Latest in Paterno v NCAA

[pandaczar12]

You would have to ask CSS. It should make you angry though.

Interesting wording, from your biased point of view, it "should" make him angry. Unfortunately it "will" not.

Sometimes, it's not a conspiracy. MM lost everything when he testified. For whatever reason, you think he lied. There was literally no incentive for him to do so.

Exactly. There is no conspiracy, MM simply reported horseplay, and everyone acted appropriately to that report. You and your tinfoil hat seem to think otherwise though.

I think that Curley and Schultz covered it up in order to protect Penn State. I think there is a chance that Spanier was left in the dark. Remember, MM and Paterno never directly talked to Spanier. Just look at how GS has been fighting everything through his lawyers and interviews while Curley and Schult have not said a word. Now, that's their right but it's still interesting to say the least.

So why did they report a watered down version to TSM? Why did they never tell anyone to keep their mouth shut? Why did Penn State need to be protected from the inevitable good publicity that would be associated with catching a monster?

They should have reported the incident to police.if you want to say that they were being grossly ignorant instead of actively covering it up, then they are the dumbest set of administrators in the nation.

If MM witnessed something worth reporting to the police, which he obviously didn't, he should have reported it. His Dad should have reported it. Dranov Should have reported it. There was simply nothing for the admins to report to the police.

 

[BobPSU92]

 

[GTACSA]

That's it. I've had it. Those words of MCQ were spoken ten m'fukin years after the fact you blockhead. STOP IT.

Correct but the passage of time does not, in and of itself, make those words inaccurate.

 

[lubrano]

I think that Curley and Schultz covered it up in order to protect Penn State. I think there is a chance that Spanier was left in the dark. Remember, MM and Paterno never directly talked to Spanier. Just look at how GS has been fighting everything through his lawyers and interviews while Curley and Schult have not said a word. Now, that's their right but it's still interesting to say the least.

Yours would be an incorrect conclusion.

As to your assessment of behavior of Curley and Schultz since their indictment, you would again be incorrect.

I don't have enough time to walk you through this. Hopefully this will become clearer to you in the not too distant future although you should be able to see that no conspiracy or concealment occurred simply by looking at the fact pattern in this case.

 

[coveydidnt]

If they did not know what they were dealing with, the rational thing, as CEO and Board members of Second Mile, would have been to report the incident to authorities and let them handle the situation. If it was another 1998 situation (which was still extremely inappropriate and SHOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A WRITTEN SAFETY PLAN AS PER STATE MANDATE) then the police, CYS, ChildLine and Second Mile themselves could make that determination.

Instead, after having Penn State on his charity doorstep complaining, CEO and licensed child welfare professional Dr. Jack Raykovitz solves the complaint with a quip about "just wear swim trunks" the next time Sandusky showers with a youth.

Doh!

So joe and or CSS should have contacted the police? Or only Jack? Or do you feel that only fourth hand reports are worth mentioning to police?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

So joe and or CSS should have contacted the police? Or only Jack? Or do you feel that only fourth hand reports are worth mentioning to police?

You CAN'T be that dumb.


(could he/she?)

 

[lionlurker]

Apparently, yes.

 

[artsandletters]

Correct but the passage of time does not, in and of itself, make those words inaccurate.

You've got it bass ackwards. There was no passage of time since he did not make 'a sexual nature' report in 2001. Maybe you are saying that over time, having thought about it, he decided something sexual happened in that shower. Not buying it. I buy the responses of a dozen or so responsible people who did not respond to a report of something sexual. They responded to something inappropriate. Nothing beyond the 2001 responses even counts.

 

[didier]

Yours would be an incorrect conclusion.

As to your assessment of behavior of Curley and Schultz since their indictment, you would again be incorrect.

I don't have enough time to walk you through this. Hopefully this will become clearer to you in the not too distant future although you should be able to see that no conspiracy or concealment occurred simply by looking at the fact pattern in this case.

You probably can't say but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. How many people involved in the 1998 investigation did Freeh interview? By his own admittance he didn't interview the victim, Harmon, Schultz, Curley or Arnold. He did interview Schreffler but was that all? Again not sure what you're allowed to say but It's worth trying. Thanks for keeping us all informed.

