Wow... it really does sound like she's "on the run", trying to avoid all of this.
Lubrano post on Facebook
- Thread starter manofsteel200
- Start date
Everyone on this board knew the whole charade. That these charges would never stick. That these 3 were charged so they couldn't talk. Friday afternoon news dump ahead of a huge storm is par for the course. I hope they tell all. I hope they sue everyone under the sun. Cynthia Baldwin is scum. She is a worthless human. If she was in Japan, she would have committed hari Kari by now. But she has no pride. Her passport better be taken back today, because she will leave for her vacation home this weekend if she doesn't isn't stopped.
They have changed it after I ridiculed the author on twitter. I have the screen grab though.
Appears that way. Not exactly clear why the original perjury charges were dropped for Schultz in this ruling
Joe Drape is a moron. The Times never should have allowed him to cover anything other than horses.
espn buries C/S/S news deep in their website w/ no links to it. Go figure...
Perhaps you'll be worthy, even as a PSU insider, to publish your version or even something else equally unworthy.
Curley's legal team didn't appeal re: the perjury charge. They should have.
Her grand jury transcripts were released in 2013.
There are two things I gather from your post.
1) You're uninformed.
2) You don't know who the liars are (see above)
...
yes with the same mentality of the dolts on the pantherpiss-lair, you have people willing to believe Baldwin testified "truthfully" in regards to some conspiracy involving Spanier, while simultaneously lying through her teeth (or being woefully incompetent) about her ability to represent C/S/S
I don't have a version. I just have questions. There aren't any "versions" which answer all my questions. I see a lot of motivated reasoning based on "reasonable conclusions" about who the bad guys are, without hard documentation (so far) illuminating their well-planned, conspiratorial perfidy. Seems I know of someone else who made reasonable conclusions without providing much documentation of claimed wrongdoing. I see a lot of decisions by Penn State leadership with which I disagree, but the motivations behind those decisions still have several possible explanations for me, including the ones you assume.
I will concede that I don't follow each document and each legal decision with the obsessive scrutiny that some here do. Kudos to those who do, I guess, but here's a clue: neither the great majority of Penn State alums nor hardly anyone among the general public follow the progress of this narrative with fervid attention to such detail. If you have to make your argument for the innocence of C/S/S and Penn State by tracing so deeply into the minutiae, you have no chance of convincing anyone outside this message board of "The Truth." You must be able to distill this long, complex case to one or two verifiable (not inferential) "smoking guns."
I wish I was a Penn State "insider." I'd occupy a better financial and social status if I was.
I don't have a version. I just have questions. There aren't any "versions" which answer all my questions. I see a lot of motivated reasoning based on "reasonable conclusions" about who the bad guys are, without hard documentation (so far) illuminating their well-planned, conspiratorial perfidy. Seems I know of someone else who made reasonable conclusions without providing much documentation of claimed wrongdoing. I see a lot of decisions by Penn State leadership with which I disagree, but the motivations behind those decisions still have several possible explanations for me, including the ones you assume.
I will concede that I don't follow each document and each legal decision with the obsessive scrutiny that some here do. Kudos to those who do, I guess, but here's a clue: neither the great majority of Penn State alums nor hardly anyone among the general public follow the progress of this narrative with fervid attention to such detail. If you have to make your argument for the innocence of C/S/S and Penn State by tracing so deeply into the minutiae, you have no chance of convincing anyone outside this message board of "The Truth." You must be able to distill this long, complex case to one or two verifiable (not inferential) "smoking guns."
I wish I was a Penn State "insider." I'd occupy a better financial and social status if I was.
Funny, the bot's malfeasance was plain as day to Covey, and she sees corruption every day.
I don't have a version. I just have questions. There aren't any "versions" which answer all my questions. I see a lot of motivated reasoning based on "reasonable conclusions" about who the bad guys are, without hard documentation (so far) illuminating their well-planned, conspiratorial perfidy. Seems I know of someone else who made reasonable conclusions without providing much documentation of claimed wrongdoing. I see a lot of decisions by Penn State leadership with which I disagree, but the motivations behind those decisions still have several possible explanations for me, including the ones you assume.
I will concede that I don't follow each document and each legal decision with the obsessive scrutiny that some here do. Kudos to those who do, I guess, but here's a clue: neither the great majority of Penn State alums nor hardly anyone among the general public follow the progress of this narrative with fervid attention to such detail. If you have to make your argument for the innocence of C/S/S and Penn State by tracing so deeply into the minutiae, you have no chance of convincing anyone outside this message board of "The Truth." You must be able to distill this long, complex case to one or two verifiable (not inferential) "smoking guns."
I wish I was a Penn State "insider." I'd occupy a better financial and social status if I was.
Evan, you say some interesting things here. Nobody knows the whole truth of this, even those who are the best informed by having read all the documents. I do not fully understand why it would make a lick of difference to a person who wants to know the truth of something whether there is any chance that the truth he finds will become universally approved and accepted. The truth of things has always been good enough for me. The public relations battle might be lost but the truth is its own reward.
I tend to try when I can to avoid conspiratorial thinking, precisely because it explains things TOO well, sometimes, and life is seldom neat.
So, let's start with what we agree about.
Certainly you agree that the PSU reaction to the Sandusky matter was at least very badly bungled by the PSU BoT, right?
Even assuming nobody intended to divert attention from themselves, and acted simply with negligence, you could hardly make a worse set of mistakes than to pay a sloppy, poor investigator 8 million bucks to write a poorly sourced narrative and then hold a press conference where he said a bunch of things that went far beyond even the poorly sourced narrative, right?
You could hardly do worse than to turn that report and the grandstanding press conference loose to the national media with no study, no review, no vote of the board and no statement except "Here's our guy's findings," right?
You could hardly do worse than to follow the report and the presser up with having your President sign a consent decree, which you did not read before he signed it, based on the poorly sourced findings you also never read, right?
And, remember, all this is what happened AFTER November, right? After WE all knew since March of '11 that a GJ was considering those charges against Sandusky, and that a whole bunch of Penn Staters had been called to testify? You know that PennLive story that nobody on the BoT would even admit later that they had READ?
I know this will sound like the beginning of an old time joke, but top execs/directors from BoNY Mellon, US Steel, Nationwide Mutual, Merck and other huge corporations did all of these things listed above. Without any hint of conspiracy to divert attention or intentional wrongdoing at all, they simply negligently failed at each and every step to even gesture towards doing the right thing, the smart thing, the thing which could have protected Penn State.
Is it truly so difficult for you to understand how I might wonder, if these people are so dumb that they would make repeated massive unintentional mistakes like this, why the big companies listed above are not broke and out of business? Of course US Steel IS all but broke, but Surma is a special kind of vindictive stupid, different from regular stupid, so his is a special case.
Do you see the logic that drives people to say, "There is no way these successful people could have screwed this up so badly unless they intended for it to be screwed up like this?" How do the BoNY Mellon President and the Merck CEO get BLUFFED by pasty Mark Emmert, who would be over his head at the finals of the WV State Social Studies Fair?
Evan, I know you are proud of your position as a rigorous logician in the face of us wildly emotional football fans, so you explain it to us. How did all this happen innocently, by mere mistake?
Please tell me which of these propositions above you disagree with. Tell me why these were not at least HUGE blunders.
Then, one last thing--why would these same incompetent people fight so hard to keep the Freeh Report source documents out of the hands of their own fellow fiduciaries, the Alum Trustees? Is it simply to avoid admitting they made a mistake, or might there be other motives? Why did Karen Peetz wax eloquent about openness and transparency when nobody on that Board wants to be one bit transparent? And never did? Why have Barron say he is going to review the Freeh report then not do it and lecture us about values instead?
Please, apply your logical skills to this. I am interested to know the innocent explanation.
Last edited:
So this thread has been posted for a while now-but no Cruisin, Michnittlion, CDW, PSUJAG.
Hmmmmm.... Wonder why?
Hmmmmm.... Wonder why?
Remember how they used to claim Baldwin was a virtuous "hero" trying to bring the evil C/S/S and out-of-control rogue Paterno / PSU Football Program to justice....not the lying, sack-of-$hit, corrupt, IMMORAL, rogue lawyer and "broken justice system" sycophant to her equally corrupt masters that she clearly is? But the posters you mentioned and their masters are going to presume to pedantically lecture the entire PSU Community on topics such as "culture", "decency", "leadership", "ethics", "integrity", etc., etc., etc... As the Valley Girls of Disney say, "Serioussssly?!?!"
Bravo demlion. All you were missing was a mic drop at the end
Here's his initial effort before being shamed into changing it:
This incompetent is probably flabbergasted that someone would care that he called 3 innocent people suspected pedophiles. He's probably muttering "Crazy Penn State people" over his morning scotch. Meanwhile, he'd be right back up on his soapbox if some degenerate media butt buddy of his was described in the manner in which he described C/S/S.
You nailed it, Dem. Perhaps someday when you are a full member of the BOT, you will have the necessary podium to challenge the state media to finally address all of the statements that you so eloquently just made.
Here's his initial effort before being shamed into changing it:
This incompetent is probably flabbergasted that someone would care that he called 3 innocent people suspected pedophiles. He's probably muttering "Crazy Penn State people" over his morning scotch. Meanwhile, he'd be right back up on his soapbox if some degenerate media butt buddy of his was described in the manner in which he described C/S/S.
Nice work.
The original perjury charges were not related to Baldwin. Why was Schultz's perjury charges dropped in this Baldwin ruling? Because they were not effectively represented at the GJ?
My guess is his attorney felt the court may not quash this charge because of the email evidence. In Curley's decision the court states that Curley testified that he was not aware of the 1998 investigation; however, the decision also says that email evidence shows Curley was aware of the 1998 incident. A decision not to quash the charge gives credence to the prosecution without Curley being able to offer a defense.
Anything anyone of the three said while (not) represented by Baldwin should be struck from the record. The ruling states Curley didn't appeal the perjury charge.
Yeah, that's a good point. Regardless it's very unlikely the FTR and endangering charges will stand. It's doubtful the DA will go to trial over a single perjury charge.
Even though your post was not directed to me, I think your position misses the point.
There are many facts within the Freeh report which establish that certain individuals at Penn State were informed of MM's reported observations, they then discussed options on what to do, while finally concluding that they would do nothing. If the police were not notified of possible criminal activity, then that constitutes nothing. Until that narrative can be rebutted by smoking guns, nothing will change.
Freeh had no right to hold that grandstanding press conference and if the BoT authorized it they were 100% wrong; but did you consider that it may have been done without Board consent?
Remember that the Consent Decree was signed with the benefit of legal counsel; whom I might add was extremely qualified to give advice. Read his deposition and then tell me if you think Erickson should have ignored the advice of counsel.
US Steel is all but broke because of Surma? If US Steel were the only steel company in this country which was in a financial mess I might agree with you; but that is not the case. They are all struggling due to economic factors beyond their control. You know what those are.
As to why the source documents were not made available without a court case; who knows. Have you considered it may have been done to protect the same people that you are championing? I don't know and I hope that isn't the reason.
This whole episode is not black and white; there are tons of gray here.
We still have nothing that definitively establishes what McQueary told Paterno, Curley and Schultz or what, in turn, was related to Spanier. Until and unless we do, absolute truth cannot be established. Chances of that happening?
I can't wait to hear how many individuals of the 430 Freeh actually used in the report. My guess is 5 with 80% being Vicky Tripony (80/20 rule). Objectivity at its finest.... Queue up the theme song to The Munsters.....
Coincidence??? I think not.
What are the odds...that if you looked through Barron's closet you would find that nice pinstripe pantsuit........and some gold hoop earrings and pink lipstick on his bathroom vanity.
Stop. You are either a complete aholio or related to someone on the BOT. Once this clears and it will 750,00 Penn Staters minus you (doubtful you are one) will scream from the mountaintops. We have power and it will be unleashed. The BOT has felt it and will continue to do so. The public is next.
Please go away. You are losing.
Your post makes my point. You have a narrative which is essentially the Freeh Report Narrative, which you believe is shown to be true. At a time when I was perhaps more credulous than I should have been, I believed some of that narrative. But now, enough has come out that we do not have any rational basis for believing any of it. If, of course, the Freeh Report Narrative is true and perfectly borne out by the source documents, then why on EARTH would the BoT not have published them long ago?
Remember, they are not trying to save money on victim settlements. They are not trying to save money on sanctions. They are not trying to protect the reputation of Penn State, and they are CERTAINLY not trying to protect the reputation of Paterno, Curley, Schultz or Spanier. They threw all that on the fire a long, long time ago, right? Please tell me if you agree with this proposition--that they cannot justify hiding the Freeh source docs from the Alum Trustees by a claim that they are defending or protecting anything or anyone mentioned above.
Ok, I will concede that Surma is a genius. So he is not an exception to the general idea that this group of major execs and directors, of HUGE corporate entities from all sectors of the economy, is very unlikely to have all suffered from an attack of the stupids simultaneously. You "win" that point.
They signed the consent decree in the face of a threat of the Death Penalty WHICH HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN A BLUFF. Please provide me anything you have which shows that Ed Ray was lying when he said it was not on the table. Please show me anything which shows that the infractions committee of the NCAA was even considering sanctions at the time of the consent decree.
Finally, and I am sorry this is out of order, but let's assume Freeh went rogue and conducted his press conference without the approval or permission of the BoT. You DO understand that the presser stands alone as the single most damaging thing to PSU's reputation that ever happened? No person ever screwed PSU over more completely in 90 minutes than Freeh. I think these highly competent kings and queens of Industry would have stopped him, or contradicted him or fired him or sued him had he done that outside their permission. Don't you? Especially the genius John Surm, right? That reputation was something they could be expected to spend millions to protect, right? Since protecting the University is Job One for a Trustee?
Are you really suggesting they paid him to protect it, but then he trashed it, AND THEY SAID NOTHING?
Excellent points Dem. Also lete not forget this was PSU's "leaders" reaction to freehs dog and pony show a mere HOURS after the press conference. They were already stating as if it were an indisputable fact that CSSP failed the kids:
