Lubrano post on Facebook

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Damn, he's ugly.

Well, on the inside....which is what matters.

 

[canuckhal]

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.

Nothing? Schultz recollects that child services were contacted. Sandusky was banned from bringing kids to use PSU facilities. Head of Second Mile contacted. Police were not informed b/c info. they were provided by MM was that no abuse had occurred and it was horseplay. MM's dad and Dranov did not contact police or anyone either based on what MM told them. They said go see Joe, who followed policy and set up MM with a meeting with Curley and Schultz.

 

[GTACSA]

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 guess it depends on your definition of "definitively establishes." We have the sworn testimony of Joe and MM and the statement of Joe that he was going to forward MM's report up the chain of command. We also have the emails and notes of Schultz. That is enough to prevail by a preponderance of the evidence that my initial statement is correct. Are there other facts which might come out to rebut that, of course. But until that happens the narrative is set.

I agree that those facts do not establish absolute truth, but remember that absolute truth is never required in a court of law, and most certainly never required in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately in the final analysis, the court of public opinion is where Penn State may never prevail.

 

[rmb297]

Nothing? Schultz recollects that child services were contacted. Sandusky was banned from bringing kids to use PSU facilities. Head of Second Mile contacted. Police were not informed b/c info. they were provided by MM was that no abuse had occurred and it was horseplay. MM's dad and Dranov did not contact police or anyone either based on what MM told them. They said go see Joe, who followed policy and set up MM with a meeting with Curley and Schultz.

I'll submit that the police were indeed contacted....namely, Tom Harmon.

Harmon's email trail and testimony make no sense. He wasn't asked for the Sandusky 1998 police report but emailed Schultz to say it was in the archives. He testified he didn't give it Schultz (refuting the Commonwealth's and Freeh's contention that "reviewed 1998 history" meant Schultz reviewed the police report).

And does anyone (besides BOT lickers and Paterno haters) believe that Harmon just pulled this file out of the blue two days after Schultz was told of the 2001 incident. That's what Harmon's testimony appears to indicate. According to the Freeh Report end notes, there is an email from Schultz to Harmon on Feb 12, 2001. Why haven't we seen it or why wasn't it introduced as evidence? Those are rhetorical questions.

If Harmon was told of the 2001 incident, he had a duty to report it to child welfare. Not hard to imagine that Fina, et al, but some pressure on Harmon to lie. Based on reliable sources, Fina asked others to lie to help make his case.

This is the same Tom Harmon that altered the 1998 police report....who lived down the street from Sandusky...who went to the same church as Sandusky. It's not a stretch to believe that he sat on the report, then lied about what he did ten years later.

 

[wensilver]

.. 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.

When Trustee Ken FRAZIER was queried back in March 2013 in Hershey - about the wisdom of allowing such a grandstanding press conference and not have a "soft release" on the web, like the King/Spalding/Clemente findings - the reply was basically "there are no do overs in life" and insults were directed towards the spokesperson of PS4RS & the Faculty Senate, all while waving a copy of Don Van Natta's article in the air.

Those documents say what they say, and no about of #handwaving is going to change what those documents say.

For people who look like you.

And you know who you are.

 

[GTACSA]

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?

All I asked you was after reading the deposition of Penn State's attorney, if you had been involved in the negotiations would you have advised Erickson to reject lead counsel's advice?

I agree that the BoT could have reacted in a way to attempt to minimize Freeh's statements. I just don't know how effective that would have been in light of the GJ report and the Freeh report itself which set the narrative. How do you defend Penn State after those bombs went off without coming across as a buffoon?

 

[pandaczar12]

There are many facts within the Freeh report which establish that certain individuals at Penn State were informed of MM's reported observations

Haha, did you really just say there are many facts within the Freeh report? Care to elaborate?

As for MM's observations... If MM witnessed a crime, he should have called the police. Not one person MM told thinks they were notified of a crime. The boy in the shower doesn't think a crime occurred that night. So you still think that someone at PSU should have gone to the police with hearsay of a potential crime against a local legend who has been vetted repeatedly by child care experts? If your answer is yes, then why let MM, his dad, and Dranov off the hook?

 

[Art]

I guess it depends on your definition of "definitively establishes." We have the sworn testimony of Joe and MM and the statement of Joe that he was going to forward MM's report up the chain of command. We also have the emails and notes of Schultz. That is enough to prevail by a preponderance of the evidence that my initial statement is correct. Are there other facts which might come out to rebut that, of course. But until that happens the narrative is set.