 

[marshall23]

If MM witnessed CSA, why did two respected medical professionals advise him to wait until the next day and speak to Joe?
Both JM and Dr. D knew how and who to report CSA to and it could have been an anonymous filing as well.
Why would Gary Schultz consult Wendell Courtney if he was planning a cover up? Why ask an attorney's advice, which will be billed and documented and not follow his advice to a "T?"
If MM, JM, and Dr. D felt that PSU was engaged in a cover up of child sexual abuse, why did they not act for ten years?
When Gary Schultz spoke to Tom Harmon, does anyone believe he asked about the '98 report without TH asking why?
Where are the entire emails that Freeh did not include between GS and TH?
Why has the Commonwealth silenced TH and WC?
Why would TC, GS and GS be indicted when TSM merely made arrangements for JS to take their children to a local hotel fitness room after being barred from Lasch?

 

[marshall23]

You've got it bass ackwards. There was no passage of time since he did not make 'a sexual nature' report in 2001. Maybe you are saying that over time, having thought about it, he decided something sexual happened in that shower. Not buying it. I buy the responses of a dozen or so responsible people who did not respond to a report of something sexual. They responded to something inappropriate. Nothing beyond the 2001 responses even counts.

Correct. Two respected medical professional heard what MM had to say a half hour after the incident. They essentially advised MM to make a report to Joe (handle it as an administrative issue). The incident was handled that way by everyone after that.
The Commonwealth had the leverage of AF's accusations and MM's other issues and applied the pressure.

 

[PSU2UNC]

They should have reported the incident to police.if you want to say that they were being grossly ignorant instead of actively covering it up, then they are the dumbest set of administrators in the nation.

A cover up requires at least two major components:

1) Telling everyone who knows about it not to talk about it/report it/tell others

2) Minimize the number of people who know about it (which makes #1 easier).

So let's examine your so called "cover up"

There is zero evidence that anyone at PSU was told not to talk about this or report it. In fact, MM, under oath, testified that at no time was he told to keep quiet about 2001.

Furthermore, rather than keeping this incident quiet, this information was shared with the following people:

1) John McQueary (i.e. Mike didn't cover it up)

2) Dr. Dranov (i.e. John M didn't cover it up)

3) Joe Paterno (Dranov and the McQuearys didn't cover it up)

4) Tim Curley (JVP didn't cover it up)

5) Gary Schultz (TC didn't cover it up)

6) Graham Spanier (Schultz didn't cover it up)

7) Wendell Courtney (Gary Schultz didn't cover it up)

8) Jack Raykovitz (C/S/S didn't cover it up)

(and there may be documented others that were told that I am forgetting about here, but I feel like 8 examples makes my point).

So you would have us believe that this was the worst orchestrated cover up in history?

Perhaps it's more believable THAT THERE WAS NO COVER UP.

 

[Zenophile]

I still find this to be amusingly accurate.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Hypothetical question....If/when it is revealed that Mike's testimony was mischaracterized as sexual to something much less than sexual does this increase the chances of JS getting a new trial on appeal?

I doubt it has much impact

1 - JS defense team (the "Dream Team" LOL) really didn't even explore this particular incident with any vigor (never called the kid claiming to have been the kid in the shower, etc)
2 - That incident didn't even return a "Guilty" wrt the top count (Indecent Sexual Assault, or some similar charge.....would have to check the record for the exact phrasing)
3 - The odds of getting a "retrial", which would require the Judge who presided over the original trial to say "Holy Crap!! I really f^cked the pooch on that first one!!" is - one might think - pretty slim

Bottom line, I don't think any "revelations" or re-positionings wrt the characterization of that interaction would have any significant impact on the PCRA motions.

 

[LundyPSU]

too much emphasis on the JVP testimony. The sooner everyone can just move away from it, the better

 

[GTACSA]

You've got it bass ackwards. There was no passage of time since he did not make 'a sexual nature' report in 2001. Maybe you are saying that over time, having thought about it, he decided something sexual happened in that shower. Not buying it. I buy the responses of a dozen or so responsible people who did not respond to a report of something sexual. They responded to something inappropriate. Nothing beyond the 2001 responses even counts.

I don't understand your point. I brought your attention to GJ testimony of MM that was quite clear as to the sexual nature of what he observed. You said that was 10 years after his observation in 2001. I thought, I guess mistakenly, that your point was that since this testimony was given 10 years later that it somehow undermined the credibility of the testimony.

So what were you saying; that MM just made it all up?

 

[GTACSA]

too much emphasis on the JVP testimony. The sooner everyone can just move away from it, the better

Do you recognize that his testimony may have been pretty much on point as to how he remembered the MM conversation as to the sexual nature of what MM said he observed?

 

[Agoodnap]

You already have it, you just wish not to accept it.

