Latest in Paterno v NCAA

[michnittlion]

I for one will be elated when you release proof of Joe, Curley, Schultz and Spanier having contacted the police and CYS in 2001, as was done in 1998. At that point you will have vindicated Penn State and Joe. All Penn State graduates will forever be in your debt.

Amen!!!

If only THAT --- one simple "report to law enforcement" --- existed. Then we wouldn't have had to endure this whole debacle over the last 4 and 1/2 years.

Never lose site of that: for the want of ONE "report to law enforcement", the kingdom was lost.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

So what? Barron signed his name to a paper acknowledging the NCAA's "interest and concern." Shoot --- all of us have "interest and concern."

"Interest and concern" is a whole lot different than if he were to sign his nape to a paper "acknowledging the NCAA's right to impose sancitons as a result of the Jerry Sandusky matter."

The latter is what the Paterno vs NCAA lawsuit is about. Not "interest and concern."

http://giphy.com/gifs/cheezburger-fail-cars-hwrkJJLQhrpM4

 

[colt21]

Great post. I know you have some expertise in this field. What you and I pointed out is exactly why the state's charges of EWOC and FTR are complete and utter bullshit. Their lawyers pointed out the same during prelims and yet bizarrely the judge allowed the case to continue. Smh.

Yea it kind of actually cracks me up a bit
In my agency I am the the one who writes these policies and the one who complaints of any sort come to so I am, in this case, speaking from a position of expertise

One question I've posted a loooong time ago that no one will respond to

Find me ONE SINGLE PERSON, WHO IS AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD, including the BIGGEST PENN STATE HATER, BIGGEST JOE HATER-but again, someone who is an expert in this field, who will go ON THE RECORD as stating Joe did a thing other than EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS SUOPOSED TO DO, in his role, at that time, with the information he had and maybe I'll listen to them.

But I'll save you some time-you WILL NOT FIND THAT PERSON because they DO NOT EXIST.

 

[colt21]

Amen!!!

If only THAT --- one simple "report to law enforcement" --- existed. Then we wouldn't have had to endure this whole debacle over the last 4 and 1/2 years.

Never lose site of that: for the want of ONE "report to law enforcement", the kingdom was lost.[/QUOTE

Michie-do you read my posts?

 

[michnittlion]

Michie-do you read my posts?

Your post supposes that C/S/S did report to "law enforcement", except a record doesn't exist because of technical issues, right?

If that is the case --- why the hell aren't C/S/S LOUDLY PROCLAIMING this "fact"? They should be SCREAMING this from the mountain-tops.

Instead, crickets. Those 3 are as silent as monks. Hmm.

 

[GTACSA]

Apparently it's still lost on GTA that if CYS was contacted in 2001 and they never investigated the complaint since they had already cleared St Jerry in 98 for a very similar incident (see Tutko case for another example of CYS simply not investigating someone they already cleared) or they determined it to be unfounded, there'd be no record/proof, just like there's no CYS record of 1998.

All the state did to "prove" CC CYS wasn't told about 2002 (sic) was have sassano talk to two people. One was lauro who didn't even work for CC CYS and the other was the current head of cc CYS who was a low level employee at the time in 2001. That's it. No call logs subpoenaed etc.. He didn't seem to want to dig very hard.

Even if they didn't contact CC CYS it's moot because the admins still went above and beyond their legal requirement by informing JR at TSM who certainly was a mandatory reporter, being the director of a state licensed children's charity, who was required to look into any and all incident reports re: one of his employees.

So your position is that CYS was notified of MM's observations and therefore they would have talked to him. If he had given them the information he testified to to in sworn testimony the case would never have reached an unfounded status without a whole bunch of people having first hand knowledge of an investigation of this high profile individual in State College. Interesting that not one person has come forward to assert this; they just let 4 people and Penn State hang out to dry. MM has kept quiet as well. Right.

Or MM could have given another statement of his observations to the effect that nothing happened of a sexual nature. That of course strains all credibility. Even assuming that happened, not one person has come forward to corroborate that.

That dog just won't hunt except in cult land.

The public really doesn't care if Penn State employees did their legal duty; they care that nobody took time to make a phone call to the police.

 

[colt21]

Your post supposes that C/S/S did report to "law enforcement", except a record doesn't exist because of technical issues, right?

If that is the case --- why the hell aren't C/S/S LOUDLY PROCLAIMING this "fact"? They should be SCREAMING this from the mountain-tops.

Instead, crickets. Those 3 are as silent as monks. Hmm.

Seriously, that's what you get from this "technical issues"

You really have no idea how this works at all so it's probably useless for me to try and teach you anything

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Amen!!!

If only THAT --- one simple "report to law enforcement" --- existed. Then we wouldn't have had to endure this whole debacle over the last 4 and 1/2 years.

Never lose site of that: for the want of ONE "report to law enforcement", the kingdom was lost.

You are such a ballon-knot..... Pathetic.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Amen!!!

If only THAT --- one simple "report to law enforcement" --- existed. Then we wouldn't have had to endure this whole debacle over the last 4 and 1/2 years.

Never lose site of that: for the want of ONE "report to law enforcement", the kingdom was lost.

The kingdom may not have been "lost". I think that is your problem. You can't come to grips with the chirping noise that the pressure cooker is starting to make.

 

[GTACSA]

I know you read the state statutes before. Its why your argument has changed over the years. Even still, what they did report still meets the statute requirements. Also, the state has an added problem due to what constitutes a report and what the state requires from a record keeping standpoint. Its funny, the argument you espouse would not stand up in court.

Yea it kind of actually cracks me up a bit
In my agency I am the the one who writes these policies and the one who complaints of any sort come to so I am, in this case, speaking from a position of expertise

One question I've posted a loooong time ago that no one will respond to

Find me ONE SINGLE PERSON, WHO IS AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD, including the BIGGEST PENN STATE HATER, BIGGEST JOE HATER-but again, someone who is an expert in this field, who will go ON THE RECORD as stating Joe did a thing other than EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS SUOPOSED TO DO, in his role, at that time, with the information he had and maybe I'll listen to them.

But I'll save you some time-you WILL NOT FIND THAT PERSON because they DO NOT EXIST.

So all the experts in your field are comfortable with the scenario of a young boy being sexually assaulted in the offices of a corporation where the assault was witnessed by an employee and reported to a senior executive, yet never reported to CYS or law enforcement office. Everybody just keeps that information to themselves!

All experts agree that after the senior executive is aware that the employee has never gone to the authorities nor has management notified authorities, there is no reason for the senior executive to report; just one more abused child falling through the cracks.

Looks like a bureaucratic cluster.

 

[colt21]

So your position is that CYS was notified of MM's observations and therefore they would have talked to him. If he had given them the information he testified to to in sworn testimony the case would never have reached an unfounded status without a whole bunch of people having first hand knowledge of an investigation of this high profile individual in State College. Interesting that not one person has come forward to assert this; they just let 4 people and Penn State hang out to dry. MM has kept quiet as well. Right.

Or MM could have given another statement of his observations to the effect that nothing happened of a sexual nature. That of course strains all credibility. Even assuming that happened, not one person has come forward to corroborate that.

That dog just won't hunt except in cult land.

The public really doesn't care if Penn State employees did their legal duty; they care that nobody took time to make a phone call to the police.

Who is nobody ?
* the Eyewitness
* the secondary witness
* the tertiary witness

* the supervisor who recieved a report from a supervisee about a situation who did EXACTLY what he should have in his role at that time with the information he was given by state law (then and reaffirmed NOW) AND PSU Policy then (and would NOT have even been involved based on policy and state law today)---- and the person who as documented as FACT reported it to his superiors

 

[colt21]

Who is nobody ?
* the Eyewitness
* the secondary witness
* the tertiary witness

* the supervisor who recieved a report from a supervisee about a situation who did EXACTLY what he should have in his role at that time with the information he was given by state law (then and reaffirmed NOW) AND PSU Policy then (and would NOT have even been involved based on policy and state law today)---- and the person who as documented as FACT reported it to his superiors

sorry typing on a phone -to continue - oh yes let's blame that person and the football culture


Ugh

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Your post supposes that C/S/S did report to "law enforcement", except a record doesn't exist because of technical issues, right?

If that is the case --- why the hell aren't C/S/S LOUDLY PROCLAIMING this "fact"? They should be SCREAMING this from the mountain-tops.

Instead, crickets. Those 3 are as silent as monks. Hmm.

Because the corrupt Grand Jury process has boxed them into a position where silence is necessary as a means of survival. At least until the wheels of justice release the current "shackles". These slowly turning wheels seem to have you worked into a pretty good lather. "Chirp, Chirp" went the pressure cooker. The six gun is loaded...

 

[colt21]

So all the experts in your field are comfortable with the scenario of a young boy being sexually assaulted in the offices of a corporation where the assault was witnessed by an employee and reported to a senior executive, yet never reported to CYS or law enforcement office. Everybody just keeps that information to themselves!

All experts agree that after the senior executive is aware that the employee has never gone to the authorities nor has management notified authorities, there is no reason for the senior executive to report; just one more abused child falling through the cracks.

Looks like a bureaucratic cluster.

Just wow - you are so far off its not even funny

All experts agree that the witness, secondary witness and tertiary witness, if in fact they believe a crime was committed, would report it to law enforcement

Experts do not agree that the supervisor who, AFTER all the witnesses were involved and determined NOT TO REPORT ANYTHING, and who ONLY recieved a report at all because he he was the supervisor of MM AND who looked up the policy and followed it to a "T", should result in a total condemnation of said supervisor, as well as the model "college" football program he built along with all of the fans of said program would be warranted!

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Your post supposes that C/S/S did report to "law enforcement", except a record doesn't exist because of technical issues, right?

If that is the case --- why the hell aren't C/S/S LOUDLY PROCLAIMING this "fact"? They should be SCREAMING this from the mountain-tops.

Instead, crickets. Those 3 are as silent as monks. Hmm.

Go suck on a tailpipe.

 

[psu00]

Lying under oath is not a good thing.

Unless you're a PA State trooper and a witness for the Attorney General. Then lying under oath is apparently no big deal and something they just ignore (all while charging the 'other side' with perjury).

 

[psu00]

It is reasonable to assume Lubert, Masser and Silvis will have faulty memories. That's just MY OPINION.

I would say that would be "reasonable to conclude"...........but is that conclusion really a 'conclusion', or a fact, or just an opinion?

It's so hard to follow anymore as the definition appears to change depending on whether someone is speaking in front of a reporter's camera or being deposed by lawyers.

 

[roswelllion]

So Barron should get a pass but Guido get's deposed. This gets goofier by the day. Of course Barron should be deposed. he has inserted himself with his statements knee deep in this. So what was his report to the trustees? The interesting thing will be the contradictions that come about through multiple depositions.

 

[91Joe95]

So all the experts in your field are comfortable with the scenario of a young boy being sexually assaulted in the offices of a corporation where the assault was witnessed by an employee and reported to a senior executive, yet never reported to CYS or law enforcement office. Everybody just keeps that information to themselves!

All experts agree that after the senior executive is aware that the employee has never gone to the authorities nor has management notified authorities, there is no reason for the senior executive to report; just one more abused child falling through the cracks.

Looks like a bureaucratic cluster.

People like you are actually bad for the victims. You blame the wrong people, the ones who actually did the right thing. Shame on you. Its why I have no problem pointing out how you like to lie about such a serious subject. You used to say they should report the matter. Then you got hold of the law and found out you were wrong about what needed to be done, who it should have been reported to, etc. Now you make claims that call for interference in investigations, and again misrepresent what the law mandates. Even worse, you state people get to ignore laws that they don't like. On top of that, you act like you know more than the experts who crafted the laws, which, BTW, are nearly identical across all states.

 

[91Joe95]

Amen!!!

If only THAT --- one simple "report to law enforcement" --- existed. Then we wouldn't have had to endure this whole debacle over the last 4 and 1/2 years.

Never lose site of that: for the want of ONE "report to law enforcement", the kingdom was lost.

1998.

BTW, like GTA, you should be ashamed of the harm you do to victims. Do yourself a favor and go read the statutes.

 

[WeR0206]

So your position is that CYS was notified of MM's observations and therefore they would have talked to him. If he had given them the information he testified to to in sworn testimony the case would never have reached an unfounded status without a whole bunch of people having first hand knowledge of an investigation of this high profile individual in State College. Interesting that not one person has come forward to assert this; they just let 4 people and Penn State hang out to dry. MM has kept quiet as well. Right.

Or MM could have given another statement of his observations to the effect that nothing happened of a sexual nature. That of course strains all credibility. Even assuming that happened, not one person has come forward to corroborate that.

That dog just won't hunt except in cult land.

The public really doesn't care if Penn State employees did their legal duty; they care that nobody took time to make a phone call to the police.

You're still lost. Guess what, in 1998 CYS investigated JS based on a mothers concerns of showering which turned out to be naked bear hugs from behind and since it was determined to be unfounded there was no CYS record of it. MM said in the 12/16/11 prelim that he wasn't 100% sure what JS and the boy were doing but based on the positioning something malicious MAY have been happening. He never made a written statement to UPPD and never expressed dissatisfaction or said more needed to be done when Joe and Tim respectively followed up with him. With that in mind if CCCYS was told about the incident they probably never even opened an investigation or spoke with MMbbc they already cleared their golden boy JS on a similar incident a few years prior. As I said in my post the Tutko case shows that CYS had a systemic problem of not even investigating cases/screened complaints on people who they previously cleared, especially people like JS who were considered pillars of the community and worked hand in hand with CYS on a daily basis. If that was the case there would be no record. Even if they did open a case and determined it to be unfounded there'd be no record. Get that through your thick skull.

One more time. Even if they didn't inform CYS about the incident they still went above and beyond their legal requirements by informing the child care expert phd in psychology JR at TSM who was legally REQUIRED to look into any and all incident reports involving one of his employees. If he dropped the ball from there that's on him not some college admins/fb coach. It's beyond absurd you're trying to hold CSSP to a higher standard than phd in psychology running a state licensed children's charity JR!

The PSU admins did more to stop JS than JR and TSM board members ever did.

 

[pkg5002]

The PSU admins did more to stop JS than JR and TSM board members ever did.

Truer words have never been spoken!

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

So all the experts in your field are comfortable with the scenario of a young boy being sexually assaulted in the offices of a corporation where the assault was witnessed by an employee and reported to a senior executive, yet never reported to CYS or law enforcement office. Everybody just keeps that information to themselves!

All experts agree that after the senior executive is aware that the employee has never gone to the authorities nor has management notified authorities, there is no reason for the senior executive to report; just one more abused child falling through the cracks.

Looks like a bureaucratic cluster.

Why do you insist on ignoring facts in evidence and insist on making up facts to fit you agenda?

I suggest you seek another avenue to relevancy.

 

[BobPSU92]

IGNORE. LIST.

 

[marshall23]

Perhaps Barron will be questioned about events that may have occurred between 1986 and 2006, when he was employed by PSU?

Don't know if it's relevant here but I just want everyone to understand something

IF a report is made and ultimately becomes "unfounded" it will eventually become, by law, "expunged"

Just to be clear to everyone - that means NO RECORD of it exists....period, end of story!

Just to extrapolate a little more for y'all....that means there is NO WAY TO PROVE THAT IT WAS REPORTED OR THAT IT WASN'T reported.

It means THE SITUATION NEVER EXISTED

You are of course 100% correct. The dissidents on this board are reduced to a "don't confuse me with the facts" approach. They know that the administrators were charged with FTR under ex post facto conditions, but they are okay with violations of constitutional rights.Soon the commonwealth will drop all the charges and they will then take up the "they got off on technicalities" campaign. We might note that their arguments will not be balanced with the acts of misconduct by Feudale, Fina and Baldwin. Nor will they be likely to question why Schultz and Curley were indicted in the first place. It could never have been to keep them from telling the truth at Sandusky's trial could it?Yet the facts never confuse them when it comes to the trial of JS. Was he not convicted of a crime in which the prosecutor could not produce a witness, victim or a date and location? Think about that for a minute. The motivation to place more responsibility to whatever crimes Sandusky committed to PSU rather than TSM and The Commonwealth Child Welfare Agencies can only be speculated.

 

[Talpsu]

So all the experts in your field are comfortable with the scenario of a young boy being sexually assaulted in the offices of a corporation where the assault was witnessed by an employee and reported to a senior executive, yet never reported to CYS or law enforcement office. Everybody just keeps that information to themselves!

All experts agree that after the senior executive is aware that the employee has never gone to the authorities nor has management notified authorities, there is no reason for the senior executive to report; just one more abused child falling through the cracks.

Looks like a bureaucratic cluster.

You seem to forget that MM himself said he never told the "senior executive" that somebody was sexually assaulted. You also seem to forget that the person seen was not an employee of that "senior executive". Heck he wasn't even an employee of the "corporation". So tell me again how your example has anything to do with what the poster stated about Joe doing exactly what he was suppose to in that situation with the information he had?

 

[marshall23]

You seem to forget that MM himself said he never told the "senior executive" that somebody was sexually assaulted. You also seem to forget that the person seen was not an employee of that "senior executive". Heck he wasn't even an employee of the "corporation". So tell me again how your example has anything to do with what the poster stated about Joe doing exactly what he was suppose to in that situation with the information he had?

Nor do they wish to concede that MM never objected to PSU's response to his report (what ever that was), continued to work there etc. for 10 years. Perhaps the "victim" was indeed a 13 year old boy who was residing with JS at the time?Or is that only known "to God."

 

[michnittlion]

1998.

BTW, like GTA, you should be ashamed of the harm you do to victims. Do yourself a favor and go read the statutes.

1998 ----- LOL, nice try. You know full well this is about a "police report" in 2001.

 

[91Joe95]

1998 ----- LOL, nice try. You know full well this is about a "police report" in 2001.

Go reread your assertion that a police report is all that was needed when that didn't work in 1998. When you're done with that, go read the reporting statutes, then learn who could actually file a report. Hopefully, a light will go off and you will not only understand the wrong stances you have taken, but more importantly why they are harmful to victims. Honestly, your continued stances on some of these things in spite of what the experts state disgusts me.

 

[bdgan]

Sure it is ...... you're essentially arguing that the Paternos should be able to subpoena the 763,243,106 citizens of Earth who have some sort of an opinion on the Freeh Report --- regardless of whether they have any sort of affiliation with the NCAA (the defendant) or Penn State (the nominal defendant).

Is that what you are arguing?

Barron had no association with either Penn State or the NCAA during the November 2011 to May 2013 time period. That's basically end of story as regards this subpoena.

Lubert, Masser and Silvis. They are being deposed. NO issues there. They were associated with Penn State in that time period, of course.

Barron has access to all information on the subject and to all of the remaining BOT members. Couldn't Barron be asked to testify about what he read and what other insiders told him?

 

[WeR0206]

1998 ----- LOL, nice try. You know full well this is about a "police report" in 2001.

And you know full well that the only person who could file a police report re: 01 was the one and only witness...and he never did and never said MORE needed to be done when followed up with. He also said on the record no one from PSU ever told him to be quiet.

Absolutely nothing was stopping MM from filing an official report with UPPD if he felt it was warranted...and yet he never did....hmmm that doesn't seem to jive with his 2010 version of events now does it??

 

[GTACSA]

Just wow - you are so far off its not even funny

All experts agree that the witness, secondary witness and tertiary witness, if in fact they believe a crime was committed, would report it to law enforcement

Experts do not agree that the supervisor who, AFTER all the witnesses were involved and determined NOT TO REPORT ANYTHING, and who ONLY recieved a report at all because he he was the supervisor of MM AND who looked up the policy and followed it to a "T", should result in a total condemnation of said supervisor, as well as the model "college" football program he built along with all of the fans of said program would be warranted!

I'm relieved that you posted that because when you initially said: "Find me ONE SINGLE PERSON, WHO IS AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD, including the BIGGEST PENN STATE HATER, BIGGEST JOE HATER-but again, someone who is an expert in this field, who will go ON THE RECORD as stating Joe did a thing other than EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS SUOPOSED TO DO, in his role, at that time, with the information he had and maybe I'll listen to them.", I mistakenly read that to mean that Joe wasn't allowed to make any reports to law enforcement after he notified Curley.

Your statement that: *" the supervisor who recieved a report from a supervisee about a situation who did EXACTLY what he should have in his role at that time with the information he was given by state law (then and reaffirmed NOW) AND PSU Policy then (and would NOT have even been involved based on policy and state law today)---- and the person who as documented as FACT reported it to his superiors" also seemed to suggest that state law did not permit the supervisor in the analogy to report to the police.

I'm relieved that you appear to take the position that no state law prohibited Joe from contacting outside legal authorities after he reported to Curley. That position has been stated here many times and I'm glad you have now confirmed that position to be in error.

 

[michnittlion]

Go reread your assertion that a police report is all that was needed when that didn't work in 1998. When you're done with that, go read the reporting statutes, then learn who could actually file a report. Hopefully, a light will go off and you will not only understand the wrong stances you have taken, but more importantly why they are harmful to victims. Honestly, your continued stances on some of these things in spite of what the experts state disgusts me.

If there was a police report in 2001 ---- there are no "failure to report suspected child abuse" charges, no allegations of a cover-up, no firing of Joe Paterno, no Freeh Report, no NCAA sanctions, ............

I'm not saying that Sandusky would have necessarily been stopped in 2001. But there would have been no downfall of Spanier, Curley, Schulz, JoePa, Penn State football .........