I agree that those facts do not establish absolute truth, but remember that absolute truth is never required in a court of law, and most certainly never required in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately in the final analysis, the court of public opinion is where Penn State may never prevail.

Wonderful. None of that establishes what McQueary told anyone. And you can continue spinning what's out there into a tapestry that suits your purposes, but it changes nothing.

 

[GTACSA]

I'll submit that the police were indeed contacted....namely, Tom Harmon.

Harmon's email trail and testimony make no sense. He wasn't asked for the Sandusky 1998 police report but emailed Schultz to say it was in the archives. He testified he didn't give it Schultz (refuting the Commonwealth's and Freeh's contention that "reviewed 1998 history" meant Schultz reviewed the police report).

And does anyone (besides BOT lickers and Paterno haters) believe that Harmon just pulled this file out of the blue two days after Schultz was told of the 2001 incident. That's what Harmon's testimony appears to indicate. According to the Freeh Report end notes, there is an email from Schultz to Harmon on Feb 12, 2001. Why haven't we seen it or why wasn't it introduced as evidence? Those are rhetorical questions.

If Harmon was told of the 2001 incident, he had a duty to report it to child welfare. Not hard to imagine that Fina, et al, but some pressure on Harmon to lie. Based on reliable sources, Fina asked others to lie to help make his case.

This is the same Tom Harmon that altered the 1998 police report....who lived down the street from Sandusky...who went to the same church as Sandusky. It's not a stretch to believe that he sat on the report, then lied about what he did ten years later.

That all could be true, but the problem for Penn State is that instead of 4 employees at Penn State who failed to notify the police (outside legal authorities) after receiving notice of MM's report, we would have 5 people who didn't pass it on to the police or DA's office, or even CYS. That doesn't help the narrative.

 

[rmb297]

I guess it depends on your definition of "definitively establishes." We have the sworn testimony of Joe and MM and the statement of Joe that he was going to forward MM's report up the chain of command. We also have the emails and notes of Schultz. That is enough to prevail by a preponderance of the evidence that my initial statement is correct. Are there other facts which might come out to rebut that, of course. But until that happens the narrative is set.

I agree that those facts do not establish absolute truth, but remember that absolute truth is never required in a court of law, and most certainly never required in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately in the final analysis, the court of public opinion is where Penn State may never prevail.

If the PA AG was the least bit honest, it wouldn't have used Paterno's unreliable testimony.

In October 2011, Paterno was re-interviewed and got every fact wrong about the details surrounding the incident. Paterno said he only called Curley -- and never spoke with him after. He had no recollection of meeting with Schultz. He had no recollection that Curley and Schultz came to his house. The AG knew all of that was wrong, but cherry picked the one thing that was congruent with its case -- Paterno said he thought Mike's complaint was legitimate and that Sandusky was messing with a kid's "privates."

Of course, we all later learned that McQueary never told Paterno anything that explicit. So those who are taking Paterno's grand jury testimony as legitimate are simply people with agendas who don't have a grip on the facts of the case.

 

[GTACSA]

Wonderful. None of that establishes what McQueary told anyone. And you can continue spinning what's out there into a tapestry that suits your purposes, but it changes nothing.

Of course you can continue to ignore sworn testimony in order to suit your narrative, but likewise it changes nothing. We disagree; no big deal.

 

[Art]

Of course you can continue to ignore sworn testimony in order to suit your narrative, but likewise it changes nothing. We disagree; no big deal.

What sworn testimony that was subject to cross-examination?

 

[BobPSU92]

Guys, go easy. Assholes like gtacsa had a very bad day yesterday, worse than usual for these assholes.

 

[pandaczar12]

What sworn testimony that was subject to cross-examination?

Also, Have we ever heard the tape, are we sure it was transcribed correctly?

It doesn't really matter, he qualifies his statements with things like "I don't know what you'd call it" enough to make it useless.

 

[pandaczar12]

Guys, go easy. Assholes like gtacsa had a very bad day yesterday, worse than usual for these assholes.

Please elaborate!

 

[Aoshiro]

All I asked you was after reading the deposition of Penn State's attorney, if you had been involved in the negotiations would you have advised Erickson to reject lead counsel's advice?