 

[LundyPSU]

given the police interview prior to the GJ testimony, the hem and haw in the GJ testimony, and other responses to investigators, I don't put much emphasis on his testimony. Pretty clear that JVP's recollection was limited at best. And given his mental state in 2010-2012, I think everyone should be cautious in how they perceive the testimony.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I don't understand your point. I brought your attention to GJ testimony of MM that was quite clear as to the sexual nature of what he observed. You said that was 10 years after his observation in 2001. I thought, I guess mistakenly, that your point was that since this testimony was given 10 years later that it somehow undermined the credibility of the testimony.

So what were you saying; that MM just made it all up?

You pissed? Because GMJ is giving you a run for your money as the Alpha-Dog in the Circle-Jerk Idiot Olympics?

'Cause you sure seem to be "going for the gold" in the Stupidity category this morning!

_________________________
GMJ: You are a GD Olympic Champ already......you can stop anytime, your place in history is assured.


Idiot Olympics 2016 - GetMyJive:

Douchebaggery:
- Gold Medal

Inanity:
- Silver Medal (sorry, GTASCA beat you out there in a photo-finish)

Lunacy:
- Gold Medal

Straw Man 4X100 Relay (with CR/GTASCA/and PennsyOracle):
- Gold Medal

Idiot Biathlon (Non Sequitur and False Dichotomy):
- Gold Medal....and New Olympic Record

Circle-Jerk Marathon:
- Gold Medal (tied with former 3-time medalist GTASCA)

Pomposity:
- Silver Medal (sorry, CR was just too strong to overcome)

 

[GTACSA]

given the police interview prior to the GJ testimony, the hem and haw in the GJ testimony, and other responses to investigators, I don't put much emphasis on his testimony. Pretty clear that JVP's recollection was limited at best. And given his mental state in 2010-2012, I think everyone should be cautious in how they perceive the testimony.

All valid points. Do you think that Joe had any independent recollection as the the sexual nature of what MM said that he observed.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

All valid points. Do you think that Joe had any independent recollection as the the sexual nature of what MM said that he observed.

 

[LundyPSU]

All valid points. Do you think that Joe had any independent recollection as the the sexual nature of what MM said that he observed.

I can't say for certain. But it would not surprise me in the least if he didn't.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I can't say for certain. But it would not surprise me in the least if he didn't.

Well.......good

Now that that is settled........

 

[GTACSA]

I can't say for certain. But it would not surprise me in the least if he didn't.

If that is the case, would it bother you that Joe gave sworn testimony that helped subject Sandusky to sexual assault charges against a minor if he had no independent recollection as to what MM had told him?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

If that is the case, would it bother you that Joe gave sworn testimony that helped subject Sandusky to sexual assault charges against a minor if he had no independent recollection as to what MM had told him?

You and GMJ must be running low on supplies.

 

[Aoshiro]

I don't understand your point. I brought your attention to GJ testimony of MM that was quite clear as to the sexual nature of what he observed. You said that was 10 years after his observation in 2001. I thought, I guess mistakenly, that your point was that since this testimony was given 10 years later that it somehow undermined the credibility of the testimony.

So what were you saying; that MM just made it all up?

1. Mike's testimony was not "quite clear."
2. Testimony about a conversation that took place a decade earlier is by definition unreliable.

 

[Chris92]

I doubt it has much impact

1 - JS defense team (the "Dream Team" LOL) really didn't even explore this particular incident with any vigor (never called the kid claiming to have been the kid in the shower, etc)
2 - That incident didn't even return a "Guilty" wrt the top count (Indecent Sexual Assault, or some similar charge.....would have to check the record for the exact phrasing)
3 - The odds of getting a "retrial", which would require the Judge who presided over the original trial to say "Holy Crap!! I really f^cked the pooch on that first one!!" is - one might think - pretty slim

Bottom line, I don't think any "revelations" or re-positionings wrt the characterization of that interaction would have any significant impact on the PCRA motions.

The latest PCRA filing says Amendola and Fina struck a deal not to call AM, per Rominger.

 

[LundyPSU]

If that is the case, would it bother you that Joe gave sworn testimony that helped subject Sandusky to sexual assault charges against a minor if he had no independent recollection as to what MM had told him?

I have a problem with how JVP's testimony has been used by many to hang him. I believe JVP was trying to be helpful to the investigation. In terms of his recollection and how accurate it was, none of us here can say for certain. But there is enough signs through his other interviews and his general mental state in 2010-2012, that everyone should question whether his recollection is accurate and complete.

 

[Marshall30]

I have a problem with how JVP's testimony has been used by many to hang him. I believe JVP was trying to be helpful to the investigation. In terms of his recollection and how accurate it was, none of us here can say for certain. But there is enough signs through his other interviews and his general mental state in 2010-2012, that everyone should question whether his recollection is accurate and complete.

