that light. It involved a most unsavory subject that nobody ever really wants to face head on. With the passage of time the whole incident fell into an "out of sight out of mind" mode.

There was a serious lapse in judgment; nothing more and nothing less. Speaking for myself, and I suspect for others, we all have at least one, if not more of those lapses throughout our lives. It certainly didn't erase all the great accomplishments of Joe's career.

I've always said at worse this was a mistake in judgement. However, I don't think MM reported anything that would sound the alarms and it's why everyone, and I mean everyone, treated this issue like an HR problem. And I think you have to be careful when you say they didn't report it. I don't think their reporting this situation to Second Mile gets enough weight.
Let's remember these were second mile kids. I think it's perfectly reasonable for one to assume reporting this situation to second mile was the proper thing to do. And the second mile individuals were mandated reporters. I never knew that the second mile director asked a board member (of second mile) if they should report this situation to the full board and the board member said no. That's on those individuals - not the PSU admins.
The cover-up narrative is absolutely baseless imho. In this day and age every time someone makes a mistake or fails is some regard the media screams conspiracy.
The real mistake by Joe in this situation (and it's understandable because he was dying) was after everything was in the public realm he and his family failed to defend themselves, and I mean vigorously. When his press conference was shut down - either he or his family should have held their own press conference. Silence makes one appear weak, or even guilty and that's how everyone was perceived in this case.
Anyway, I think MM and his family knew about Kenny Jackson leaving for the Steelers. Further I think MM and his family thought going to Joe was a good way of ingratiating Mike to Joe and perhaps there would be a job offer out of it.
Suddenly when the crap hit the fan Mike was just a poor misunderstood guy and everyone dropped the ball but him. BS.
Thanks for the input.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

When someone says "I don't know..." as many times as Joe did in his brief, vague testimony, there is nothing to clarify. Later? Later Joe was dead. That would be clear to anyone except a dumb fuk, so I see why you and GTA struggle with it.

Joe died as soon as he walked out of the GJ room? I didn't realize that. I could swear I saw him coaching, giving interviews, and making public appearances afterwards. Must've been an imposter.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Silence makes one appear weak, or even guilty and that's how everyone was perceived in this case.

Bing-Freaking-O!!!

 

[GTACSA]

But the incident was reported to his employer. Which was going above and beyond, since all anybody was told about was horseplay.

I know you "think" they knew of something more serious than horseplay, despite all the evidence to the contrary you can't let go of Joe's completely unreliable testimony. But why on earth would they contact TSM and tell them a watered down version? Why wasn't MM screaming from the roof tops that they didn't do enough? Why didn't MM intervene that night if he saw more than horseplay? Your fantasy version has too many holes in it.

Just because "all anybody was told about was horseplay" has been repeated ad nauseum doesn't make it so. The cumulative effect of McQueary's and Joe's testimony put that assertion where it belongs. The "horseplay" exists only in an alternate universe.

The answers to your other questions are pretty straight forward. MM was an ant in the football program and he knew his place. Screaming from the rooftops may have effectively ended his stint at Penn State. There are any number of possible reasons why he didn't intervene.

 

[GTACSA]

Thank God we have you around to educate the unwashed masses.



Now, just one more little bit of education, if you don't mind:

What would it take to sufficiently offend you - enough to chase you back to your circle-jerk-palooza on TOS?

FYI, cretins like you never offend me.

 

[WeR0206]

Joe died as soon as he walked out of the GJ room? I didn't realize that. I could swear I saw him coaching, giving interviews, and making public appearances afterwards. Must've been an imposter.

Good lord you're an insufferable ass....Joe and MM didn't know the corrupt Corbett OAG misrepresented their GJ testimony via the GJP (which falsely and maliciously stated MM eye witnessed sex and reported it as such to Joe and admins) until the presentment was made public in 11/11. Shortly after that Joe made this press release (I guess you missed this??):

"As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators."