Lubrano post on Facebook

[indynittany]

I essentially agree with you. The problem is that when opinions are based on a leap from known facts to supposed facts, how in the world can that be managed, controlled or changed?....

I) Interpret the 2001 emails and Schultz's notes properly.

a) Curley (after meeting with Joe) never proposed excluding anyone. He said, "I am uncomfortable going to everyone but the person involved." In other words, he didn't want to go behind Jerry's back. He wasn't comfortable informing TSM and possibly DPW without also telling Jerry what was reported to them. Had he said 'anyone', it would have meant he only wanted to tell Jerry and the Freeh narrative would have made sense. This has been completely misinterpreted and I believe it was done so intentionally.

b) Each suggestion that DPW might need to be contacted was contingent upon Jerry's future behavior, not what he had already done.

1) Schultz's notes said, "-unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare".

2) Tim's email said, "If he is cooperative, we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups."

3) Spanier's email said, "The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having'reported it. But that can be assessed down the road."

Each suggests an if/then scenario and not one of those statements makes sense if child sexual abuse had been reported to them. This was recognizing a problem down the road if a subsequent incident (like '98) should occur which would potentially expose PSU to civil liability and bad publicity. Their intent was to prevent a problem, not conceal one!

II) Challenge Linda Kelly and Frank Noonan (both Corbett lackeys) openly for suggesting that Mike had witnessed and reported anal intercourse in the GJ presentment and questioning Joe's moral compass, respectively. Mike never said he saw anything of the sort, yet it was put out there as established fact. Noonan's remark was beyond unprofessional and presupposed that Joe knew his superiors had mishandled the situation.

III) Expose the complicity of the NCAA, the OAG and the BOT in spinning this narrative. I'll leave that honor to Sue Paterno.

 

[Aoshiro]

The incident happened on the campus of Penn State University, at University Park, Pa - which is not part of State College - it is, in all essence - it's own municipality - it has it's own zip code/post office, it's own utilities and power and it's own police force - they are the ones who respond first, because they are police force for University Park, Pa.

I am well aware of that.
My point stands: Four years later, we still don't know exactly what happened after that email exchange.
Even if Penn State officials were required to report whatever McQueary told them (they weren't) the prosecution hasn't offered any evidence to prove it's negative (that it wasn't ultimately reported). No call logs, no report logs, nothing.
Like I said: this case is a steaming pile of dung and it's absolutely a travesty that it has cost Penn State so much.
The trustees are largely responsible for that.

 

[Aoshiro]

Of course PSU Athletics would have been allowed to continue while stays, injunctions and appeals played out. And during that entire time, coaches, student athletes and the sporting media would have been debating and talking about whether Penn State would receive the Death Penalty or at least very draconian sanctions at the end of the process. (Remember, the NCAA would be even more motivated by PSU's defiance in this hypothetical, and we wouldn't have won any friends among the public at large, either.)

So, while the legal process plays out and our teams are competing, our coaches are checking out other jobs, our student-athletes are investigating other schools to transfer to, and our recruits are asking why they should sign with a school that might be about to get hammered by the NCAA. Uncertainty kills. The 2011-12 season was one of our better ones across the board, the 2012-13 season was even better as I recall, but both seasons would have been disasters even if we had won the legal battle with the NCAA at the end of the legal ping pong. That's called a Pyrrhic Victory.

Your hypothetical scenario is not plausible. I'm well aware that it's what Erickson wanted us to believe, but it's false.

 

[Aoshiro]

The irony of Evan's post is that it does exactly what we were chastised for -- placing a higher priority on winning football games than on "doing the right thing" (in this case, standing up for the principle of innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc.).

Yes. Sometimes it's very apparent who has the football culture problem.
The people who were so eager to get a new football coach that they were willing to accept the "pedophile-enabler" put on us by the BoT & Freeh are truly sick people.

 

[91Joe95]

Of course PSU Athletics would have been allowed to continue while stays, injunctions and appeals played out. And during that entire time, coaches, student athletes and the sporting media would have been debating and talking about whether Penn State would receive the Death Penalty or at least very draconian sanctions at the end of the process. (Remember, the NCAA would be even more motivated by PSU's defiance in this hypothetical, and we wouldn't have won any friends among the public at large, either.)

So, while the legal process plays out and our teams are competing, our coaches are checking out other jobs, our student-athletes are investigating other schools to transfer to, and our recruits are asking why they should sign with a school that might be about to get hammered by the NCAA. Uncertainty kills. The 2011-12 season was one of our better ones across the board, the 2012-13 season was even better as I recall, but both seasons would have been disasters even if we had won the legal battle with the NCAA at the end of the legal ping pong. That's called a Pyrrhic Victory.

My God, even Ed Ray and the NCAA completely blow yours and the bot's theory completely out of the water. The NCAA's own enforcement arm said they had no jurisdiction.

Most normal people, when confronted with new information, moderate their views accordingly. You, and the bot, do the exact opposite. I have never seen such fanatical resolution to perpetuating known falsehoods.

 

[BobPSU92]

evan, you really need to shut the f-ck up. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound, post after post after post?

 

[kgilbert78]

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?

One interesting fact *in* the Freeh Report was that Joe did not want any Second Mile kids to have any access to PSU athletics facilities as part of Sandusky's retirement agreement. He was overruled. But somehow the Joe haters miss that.

 

[BobPSU92]

One interesting fact *in* the Freeh Report was that Joe did not want any Second Mile kids to have any access to PSU athletics facilities as part of Sandusky's retirement agreement. He was overruled. But somehow the Joe haters miss that.

Strange given that Joe ran the place.

 

[rmb297]

Once you get a bit more maturity you might develop a different attitude toward those with whom you disagree.

I only want to say that the attitude of you and others here that all posters who have a different position than the majority on this board somehow have a connection to the BoT or have some other vested interest. As for me, in the big picture I'm just a nobody from nowhere with an opinion, just like you and everyone else who posts on this board.

Guard against the hubris which seems to be, at the very least, snipping at your heels.

You've been here for 4 years supporting the position of the BOT. Apparently, when I mentioned "BOT-lickers" in my earlier post it hit home. Saying you are a BOT-licker doesn't mean you have a connection to the BOT. It means that you agreed with them for reasons I don't know. Some in the BOT's camp believed that using the "corporate crisis playbook" was the right thing to do.

I personally believed, as still do, that legal due diligence and publicly stating the facts and the laws about the case at the outset would have been a quite better alternative. Spanier tried to do that, but was beaten down by Surma.

As for hubris, uh no. I don't do this stuff because I want to be famous or feel important. I'd much rather be spending my time hunting and fishing.

 

[rmb297]

A case can be made that JoePa's testimony was unreliable, yes. Ten years' time lapse, Joe's age and memory and the questionable state of Joe's health, his slightly haltering search for the right words, the general unreliability of eye witness testimony (and his was hearsay), etc. The problem is that his testimony is on public record and these reasons for discounting his testimony remain speculative.

The overarching issue is not whether posters here accept Joe's words in the docket or what posters here think of Joe. We know what we believe about Joe. This argument is about what the public at large thinks of Joe. It's his defamation in the public square, not within Penn State fandom, that is the object of the movement to literally or figuratively "restore the statue."

The counterargument to the first paragraph is that Joe had a well-known reputation for having a nearly photographic memory (read, for instance, The Penn Stater article saluting Joe) that could recall small incidents from decades previous and that he was mentally alert enough at that age to operate as CEO of a sizeable organization in one of the most competitive businesses in the U.S.

If you want to make the argument to a non-Penn Stater that Joe's testimony was unreliable, in the contrast to the public record, you must get someone in a position to know, probably McQueary, to publicly explain that Joe didn't know what he was talking about and/or that his testimony was coached. Short of that, the reasons for discounting Joe's testimony aren't very compelling to the general public.

Joe's actual testimony is not on the public record. What is on the public record is a reading of Joe's grand jury transcript by AG prosecutor Bruce Beemer. In other words, it may not be accurate, especially "it was a sexual nature."

More likely, that passage was either screwed up in transcription or changed by the AG.

Many believe, given the amount of equivocating Joe was doing, that he said "was it a sexual nature?"

 

[WeR0206]

Joe's actual testimony is not on the public record. What is on the public record is a reading of Joe's grand jury transcript by AG prosecutor Bruce Beemer. In other words, it may not be accurate, especially "it was a sexual nature."

More likely, that passage was either screwed up in transcription or changed by the AG.

Many believe, given the amount of equivocating Joe was doing, that he said "was it a sexual nature?"

I believe that when Joe's GJ testimony was read into the record Beemer read the questions and James Barker (there's that name again!!) read the answers.

It still blows my mind that after all this time we still have yet to see the actual transcript of Joe's GJ testimony...I'd also like to hear the audio.
=====================================================
Edit: it was Barker that read Joe's testimony into the record, with Beemer asking the questions see page 173 of the 12/16/11 prelim for reference.

 

[rmb297]

I believe that when Joe's GJ testimony was read into the record Beemer read the questions and James Barker (there's that name again!!) read the answers.

It still blows my mind that after all this time we still have yet to see the actual transcript of Joe's GJ testimony...I'd also like to hear the audio.

You are correct....it was done by the tag team of Beemer and Barker.

BTW, Kane's justification for firing Barker to not closing grand jury leaks is legit.

 

[Evan Ceg]

evan, you really need to shut the f-ck up. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound, post after post after post?

Your debating skills are quite impressive, Bob. I hope you didn't learn them at Penn State.

Tell me how defying the NCAA in the summer of 2012 would have convinced non-Penn Staters that Penn State didn't prioritize football above all else.

 

[royboy]

You've been here for 4 years supporting the position of the BOT. Apparently, when I mentioned "BOT-lickers" in my earlier post it hit home. Saying you are a BOT-licker doesn't mean you have a connection to the BOT. It means that you agreed with them for reasons I don't know. Some in the BOT's camp believed that using the "corporate crisis playbook" was the right thing to do.

I personally believed, as still do, that legal due diligence and publicly stating the facts and the laws about the case at the outset would have been a quite better alternative. Spanier tried to do that, but was beaten down by Surma.

As for hubris, uh no. I don't do this stuff because I want to be famous or feel important. I'd much rather be spending my time hunting and fishing.

Your debating skills are quite impressive, Bob. I hope you didn't learn them at Penn State.

Tell me how defying the NCAA in the summer of 2012 would have convinced non-Penn Staters that Penn State didn't prioritize football above all else.

Evan, your persistence with such a meager argument raises questions about your agenda. Why don't you try some transparency? What is your relationship to the Penn State Board of Trustees? Are you working on their behalf?

 

[WeR0206]

Side note....to all those uninformed haters out there.....If you read Sassano's testimony during the 12/16/11 prelim re: the 2002 (sic) MM incident (starting on page 165) it's an absolute joke.

Beemer asks Sassano if he investigated the MM incident from early 2002...Sassano says yes. Then Beemer asks if Sassano was able to determine whether the 2002 incident was reported to LE or CYS and Sassano says "We determined it was not reported to either CYS or law enforcement"....and then that's it, Beemer thanks him and ends his questioning. Beemer never even asked HOW Sassano determined that,...but don't fear that was elaborated on during cross examination.

Here is how Sassano unequivocally determined that neither CYS or LE were informed about the MM incident:
(first thing Roberto points out to Sassano during cross examination is if CYS determines an incident to be unfounded, they don't keep a record of it after a year...Sassano agrees with this by the way---In other words if CYS looks into an incident and finds it to be unfounded and there is no corresponding police report of that incident then there's NEVER going to be a record of it after one year)

1.) Checked with UPPD to see if they had any reports/incidents re: a March 2002 incident (wrong year but wouldn't matter since MM never felt compelled enough to even file a police report with UPPD in Feb 2001!). This leads us to the question of why didn't Sassano talk to the one and only witness in 2001 to find out WHY he never filed a freaking police report with UPPD?? One would think that would be a logical road to go down...but nope!

2.) He spoke to the current leader (not the leader at the time of the incident mind you) of CC CYS, Carol Smith, and she didn't have any records or personal knowledge about a 2002 incident only a 1998 incident.

3.) He spoke to Jerry Lauro at DPW and he said he only had memory/documents re: 1998 and nothing about a 2002 incident.

Annnnd.....That's it. Sassano never pulled CYS or ChildLine call logs or spoke to other CC CYS/DPW folks who were employed there at the time or anything. He spoke to two freaking people to unequivocally determine that the MM incident was never reported to CYS/LE....what a rock star of an investigator!!

That is what the state is relying on in order to argue the FTR and EWOC charges...what a joke.

 

[GTACSA]

Side note....to all those uninformed haters out there.....If you read Sassano's testimony during the 12/16/11 prelim re: the 2002 (sic) MM incident (starting on page 165) it's an absolute joke.

Beemer asks Sassano if he investigated the MM incident from early 2002...Sassano says yes. Then Beemer asks if Sassano was able to determine whether the 2002 incident was reported to LE or CYS and Sassano says "We determined it was not reported to either CYS or law enforcement"....and then that's it, Beemer thanks him and ends his questioning. Beemer never even asked HOW Sassano determined that,...but don't fear that was elaborated on during cross examination.

Here is how Sassano unequivocally determined that neither CYS or LE were informed about the MM incident:
(first thing Roberto points out to Sassano during cross examination is if CYS determines an incident to be unfounded, they don't keep a record of it after a year...Sassano agrees with this by the way---In other words if CYS looks into an incident and finds it to be unfounded and there is no corresponding police report of that incident then there's NEVER going to be a record of it after one year)

1.) Checked with UPPD to see if they had any reports/incidents re: a March 2002 incident (wrong year but wouldn't matter since MM never felt compelled enough to even file a police report with UPPD in Feb 2001!). This leads us to the question of why didn't Sassano talk to the one and only witness in 2001 to find out WHY he never filed a freaking police report with UPPD?? One would think that would be a logical road to go down...but nope!

2.) He spoke to the current leader (not the leader at the time of the incident mind you) of CC CYS, Carol Smith, and she didn't have any records or personal knowledge about a 2002 incident only a 1998 incident.

3.) He spoke to Jerry Lauro at DPW and he said he only had memory/documents re: 1998 and nothing about a 2002 incident.

Annnnd.....That's it. Sassano never pulled CYS or ChildLine call logs or spoke to other CC CYS/DPW folks who were employed there at the time or anything. He spoke to two freaking people to unequivocally determine that the MM incident was never reported to CYS/LE....what a rock star of an investigator!!

That is what the state is relying on in order to argue the FTR and EWOC charges...what a joke.

If there was a report made by Penn State and the investigation found the report to be unfounded, wouldn't Penn State have been notified of that? You might want to check on the statute in 2001.

 

[rmb297]

Side note....to all those uninformed haters out there.....If you read Sassano's testimony during the 12/16/11 prelim re: the 2002 (sic) MM incident (starting on page 165) it's an absolute joke.

Beemer asks Sassano if he investigated the MM incident from early 2002...Sassano says yes. Then Beemer asks if Sassano was able to determine whether the 2002 incident was reported to LE or CYS and Sassano says "We determined it was not reported to either CYS or law enforcement"....and then that's it, Beemer thanks him and ends his questioning. Beemer never even asked HOW Sassano determined that,...but don't fear that was elaborated on during cross examination.

Here is how Sassano unequivocally determined that neither CYS or LE were informed about the MM incident:
(first thing Roberto points out to Sassano during cross examination is if CYS determines an incident to be unfounded, they don't keep a record of it after a year...Sassano agrees with this by the way---In other words if CYS looks into an incident and finds it to be unfounded and there is no corresponding police report of that incident then there's NEVER going to be a record of it after one year)

1.) Checked with UPPD to see if they had any reports/incidents re: a March 2002 incident (wrong year but wouldn't matter since MM never felt compelled enough to even file a police report with UPPD in Feb 2001!). This leads us to the question of why didn't Sassano talk to the one and only witness in 2001 to find out WHY he never filed a freaking police report with UPPD?? One would think that would be a logical road to go down...but nope!

2.) He spoke to the current leader (not the leader at the time of the incident mind you) of CC CYS, Carol Smith, and she didn't have any records or personal knowledge about a 2002 incident only a 1998 incident.

3.) He spoke to Jerry Lauro at DPW and he said he only had memory/documents re: 1998 and nothing about a 2002 incident.

Annnnd.....That's it. Sassano never pulled CYS or ChildLine call logs or spoke to other CC CYS/DPW folks who were employed there at the time or anything. He spoke to two freaking people to unequivocally determine that the MM incident was never reported to CYS/LE....what a rock star of an investigator!!

That is what the state is relying on in order to argue the FTR and EWOC charges...what a joke.

Exactly.
1. Farrell brought up on cross that not all child abuse reports get investigated by the police. Sassano confirmed that.

2. If Carol Smith had contemporaneous knowledge of the 2001 incident (via a report from PSU) and knew that CYS decided not to investigate it because it sounded too similar to the unfounded 1998 report, does anyone believe she would said so. BTW, it is unclear if Smith testified under oath or was simply interviewed by Sassano.

3. Lauro wouldn't have necessarily had knowledge of a 2001 report if one was made.

 

[rmb297]

If there was a report made by Penn State and the investigation found the report to be unfounded, wouldn't Penn State have been notified of that? You might want to check on the statute in 2001.

Yes, in a perfect world that would have happened. However we know that in 1998 CC CYS didn't contact The Second Mile at the outset and closing of the investigation. It also didn't notify Sandusky at either time.

DPW contacted Sandusky to say the 1998 case was closed.

In 2009, Clinton County CYS also didn't make the proper notifications to The Second Mile.

 

[GTACSA]

You've been here for 4 years supporting the position of the BOT. Apparently, when I mentioned "BOT-lickers" in my earlier post it hit home. Saying you are a BOT-licker doesn't mean you have a connection to the BOT. It means that you agreed with them for reasons I don't know. Some in the BOT's camp believed that using the "corporate crisis playbook" was the right thing to do.

I personally believed, as still do, that legal due diligence and publicly stating the facts and the laws about the case at the outset would have been a quite better alternative. Spanier tried to do that, but was beaten down by Surma.

As for hubris, uh no. I don't do this stuff because I want to be famous or feel important. I'd much rather be spending my time hunting and fishing.

My position has always been that the MM report should have been passed on to legal authorities, thereby relieving Penn State from an liability. Other than that I have stated that the BoT reaction in November 2011 was reasonable. Whether a different approach would have been better is speculation; who knows it could have been worse for the school.

As an aside, should you be addressed as a Joepa-licker? That sounds offensive to me, just as BOT-licker does. But maybe both are acceptable in modern social discourse and I'm just a dinosaur.

 

[WeR0206]

If there was a report made by Penn State and the investigation found the report to be unfounded, wouldn't Penn State have been notified of that? You might want to check on the statute in 2001.

You're assuming that every report CYS gets, they do a formal investigation on....we now know, after the Tutko case, that CYS is a complete joke of an agency and "prescreens" reports and doesn't fully look into each and every report. CYS probably told the PSU admins, "thanks we'll look into this and let you know if there's anything to it" and that was the end of it.

I agree with Ray on this...I think it's most likely that if CC CYS received a report re: 2001 and "pillar of the community" JS, they immediately dismissed it as unfounded due to the similarity to 1998 which they already said was no big deal....even though CYS/DPW found out that in 1998 JS was giving naked bear hugs from behind to at LEAST two different boys.

Needless to say, CYS has a HUGE conflict of interest re: investigating JS since they not only dropped the ball in 1998 but they were literally referring kids into his victim farm of a charity for YEARS. So they are obviously going to do everything they can to cover their ass, telling Sassano they had no knowledge/records of a 2002 report is simply CYA and an attempt to keep the spotlight on the supposed evil PSU admins/football program.

 

[WeR0206]

My position has always been that the MM report should have been passed on to legal authorities, thereby relieving Penn State from an liability. Other than that I have stated that the BoT reaction in November 2011 was reasonable. Whether a different approach would have been better is speculation; who knows it could have been worse for the school.

As an aside, should you be addressed as a Joepa-licker? That sounds offensive to me, just as BOT-licker does. But maybe both are acceptable in modern social discourse and I'm just a dinosaur.

The only person to blame for there not being a 2001 UPPD police report is MM, you know, the one and only witness who never even so much as made a written statement to anyone at PSU or UPPD.

Since there was no 2001 UPPD report and CC CYS determined it to be unfounded, there is no LE/CYS record of the 2001 incident (even though I believe Harmon was told about he MM incident on monday morning 2/12/01-- however there's no formal UPPD record b/c the one and only witness never filed a report with them).

Again, you can thank MM for that.

 

[91Joe95]

If there was a report made by Penn State and the investigation found the report to be unfounded, wouldn't Penn State have been notified of that? You might want to check on the statute in 2001.

Well, isn't that cute.

 

[GTACSA]

The only person to blame for there not being a 2001 UPPD police report is MM, you know, the one and only witness who never even so much as made a written statement to anyone at PSU or UPPD.

Since there was no 2001 UPPD report and CC CYS determined it to be unfounded, there is no LE/CYS record of the 2001 incident.

Again, you can thank MM for that.

Ah the new "mythical fact" now exists that the incident was reported to CYS and a determination was made that it was unfounded. Keep repeating it and it becomes a "fact." No wonder people paint all Penn State people as zealots.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Your debating skills are quite impressive, Bob. I hope you didn't learn them at Penn State.

Tell me how defying the NCAA in the summer of 2012 would have convinced non-Penn Staters that Penn State didn't prioritize football above all else.

Well, aside from the fact that the Scoundrels actions ABSOLUTELY worked to CONFIRM and SUPPORT that PSU football was responsible for some of the most grievous accusations ever made against ANY institution or ANY individuals..........why would that ("Tell me how defying the NCAA in the summer of 2012 would have convinced non-Penn Staters that Penn State didn't prioritize football above all else") be more important than doing the righteous thing?

Or more important than opposing a false accusation?

Or more important than the truth?

Or more important than standing up to unjustified imposition of sanctions?

You got all the right answers.....to all the wrong questions.
_______________________________________

You've got a tremendously impressive set of moral/ethical core values......I hope you didn't learn them at the feet of your parents.

As time goes on, you expose yourself more-and-more as a truly bankrupt soul.

 

[rmb297]

Ah the new "mythical fact" now exists that the incident was reported to CYS and a determination was made that it was unfounded. Keep repeating it and it becomes a "fact." No wonder people paint all Penn State people as zealots.

If a report was made and not investigated, it becomes "unfounded" after 60 days.

 

[bkmtnittany1]

Ray...hitting Yellowstone in August....the fishing is gonna be awesome!

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Ah the new "mythical fact" now exists that the incident was reported to CYS and a determination was made that it was unfounded. Keep repeating it and it becomes a "fact." No wonder people paint all Penn State people as zealots.

GTACSA: The Michael Phelps of the Circle-Jerk Olympics!!!

 

[WeR0206]

Ah the new "mythical fact" now exists that the incident was reported to CYS and a determination was made that it was unfounded. Keep repeating it and it becomes a "fact." No wonder people paint all Penn State people as zealots.

Well, after 4 years, countless amounts of money being paid out in settlements, a $60 MM NCAA fine, etc. we still don't know for sure if CYS was contacted or not. Just think about that for a second. Even if CYS wasn't contacted it wouldn't matter since the state themselves have admitted CSS were NOT mandatory reporters in 2001.

We have Schultz and Courtney on the record under oath saying they believed the same agency from 1998 was told about 2001. We also know that Harmon responded to an email from Schlutz on the morning of Monday 2/12/01 confirming UPPD had the 1998 report on file (this strongly suggests that Harmon was told about the MM incident in the email from Schultz that morning--which freeh references in a footnote but doesn't provide the actual email from Schultz..hmm..I wonder why??).

We also don't have the EXACT advice Courtney gave Schultz and whether or not Schultz followed it b/c PSU refused to waive ACP re: those conversations...hmm...I wonder why? Could it be that those notes don't align with the current narrative? If they did you'd be damn sure Freeh would have included them in his report.

On the other side we have the state's version that since Sassano talked to ONE person at CC CYS (who was a low level employee at the time in 2001) and ONE person at DPW and asked UPPD about a non existent report-- that unequivocally means CYS was never told. That simply doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that those two people Sassano spoke with didn't know about 2001 and that MM never filed a report with UPPD in 2001 (which we already knew). That's it. That's what over $100 MILLION of damages was based on.....yikes!

 

[marshall23]

Ah the new "mythical fact" now exists that the incident was reported to CYS and a determination was made that it was unfounded. Keep repeating it and it becomes a "fact." No wonder people paint all Penn State people as zealots.

Speaking of myths.........MM saw a boy being sexually abused by JS and did nothing. He then ran home to his dad and his dad's friend (both respected medical professionals). They told him to go to bed and see JVP in the morning. For the next ten years MM (continued to work for the very people who allegedly covered up this incident) JM, Dr.D and others who had contemporaneous knowledge of said incident(other family members and friends told by MM or JM) never contacted any police or child protective agency. Makes perfect sense, right?

 

[rmb297]

Ray...hitting Yellowstone in August....the fishing is gonna be awesome!

I'm looking at a Montana trip in September for sure. Possibly also in July.

 

[rmb297]

I'm not an expert nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express but these latest rulings/retreats by the State & BOT sure sound like a tactical withdraw not a total surrender. I feel like they have another shoe to drop. Am I the only one feeling this way?

I feel like what has transpired of late is that the Corruption Network has run into a judge or two that hasn't been bought off.

 

[Obliviax]

Speaking of myths.........MM saw a boy being sexually abused by JS and did nothing. He then ran home to his dad and his dad's friend (both respected medical professionals). They told him to go to bed and see JVP in the morning. For the next ten years MM (continued to work for the very people who allegedly covered up this incident) JM, Dr.D and others who had contemporaneous knowledge of said incident(other family members and friends told by MM or JM) never contacted any police or child protective agency. Makes perfect sense, right?

He also saw that threw a mirror and not directly...so....

 

[WDLion]

Speaking of myths.........MM saw a boy being sexually abused by JS and did nothing. He then ran home to his dad and his dad's friend (both respected medical professionals). They told him to go to bed and see JVP in the morning. For the next ten years MM (continued to work for the very people who allegedly covered up this incident) JM, Dr.D and others who had contemporaneous knowledge of said incident(other family members and friends told by MM or JM) never contacted any police or child protective agency. Makes perfect sense, right?

You guys are wasting your time. He is only going to accept what he wants to be true.

 

[Aoshiro]

Your debating skills are quite impressive, Bob. I hope you didn't learn them at Penn State.

Tell me how defying the NCAA in the summer of 2012 would have convinced non-Penn Staters that Penn State didn't prioritize football above all else.

You are not backing up the bus far enough.
There would have been nothing to defy the NCAA on if the BOT hadn't handed Mark Emmert a loaded gun.

 

[Aoshiro]

Ah the new "mythical fact" now exists that the incident was reported to CYS and a determination was made that it was unfounded. Keep repeating it and it becomes a "fact." No wonder people paint all Penn State people as zealots.

The prosecution has presented zero evidence to prove its negative (that no one from Penn State ever passed along McQueary's report to DPW or CYS).
We have no idea exactly what happened after that email exchange.
We do know for a fact that Schultz contacted Raykovitz at TSM.
So there was clearly no effort to "cover up" McQueary's report.
Which means that Louis Freeh's central "conclusion" is complete cowdung.

 

[jjsocrates]

2.) He spoke to the current leader (not the leader at the time of the incident mind you) of CC CYS, Carol Smith, and she didn't have any records or personal knowledge about a 2002 incident only a 1998 incident.

Its interesting that the year was wrong (2001 vs 2002), and yet all of these dates keep getting put out there as gospel in the GJ testimony.

Incident occurs in 2001. Prosecutors get the year wrong - ask CYS admins if they had any record of Penn State filing a report in 2002. CYS says no - they could find no evidence that Penn State filed a report in 2002. (About an incident from 2001???) This seems like a weasely little lawyer trick on the level of "depends what your definition of 'is' is."

 

[knitknee1969]

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?

I think that this is the crux of the situation as far as Paterno and Penn State, the university, is concerned. MM's GJ testimony was key to getting JS to trial for pedophilia. None of the other "victims" would ever have come forward without this crucial piece of evidence for the prosecution. PSU (the BOT, at least) too willingly took the blame for what was essentially, one coach's responsibility to report a crime to criminal authorities. Paterno should have advised MM accordingly, instead of merely assuring him that he did the right thing (MM coming to JP to report what he saw). That is probably one of the things JP was thinking when he stated publicly that he wished that he (JP) had done more. Instead of saying, "You did the right thing", I'll handle it (or words to that effect), he should have said, "If you believe you witnessed a crime, go report it to the police - I'll handle the chain of command". Had Paterno done that, and had McQuery followed that advice, heads might still have rolled, but, at the very least, the statue would never have come down.

 

[WeR0206]

Its interesting that the year was wrong (2001 vs 2002), and yet all of these dates keep getting put out there as gospel in the GJ testimony.

Incident occurs in 2001. Prosecutors get the year wrong - ask CYS admins if they had any record of Penn State filing a report in 2002. CYS says no - they could find no evidence that Penn State filed a report in 2002. (About an incident from 2001???) This seems like a weasely little lawyer trick on the level of "depends what your definition of 'is' is."

I've been wondering about what you pointed out above for a while now. Since they got the year completely wrong, wouldn't the state have to re-do their investigation, questions, subpoenas, etc. using the correct 2001 date since they technically didn't ask people to reference the correct time frame??

What's the legal precedent in situations like this?

 

[GTACSA]

If a report was made and not investigated, it becomes "unfounded" after 60 days.

But the poster didn't say that; he said it was determined to be unfounded.

 

[WeR0206]

I think that this is the crux of the situation as far as Paterno and Penn State, the university, is concerned. MM's GJ testimony was key to getting JS to trial for pedophilia. None of the other "victims" would ever have come forward without this crucial piece of evidence for the prosecution. PSU (the BOT, at least) too willingly took the blame for what was essentially, one coach's responsibility to report a crime to criminal authorities. Paterno should have advised MM accordingly, instead of merely assuring him that he did the right thing (MM coming to JP to report what he saw). That is probably one of the things JP was thinking when he stated publicly that he wished that he (JP) had done more. Instead of saying, "You did the right thing", I'll handle it (or words to that effect), he should have said, "If you believe you witnessed a crime, go report it to the police - I'll handle the chain of command". Had Paterno done that, and had McQuery followed that advice, heads might still have rolled, but, at the very least, the statue would never have come down.

So now a 28 yr old MM needed to have Joe tell him that he needed to call the police for suspected child abuse? Come on...the reason Joe didn't tell him that and the reason JM and Dr. D. didn't tell him that, was because MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing other than it weirded him out and made him feel uncomfortable. That's the reason his dad and Dr. D told him to handle it the HR route (tell Joe the next day) vs. the law enforcement route (call UPPD ASAP to file a police report so a criminal investigation could be started).

If you have another explanation for the above actions I'm all ears....