Much of the last 4 1/2 years was utterly (and easily!!!) preventable.

 

[GTACSA]

Why do you insist on ignoring facts in evidence and insist on making up facts to fit you agenda?

I suggest you seek another avenue to relevancy.

Were you looking in the mirror when you posted this?

 

[GTACSA]

If there was a police report in 2001 ---- there are no "failure to report suspected child abuse" charges, no allegations of a cover-up, no firing of Joe Paterno, no Freeh Report, no NCAA sanctions, ............

I'm not saying that Sandusky would have necessarily been stopped in 2001. But there would have been no downfall of Spanier, Curley, Schulz, JoePa, Penn State football .........

Much of the last 4 1/2 years was utterly (and easily!!!) preventable.

That is as clear as a hand in front of ones face, and yet many posters here can't see it.

 

[91Joe95]

If there was a police report in 2001 ---- there are no "failure to report suspected child abuse" charges, no allegations of a cover-up, no firing of Joe Paterno, no Freeh Report, no NCAA sanctions, ............

I'm not saying that Sandusky would have necessarily been stopped in 2001. But there would have been no downfall of Spanier, Curley, Schulz, JoePa, Penn State football .........

Much of the last 4 1/2 years was utterly (and easily!!!) preventable.

You haven't learned a thing about what is supposed to be done. Disgusting. Also ironic when one factors in you had an assault reported to you and you didn't call the police.

 

[91Joe95]

I'm relieved that you posted that because when you initially said: "Find me ONE SINGLE PERSON, WHO IS AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD, including the BIGGEST PENN STATE HATER, BIGGEST JOE HATER-but again, someone who is an expert in this field, who will go ON THE RECORD as stating Joe did a thing other than EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS SUOPOSED TO DO, in his role, at that time, with the information he had and maybe I'll listen to them.", I mistakenly read that to mean that Joe wasn't allowed to make any reports to law enforcement after he notified Curley.

Your statement that: *" the supervisor who recieved a report from a supervisee about a situation who did EXACTLY what he should have in his role at that time with the information he was given by state law (then and reaffirmed NOW) AND PSU Policy then (and would NOT have even been involved based on policy and state law today)---- and the person who as documented as FACT reported it to his superiors" also seemed to suggest that state law did not permit the supervisor in the analogy to report to the police.

I'm relieved that you appear to take the position that no state law prohibited Joe from contacting outside legal authorities after he reported to Curley. That position has been stated here many times and I'm glad you have now confirmed that position to be in error.

When are you going to start considering the victims, and the harm you have been doing to them by espousing such nonsense? Since you seem to be cumbaya with michy, why don't you ask him about the assault that was reported to him and how he didn't call the police?

 

[Howie'81]

Sure it is ...... you're essentially arguing that the Paternos should be able to subpoena the 763,243,106 citizens of Earth who have some sort of an opinion on the Freeh Report --- regardless of whether they have any sort of affiliation with the NCAA (the defendant) or Penn State (the nominal defendant).

Is that what you are arguing?

Barron had no association with either Penn State or the NCAA during the November 2011 to May 2013 time period. That's basically end of story as regards this subpoena.

Lubert, Masser and Silvis. They are being deposed. NO issues there. They were associated with Penn State in that time period, of course.

How sophomoric! The other 763,243,105 citizens of earth don't happen to be President of Penn State University. I don't need to take a course in law to understand that.

 

[PSUPALY]

If there was a police report in 2001 ---- there are no "failure to report suspected child abuse" charges, no allegations of a cover-up, no firing of Joe Paterno, no Freeh Report, no NCAA sanctions, ............

I'm not saying that Sandusky would have necessarily been stopped in 2001. But there would have been no downfall of Spanier, Curley, Schulz, JoePa, Penn State football .........

Much of the last 4 1/2 years was utterly (and easily!!!) preventable.

I'm having a hard time disagreeing with any of this.

unfortunately, you're extremely hated on here......gotta work on your delivery or...i dunno..."playing well with others" skills

 

[michnittlion]

You haven't learned a thing about what is supposed to be done. Disgusting. Also ironic when one factors in you had an assault reported to you and you didn't call the police.

Regarding that one incident in my life, I will say 2 things: (1) it WAS handled post-discussion on this board (a discussion I should have never even commenced), and (2) I was never and am not currently indicted for anything (I never have been indicted from a crime at any point in my life).

As for not being currently indicted --- that puts me in different company vs. Curley, Spanier and Schultz.