I agree that the BoT could have reacted in a way to attempt to minimize Freeh's statements. I just don't know how effective that would have been in light of the GJ report and the Freeh report itself which set the narrative. How do you defend Penn State after those bombs went off without coming across as a buffoon?

You are confused about the chicken and the egg.

The BoT had no intention of "defending" Penn State. The trustees are the people who told Freeh what to write.

 

[marshall23]

That all could be true, but the problem for Penn State is that instead of 4 employees at Penn State who failed to notify the police (outside legal authorities) after receiving notice of MM's report, we would have 5 people who didn't pass it on to the police or DA's office, or even CYS. That doesn't help the narrative.

We do not know if anyone at PSU called CYS. I believe Gary testified that he thought they were contacted.We don't know, but it is likely that Tom Harmon was in the loop. What we do know is that two medical professionals heard what MM had to say and they didn't think it was a worthy of a call to any child protective agency or the police. We also know that after Tim told Raykovitz.who was a mandated reporter, that JS was banned from bringing TSM kids to PSU, he did not think any report was necessary either. Ever speculate that MM's story changed over 10 years?

 

[Aoshiro]

Of course you can continue to ignore sworn testimony in order to suit your narrative, but likewise it changes nothing. We disagree; no big deal.

There are numerous studies that show that people can't accurately remember events so far in the past. It is absolutely ridiculous to rely on ANYONE'S testimony about events of a decade ago. The contemporaneous record shows that no one thought that a crime had occurred.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

not the lying, sack-of-$hit, corrupt, IMMORAL, rogue lawyer and "broken justice system" sycophant to her equally corrupt masters that she clearly is?

I love it!!

 

[marshall23]

Also, Have we ever heard the tape, are we sure it was transcribed correctly?

It doesn't really matter, he qualifies his statements with things like "I don't know what you'd call it" enough to make it useless.

A prosecutor read JVP's testimony into the trial record. Do we really trust any of them at this point?

 

[GTACSA]

If the PA AG was the least bit honest, it wouldn't have used Paterno's unreliable testimony.

In October 2011, Paterno was re-interviewed and got every fact wrong about the details surrounding the incident. Paterno said he only called Curley -- and never spoke with him after. He had no recollection of meeting with Schultz. He had no recollection that Curley and Schultz came to his house. The AG knew all of that was wrong, but cherry picked the one thing that was congruent with its case -- Paterno said he thought Mike's complaint was legitimate and that Sandusky was messing with a kid's "privates."

Of course, we all later learned that McQueary never told Paterno anything that explicit. So those who are taking Paterno's grand jury testimony as legitimate are simply people with agendas who don't have a grip on the facts of the case.

No recollection as to whether he met with Schultz or whether Curley and Schultz came to his house does not mean Joe was wrong about those events; it means he didn't recall those 2 events. He did recall generally what MM had told him and MM testified as to what he told Joe and Curley/Schultz. It's clear Joe was never told the details of the sexual nature of the contact, but he was aware of the general sexual context.

What do you think the record shows as to what Joe was told?

Just because you don't agree with my view doesn't mean I have an agenda. I always respected Joe Paterno and still do. Since I don't agree with your view, shall I assume you have an agenda?

 

[GTACSA]

What sworn testimony that was subject to cross-examination?

MM's was subject to cross, Joe's was not. The absence of cross examination does not change the fact that it was sworn testimony; as in under oath.

 

[Marshall30]

MM's was subject to cross, Joe's was not. The absence of cross examination does not change the fact that it was sworn testimony; as in under oath.

Don't you have some snow to shovel?

 

[simons96]

Don't you have some snow to shovel?

ahhh the whole "MMs testimony was subject to cross" myth

yeah in a fair trial maybe

honest question for the PRACTICING attorneys. . . when's the last time you heard a judge first scold the prosecutor for leading a witness, then scold the defense for refusing to object??

 

[Art]

MM's was subject to cross, Joe's was not. The absence of cross examination does not change the fact that it was sworn testimony; as in under oath.

McQueary's testimony about what he told Joe, Curley, and Spanier was subject to cross-examination? By whom? When?

And how does testimony being under oath insure that it is 100% accurate, or as close as it can be to that?

 

[Art]

Don't you have some snow to shovel?

Ain't snow that he's shoveling.

 

[marshall23]

Tim, Gary and Spanier testified under oath. They didn't get to testify in the JS trial (therefore no cross), because they were indicted and effectively silenced. In lieu of yesterday's ruling and critique of Fina's methods, it is all over but the shouting.