"I don't know what you call it".

 

[artsandletters]

I don't understand your point. I brought your attention to GJ testimony of MM that was quite clear as to the sexual nature of what he observed. You said that was 10 years after his observation in 2001. I thought, I guess mistakenly, that your point was that since this testimony was given 10 years later that it somehow undermined the credibility of the testimony.

So what were you saying; that MM just made it all up?

Extrapolated might be more accurate. Once again, what he reported in 2001 is the only testimony that should be considered.

 

[simons96]

I have a problem with how JVP's testimony has been used by many to hang him. I believe JVP was trying to be helpful to the investigation. In terms of his recollection and how accurate it was, none of us here can say for certain. But there is enough signs through his other interviews and his general mental state in 2010-2012, that everyone should question whether his recollection is accurate and complete.

sort of how people say his statement was "I should have done more"

which is radically different in meaning from what he actually said:

"With the benefit of hindsight, I WISH I had done more"

funny how all these brilliant critics have to twist words, manufacture "evidence", and otherwise contort reality to fit their narrative of what didn't actually happen

 

[GTACSA]

I have a problem with how JVP's testimony has been used by many to hang him. I believe JVP was trying to be helpful to the investigation. In terms of his recollection and how accurate it was, none of us here can say for certain. But there is enough signs through his other interviews and his general mental state in 2010-2012, that everyone should question whether his recollection is accurate and complete.

I understand why you choose not to answer my question. I agree Joe was trying to be helpful and appreciate why his general mental state may have allowed him to relate a description of a conversation from 2001 instead of simply saying "I don't remember."

 

[GTACSA]

sort of how people say his statement was "I should have done more"

which is radically different in meaning from what he actually said:

"With the benefit of hindsight, I WISH I had done more"

funny how all these brilliant critics have to twist words, manufacture "evidence", and otherwise contort reality to fit their narrative of what didn't actually happen

Serious question. What did Joe later find out about the shower victim that would have prompted him to have done more in 2001?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I understand why you choose not to answer my question. I agree Joe was trying to be helpful and appreciate why his general mental state may have allowed him to relate a description of a conversation from 2001 instead of simply saying "I don't remember."

 

[Zenophile]

sort of how people say his statement was "I should have done more"

which is radically different in meaning from what he actually said:

"With the benefit of hindsight, I WISH I had done more"

funny how all these brilliant critics have to twist words, manufacture "evidence", and otherwise contort reality to fit their narrative of what didn't actually happen

I'm still baffled how any of the general public has bought into the notion that Joe Paterno, whose humanity & scrupulous nature are well documented, knowingly covered for a child predator based on ANYTHING that has yet been presented as "evidence".

And to be clear: I'm not including the special folks here who (claim to) subscribe to the "cover up theory" (or even the "'Joe knew but didn't do anything!' theory") in that general public group referenced above. Those folks have sufficiently telegraphed their motives for sticking to the narrative.

 

[simons96]

I'm still baffled how any of the general public has bought into the notion that Joe Paterno, who's humanity & scrupulous nature are well documented, knowingly covered for a child predator based on ANYTHING that has yet been presented as "evidence".

And to be clear: I'm not including the special folks here who (claim to) subscribe to the "cover up theory" (or even the "'Joe knew but didn't do anything!' theory") in that general public group referenced above. Those folks have sufficiently telegraphed their motives for sticking to the narrative.

my experience is most of the public doubts this story

it is just that those with a predetermined bias or an axe to grind, or a racket to protect (Jennifer Storm, Roxine, Shubin, etc), yell it the loudest.

and call anyone who questions them a child rape enabler.

 

[marshall23]

Serious question. What did Joe later find out about the shower victim that would have prompted him to have done more in 2001?

Easy his son forced him to read the Grand Jury Presentment which we now know was a totally fraudulent and inflammatory fantasy.

 

[Zenophile]

my experience is most of the public doubts this story

it is just that those with a predetermined bias or an axe to grind, or a racket to protect (Jennifer Storm, Roxine, Shubin, etc), yell it the loudest.

and call anyone who questions them a child rape enabler.

The "advocates" who've sold out their own causes in exchange for 15 minutes of anti-Paterno fame are themselves a special breed of scumbag.

 

[artsandletters]

Serious question. What did Joe later find out about the shower victim that would have prompted him to have done more in 2001?

Joe also said something like JS had been fooling a lot of people for a long time. I think he said that some time around 11/11.