 

[WeR0206]

MM's was subject to cross, Joe's was not. The absence of cross examination does not change the fact that it was sworn testimony; as in under oath.

Yes, and here's what MM had to say when getting cross examined at the 12/16/11 prelim. You read it and tell me if you still think MM reporter certain child abuse to Joe and others (as he claimed he did in his 2010 statement to OAG and GJ testimony):

Pg. 72: MM never used the words anal intercourse or anal sodomy when explaining what he saw to Joe. Here's the actual Q & A b/c I think it's important. Also note how MM keeps saying "I would have told..." instead of "I told him....."

Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?

A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.

Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?

A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.

Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No
Pg. 74: Q: And you went to Coach Paterno in lieu of, not in addition to, going to police that night?
A: I went to coach Paterno first
Q: Okay, did you go to police that day of – the day you spoke to Mr. Paterno?
A: No
Q: Did you go the next day?
A: No I did not
Q: Did you make any conclusion to Coach Paterno about what was happening
A: Yes, it was extremely sexual, yes
Q: Did you say extremely sexual in nature?
A: In nature?
Q: Yes
A: I can’t remember if I said the word in nature or not ma’am. I don’t know that
Q: Did you ever use the word fondling?
A: I’m sure I did to help describe what I was seeing. I’m sure I did use the word fondling, yes ma’am
Q: Okay, did you see any type of fondling with Mr. Sandusky’s hands on the boy?
A: No, I’ve already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy, that I could not see his hands. The bodies were blocking --
Q: Okay
A: -- his hands so I cannot say that I saw Mr. Sandusky’s hands on a boy’s genitals, no ma’am.
Q: So you can’t – how would you describe fondling, I’m sort of confused here
A: Fondling is touching someone in a sexual way. I don’t know if that’s the exact definition, but that’s what my definition is.
Q: Okay, so that’s what you thought you saw
A: Yes ma’am.
Q: Okay
A: without a doubt
Q: Okay, now when you talked with Mr. Paterno and he told you what he was going to do, he was going to – did he tell you what he was going to do?
A: Yes ma’am. As I already stated, he said that he needed to think and contact some other people and that he would get back to me.
Q: Okay, and did you ask Coach Paterno if those other people meant the police?
A: No ma’am. I did not ask him that.
Q: And did you say to Coach Paterno, coach, I really appreciate it and I also think we should call the police
A: No, I did not
==============================

MM also testified that he viewed Schultz as the police, yet he nor his dad ever asked why Schultz never sent anyone from UPPD to take a written statement so a criminal investigation could be started. In fact, MM testified that when TC called him a few weeks later to follow up with PSU's action plan, MM never expressed dissatisfaction and never said MORE needed to be done. With that in mind How in the world can anyone still believe that MM reported certain abuse in 2001?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

All I asked you was after reading the deposition of Penn State's attorney, if you had been involved in the negotiations would you have advised Erickson to reject lead counsel's advice?

I agree that the BoT could have reacted in a way to attempt to minimize Freeh's statements. I just don't know how effective that would have been in light of the GJ report and the Freeh report itself which set the narrative. How do you defend Penn State after those bombs went off without coming across as a buffoon?

The lead TOS circle-jerker back on the job

We missed you so. ;-)

 

[kentuckycb]

This whole episode is not black and white; there are tons of gray here.

Bingo...which is why the BoT's actions are perplexing and incredibly frustrating for most alumni. Why would the leaders of Penn State, in this very gray situation, voluntarily choose to emphasize only the negative aspects of the events in question? One may come to various conclusions based on the evidence. It's just as reasonable to conclude there was no malice involved here. This is why Freeh should never have been hired to offer conclusions. He simply could have said "Here is what I found, draw your own conclusions." He took things 100 yards further by "reasonably concluding" C/S/S/P attempted to conceal facts to protect the football program. There was simply no need for this unless you're trying to focus the attention on C/S/S/P...WHY???

 

[Evan Ceg]

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.

Excellent response, Demlion.

There's no question that the BoT made critical mistakes. Without taking a long time to prepare a review, a quick list of those mistakes that leap to my mind:

• Not questioning Spanier/Baldwin about their risk assessment of the Sandusky GJ investigation at the May 2011 BoT meeting. Inexcusable.
• Announcing the removal of JoePa as a firing. (Removing JoePa from his job was the right decision. Should have been an administrative suspension.)
• Delivering the news to JoePa with a phone call. Failing to consult with him in the first two or three days of the GJP leak.
• BoT silence from November 4 until the Nov 9 press conference.
• Capitulating to alumni and Faculty Senate demands that the BoT not review the Freeh Report in advance of its release.
• Allowing Freeh to conduct a press conference within an hour of the Freeh Report's release (assuming they "permitted" it). Never quizzing Freeh on his findings, even in-camera.
• Not anticipating that Emmert and the NCAA would assume enormous media and pubic pressure to hammer Penn State.
• Protecting TSM in the civil settlements with Sandusky victims. This is the biggest "Why?" I have, the key I suspect to a lot of answers, and a question not asked often or loud enough.

I'm sure other posters could/will chime in with many other examples, some of which I would agree with, some not.

Criticisms of the BoT often heard here with which I disagree:

• The BoT is solely responsible for the PR beating Penn State took. A ridiculous assertion, unless you can show me how the BoT could have prevented the indictments of Sandusky, of Curley and Schultz within 24 hours thereafter, and then Spanier. If the BoT had done more right in 2011, it might have reduced the PR damage by about 20%. They should have given us that 20%.
• The BoT should have been defiant to the media narrative in the fall of 2011. Defiance would only have doubled down on public opprobrium of Penn State. What kind of verifiable exculpatory facts were in hand at that time? We would have suffered the same result if we had taken Sandusky's alleged victims to civil trial.
• Penn State should have defied the NCAA and taken it to court. That only would have kept the fate of Penn State Athletics totally in the air for a year or more during legal ping pong. Uncertainly kills, and would have devastated all our varsity teams. That strategy would have been an effective Death Penalty, not to mention more PR damage in the public sphere. As galling as the chosen strategy may have been, the results have turned out better than any of us could have reasonably expected.
• Restoring Joe's legacy and pursuing The Truth should be the BoT's highest priority. No, preparing for the looming challenges confronting higher education and optimizing the delivery of Penn State's mission today and tomorrow should be the BoT's highest priority. I've been a lifelong Joe Paterno admirer, but If I had to choose between (a) salving wounded alumni by feeding the Scandal questions to the skeptical press and public continuously over the last four years and keeping alive public memory of the nightmare, or (b) focusing on meeting the considerable challenges and successes of Penn State's present and future, I'd choose the latter in a New York minute. By most measures of University welfare, the "Move on" strategy has proven correct. At this point, my interest in gaining the Truth goes only to seeing that any remaining crooks and incompetents from 2011/2012 are tossed out. Sure, I'd like Joe's reputation be restored for the sake of Sue and the Paterno children and grandchildren. As to my Penn State Pride and yours, we're big boys and I'm not going to knot my knickers over any ignoramus that comments about "Ped State." I know who I am and the quality of my Penn State Experience.

A few remaining members of the OG BoT may, indeed, be worthy of the ad hominem invective many here direct toward them. And I have been a consistent supporter of BoT downsizing and restructuring. But I cannot entirely dismiss the possibility that the Old Guard's stonewalling may owe to privileged knowledge of Penn State's real and substantial negligence in dealing with Sandusky, knowledge that if made public could yet materially wound the financial welfare of the University and its quality of mission delivery. Is it not a trustee's fiduciary responsibility to save the University from such further substantial damages? I'm not asserting that's the reason for their actions, I'm saying I can't entirely dismiss the possibility.

Why is it that none of the trustees appointed since 2011/2012 have joined the Alumni trustee voting bloc? Some insider must be doing one hell of a job of selection, indoctrination and extortion of these new appointees.

I am still stuck on one big problem for Penn State. Regardless of what may one day be proven in court about what McQueary actually did see that night in Lasch, he perceived that he had witnessed a sexual assault. That's what the public record of open court testimony states. It's Curley, Schultz and Spanier who assert it was only something akin to "horseplay" and that McQueary was merely made "uncomfortable" by what he saw. It couldn't be that C/S/S have something invested in that narrative, could it? McQueary has never deviated from his perception of a sexual assault. JoePa's testimony seems to back McQueary up. Even if McQueary was merely "uncomfortable" about a 55-year old man and a pre-teen boy naked and alone in a locker room shower of an empty building on a Friday night, a man who had been expressly warned about such activity in the past, that's an incident report that demands a discreet but by-the-numbers investigation. An investigation that never happened. How could that be? At every turn, University leadership gave Sandusky the benefit of doubt, instead of the welfare of a child. That's not negligence?

 

[Art]

Yes, and here's what MM had to say when getting cross examined at the 12/16/11 prelim. You read it and tell me if you still think MM reporter certain child abuse to Joe and others (as he claimed he did in his 2010 statement to OAG and GJ testimony):

Pg. 72: MM never used the words anal intercourse or anal sodomy when explaining what he saw to Joe. Here's the actual Q & A b/c I think it's important. Also note how MM keeps saying "I would have told..." instead of "I told him....."

Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?

A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.

Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?

A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.

Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No
Pg. 74: Q: And you went to Coach Paterno in lieu of, not in addition to, going to police that night?
A: I went to coach Paterno first
Q: Okay, did you go to police that day of – the day you spoke to Mr. Paterno?
A: No
Q: Did you go the next day?
A: No I did not
Q: Did you make any conclusion to Coach Paterno about what was happening
A: Yes, it was extremely sexual, yes
Q: Did you say extremely sexual in nature?
A: In nature?
Q: Yes
A: I can’t remember if I said the word in nature or not ma’am. I don’t know that
Q: Did you ever use the word fondling?
A: I’m sure I did to help describe what I was seeing. I’m sure I did use the word fondling, yes ma’am
Q: Okay, did you see any type of fondling with Mr. Sandusky’s hands on the boy?
A: No, I’ve already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy, that I could not see his hands. The bodies were blocking --
Q: Okay
A: -- his hands so I cannot say that I saw Mr. Sandusky’s hands on a boy’s genitals, no ma’am.
Q: So you can’t – how would you describe fondling, I’m sort of confused here
A: Fondling is touching someone in a sexual way. I don’t know if that’s the exact definition, but that’s what my definition is.
Q: Okay, so that’s what you thought you saw
A: Yes ma’am.
Q: Okay
A: without a doubt
Q: Okay, now when you talked with Mr. Paterno and he told you what he was going to do, he was going to – did he tell you what he was going to do?
A: Yes ma’am. As I already stated, he said that he needed to think and contact some other people and that he would get back to me.
Q: Okay, and did you ask Coach Paterno if those other people meant the police?
A: No ma’am. I did not ask him that.
Q: And did you say to Coach Paterno, coach, I really appreciate it and I also think we should call the police
A: No, I did not
==============================

MM also testified that he viewed Schultz as the police, yet he nor his dad ever asked why Schultz never sent anyone from UPPD to take a written statement so a criminal investigation could be started. In fact, MM testified that when TC called him a few weeks later to follow up with PSU's action plan, MM never expressed dissatisfaction and never said MORE needed to be done. With that in mind How in the world can anyone still believe that MM reported certain abuse in 2001?

McQueary is as clear as mud. He didn't see fondling.....then he did. And he uses "Charades" to describe anal intercourse. Lead-pipe lock.

 

[Aoshiro]

MM's was subject to cross, Joe's was not. The absence of cross examination does not change the fact that it was sworn testimony; as in under oath.

MM's testimony about what he told Curley and Schultz has NOT been cross examined.
The CSS attorneys were allowed to ask some questions during the preliminary hearing, but the judge severely limited that questioning.
I doubt that MM wants this to go to trial. He is going to get ripped to shreds when he is finally cross-examined.

 

[CDW3333]

If you're talking about McQueary's testimony regarding Victim 2, he was cross-examined by Sandusky's lawyers.

McQueary's testimony about what he told Joe, Curley, and Spanier was subject to cross-examination? By whom? When?.

He was cross examined at length on those subjects at the two prelims by the Gang of Three's lawyers.

 

[WeR0206]

MM's testimony about what he told Curley and Schultz has NOT been cross examined.
The CSS attorneys were allowed to ask some questions during the preliminary hearing, but the judge severely limited that questioning.
I doubt that MM wants this to go to trial. He is going to get ripped to shreds when he is finally cross-examined.

Unbelievably, on page 69 of the 12/16/11 prelim, Roberto states she wants to ask MM what he told Dr. D (the state of course objected) to see if it corroborates what MM claims he told Curley, and corrupt scumbag judge doesn't allow it....Roberto then goes on the record to state that the state's vehemence in preventing her from going down this route leads her to believe that Dr. D won't corroborate MM's story.

All the state has is MM's 2010 version of the story (MM was certain a kid was being sodomized) which doesn't line up at all with C/S/S/P/JM/Dr. D/JR's version (MM reported a late night inappropriate shower). So either 7 people are lying or MM is lying...hmm..which one is more probable??

 

[kentuckycb]

I am still stuck on one big problem for Penn State. Regardless of what may one day be proven in court about what McQueary actually did see that night in Lasch, he perceived that he had witnessed a sexual assault. That's what the public record of open court testimony states. It's Curley, Schultz and Spanier who assert it was only something akin to "horseplay" and that McQueary was merely made "uncomfortable" by what he saw. It couldn't be that C/S/S have something invested in that narrative, could it? McQueary has never deviated from his perception of a sexual assault. JoePa's testimony seems to back McQueary up. Even if McQueary was merely "uncomfortable" about a 55-year old man and a pre-teen boy naked and alone in a locker room shower of an empty building on a Friday night, a man who had been expressly warned about such activity in the past, that's an incident report that demands a discreet but by-the-numbers investigation. And an investigation never happened. How could that be? At every turn, University leadership gave Sandusky the benefit of doubt, instead of the welfare of a child. That's not negligence?

Most of what you outline here is very questionable. For instance, MM himself has testified he could have handled the situation in a better way. Using phrases like "I would have said..." in no way establishes that MM is confident with what he actually conveyed to any Penn State official. Though, MM has testified confidently that he never used the word rape (or any variation), which is completely consistent with all other testimony of Penn State officials. That one fact changes the entire makeup of this case.

Your problem is one of...you guessed it...hindsight. When you follow the chain of events, from the perspective of the individuals at that moment it time, Penn State's response to this issue was completely reasonable. The welfare of the child was never a critical question because Sandusky was thought of as good person. It's really that simple. Their actions certainly could meet the legal definition of negligence in a civil proceeding. Criminal? ...that's just a joke.

 

[Art]

If you're talking about McQueary's testimony regarding Victim 2, he was cross-examined by Sandusky's lawyers.


He was cross examined at length on those subjects at the two prelims by the Gang of Three's lawyers.

Sorry, use something other that your dick as a standard to determine length.

 

[WeR0206]

If you're talking about McQueary's testimony regarding Victim 2, he was cross-examined by Sandusky's lawyers.


He was cross examined at length on those subjects at the two prelims by the Gang of Three's lawyers.

LOL! The same trial where Rominger was about to ask John M about this 12/16/11 prelim testimony (where he completely contradicts the current narrative by stating MM never reported a crime to him and the shower incident was at least a very inappropriate action that led him to believe it was sexual in nature based on how MM described it--not certain child abuse mind you--note the grey area with his "at least" wording) and JM had a sudden case of demensia claiming he didn't even remember being at the 12/16/11 prelim and the judge saw no problem with that and told the defense to stop asking the witness about it?? Yeah, that was a real solid proceeding....what mockery of the judicial system..smh

 

[91Joe95]

No recollection as to whether he met with Schultz or whether Curley and Schultz came to his house does not mean Joe was wrong about those events; it means he didn't recall those 2 events. He did recall generally what MM had told him and MM testified as to what he told Joe and Curley/Schultz. It's clear Joe was never told the details of the sexual nature of the contact, but he was aware of the general sexual context.

What do you think the record shows as to what Joe was told?

Just because you don't agree with my view doesn't mean I have an agenda. I always respected Joe Paterno and still do. Since I don't agree with your view, shall I assume you have an agenda?

The record shows MM deliberately toned his presentation down to Paterno. The record shows MM never used language even close to what was in the gj report to Paterno. The record shows the description Paterno used was first suggested to him by the ag. The record shows Paterno questioned that description several times while under oath. The record shows all of this without so much as a question from a defense attorney. Ouch. Don't feel bad, we all understand it's been a couple of tough days for you and people like you.

 

[91Joe95]

Excellent response, Demlion.

There's no question that the BoT made critical mistakes. Without taking a long time to prepare a review, a quick list of those mistakes that leap to my mind:

• Not questioning Spanier/Baldwin about their risk assessment of the Sandusky GJ investigation at the May 2011 BoT meeting. Inexcusable.
• Announcing the removal of JoePa as a firing. (Removing JoePa from his job was the right decision. Should have been an administrative suspension.)
• Delivering the news to JoePa with a phone call. Failing to consult with him in the first two or three days of the GJP leak.
• BoT silence from November 4 until the Nov 9 press conference.
• Capitulating to alumni and Faculty Senate demands that the BoT not review the Freeh Report in advance of its release.
• Allowing Freeh to conduct a press conference within an hour of the Freeh Report's release (assuming they "permitted" it). Never quizzing Freeh on his findings, even in-camera.
• Not anticipating that Emmert and the NCAA would assume enormous media and pubic pressure to hammer Penn State.
• Protecting TSM in the civil settlements with Sandusky victims. This is the biggest "Why?" I have, the key I suspect to a lot of answers, and a question not asked often or loud enough.

I'm sure other posters could/will chime in with many other examples, some of which I would agree with, some not.

Criticisms of the BoT often heard here with which I disagree:

• The BoT is solely responsible for the PR beating Penn State took. A ridiculous assertion, unless you can show me how the BoT could have prevented the indictments of Sandusky, of Curley and Schultz within 24 hours thereafter, and then Spanier. If the BoT had done more right in 2011, it might have reduced the PR damage by about 20%. They should have given us that 20%.
• The BoT should have been defiant to the media narrative in the fall of 2011. Defiance would only have doubled down on public opprobrium of Penn State. What kind of verifiable exculpatory facts were in hand at that time? We would have suffered the same result if we had taken Sandusky's alleged victims to civil trial.
• Penn State should have defied the NCAA and taken it to court. That only would have kept the fate of Penn State Athletics totally in the air for a year or more during legal ping pong. Uncertainly kills, and would have devastated all our varsity teams. That strategy would have been an effective Death Penalty, not to mention more PR damage in the public sphere. As galling as the chosen strategy may have been, the results have turned out better than any of us could have reasonably expected.
• Restoring Joe's legacy and pursuing The Truth should be the BoT's highest priority. No, preparing for the looming challenges confronting higher education and optimizing the delivery of Penn State's mission today and tomorrow should be the BoT's highest priority. I've been a lifelong Joe Paterno admirer, but If I had to choose between (a) salving wounded alumni by feeding the Scandal questions to the skeptical press and public continuously over the last four years and keeping alive public memory of the nightmare, or (b) focusing on meeting the considerable challenges and successes of Penn State's present and future, I'd choose the latter in a New York minute. By most measures of University welfare, the "Move on" strategy has proven correct. At this point, my interest in gaining the Truth goes only to seeing that any remaining crooks and incompetents from 2011/2012 are tossed out. Sure, I'd like Joe's reputation be restored for the sake of Sue and the Paterno children and grandchildren. As to my Penn State Pride and yours, we're big boys and I'm not going to knot my knickers over any ignoramus that comments about "Ped State." I know who I am and the quality of my Penn State Experience.

A few remaining members of the OG BoT may, indeed, be worthy of the ad hominem invective many here direct toward them. And I have been a consistent supporter of BoT downsizing and restructuring. But I cannot entirely dismiss the possibility that the Old Guard's stonewalling may owe to privileged knowledge of Penn State's real and substantial negligence in dealing with Sandusky, knowledge that if made public could yet materially wound the financial welfare of the University and its quality of mission delivery. Is it not a trustee's fiduciary responsibility to save the University from such further substantial damages? I'm not asserting that's the reason for their actions, I'm saying I can't entirely dismiss the possibility.

Why is it that none of the trustees appointed since 2011/2012 have joined the Alumni trustee voting bloc? Some insider must be doing one hell of a job of selection, indoctrination and extortion of these new appointees.

I am still stuck on one big problem for Penn State. Regardless of what may one day be proven in court about what McQueary actually did see that night in Lasch, he perceived that he had witnessed a sexual assault. That's what the public record of open court testimony states. It's Curley, Schultz and Spanier who assert it was only something akin to "horseplay" and that McQueary was merely made "uncomfortable" by what he saw. It couldn't be that C/S/S have something invested in that narrative, could it? McQueary has never deviated from his perception of a sexual assault. JoePa's testimony seems to back McQueary up. Even if McQueary was merely "uncomfortable" about a 55-year old man and a pre-teen boy naked and alone in a locker room shower of an empty building on a Friday night, a man who had been expressly warned about such activity in the past, that's an incident report that demands a discreet but by-the-numbers investigation. And an investigation never happened. How could that be? At every turn, University leadership gave Sandusky the benefit of doubt, instead of the welfare of a child. That's not negligence?

There's so many things wrong with your post. Even the NCAA disputes your assertion that PSU would have faced penalties.