If the feds investigation was impartial and fair, Penn State may get very little heat for the Sandusky incident (and rightfully so IMO). The Clery Act was designed to address violence against women. A reasonable person in Paterno's chair at the time would have not been expected to know that what MM "reported" to him (or didn't who knows) was possibly a Clery Act issue.
McQueary vs PSU(BOT): Opening statements to be heard today (Monday, 10/17/2016)
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
If the feds investigation was impartial and fair, Penn State may get very little heat for the Sandusky incident (and rightfully so IMO). The Clery Act was designed to address violence against women. A reasonable person in Paterno's chair at the time would have not been expected to know that what MM "reported" to him (or didn't who knows) was possibly a Clery Act issue.
ultimately, who is responsible for implementation and training under Clery Act?
give you a hint . . . Baylor alum are learning this the hard way
I'll state that I think what was communicated in 2001 is far different than what was stated in 2010/2011. I believe that given the information that i think was stated and available, everyone acted within the norm. However, with regards to acting reasonably, what is your opinion/assessment of the Spanier "we'll be vulnerable..." email/note?
And to listen to the stories of BOT who wanted him gone and JS as HC.
Now this is a new one on me. Who on the trustees wanted Jerry to be the HC? Not that I doubt it but is this another open secret around town that I never heard? A whisper? That would be extremely interesting were it true.
Never heard that before in my life. I don't believe it.
Plenty of the BOT wanted Joe gone, but there ain't NOBODY wanted screwball Soapy as HMFIC.
Bradley - yes. Fran - yes. Soapy? NFW.
Resentment with trustees built against JVP because his attitude was (I want your money, but not your 2 cents) . They wanted a piece of the FB program like they play in the rest of the financial sandbox of PSU. Joyner and Suhey wanted SeeBass's position (Suhey also wanted junior to play more). Surma wanted to axe Joe in retaliation for his nephew. Let me answer a question with a question. A coach who permitted no access to his program would be replaced by another coach who kept trustees at arms length? Or by a guy who was more accessible and manageable.....you know the guy they sat with at home games.
Jerry didn't get his emeritus status from a bubble gum machine.
I'd like to know exactly who was the impetus behind Jerry's Emeritus appointment.
It's bizarre, but if there are emails/communications of this nature, then it certainly would explain the ABSURD reactions of the BOT during these most trying times, would it not? Haven't all of us wondered what the **** they were thinking when they did what they did, and why they continued to **** up to this very day?
Could there be some evidence out there that this is true? Sheesh. Damn, it almost makes sense.
Well Spanier essentially told Erickson to make it happen. My guess would be that the push could not come without a nod from the chair and the vice chair 1999-2000. Its amazing how some long time trustees claimed ignorance of Jerry's tearful resignation speech at TSM when a powerful trustees wife was in attendance.
Baldwin, a colleague of the above, was brought in to keep things from tainting the above?Clearly, she was beholding to many.
Just to be clear, I don't think that was the case the last few years of Joe's career. The debate in the final 4 or 5 was Scrap or LJ.
Would I be wrong if I mentioned Lloyd Huck? I believe Drew Garban was also in the area?
Spanier didn't even know Jerry so someone had to suggest/insist on Jerry's emeritus. Who is that somebody(s)? And why were they giving him emeritus status when he didn't even qualify? Who pushed for the emeritus status? It certainly was not Spanier or Rodney.
It does. The only reason that I posted all the info is that one poster tried to pass of the comment of Paterno being a Campus Security Authority as laughable. I only wanted to set the record straight with people as to exactly what a CSA was. I wasn't using the info to draw any conclusions about the Sandusky incident, just using it as an opportunity to educate people about CSAs.
Joe probably parted ways with Jerry in large part for the stated reasons. His willingness to work long, hard hours had waned. But I have a hunch that there was also a slight fracture on the coaching staff. When as head coach you sense that all eyes are not on you, action is needed. In other words a staff needs to think us(as in team) not them and us (as in offensive AND defense). We also know that Joe and Jerry were never anything close to friends socially. We have written evidence that Jerry's access with kids was granted despite Joe's objection.
One can only speculate what Joe's thoughts were when Mike reported "horseplay" to him that morning.
Joe could have only looked bad by doing anything but what he did, follow written university policy.
I have always contended that Gary, Tim and Graham handled the matter with the knowledge that the same trustees who championed the emeritus campaign were bound to watch how the matter with their "man" was handled. It might very well explain why Harmon buried the first issue under "administrative." It certainly adds understanding to how they reacted 11/11.
One can only speculate what Joe's thoughts were when Mike reported "horseplay" to him that morning.
Joe could have only looked bad by doing anything but what he did, follow written university policy.
I have always contended that Gary, Tim and Graham handled the matter with the knowledge that the same trustees who championed the emeritus campaign were bound to watch how the matter with their "man" was handled. It might very well explain why Harmon buried the first issue under "administrative." It certainly adds understanding to how they reacted 11/11.
Yep. You can bet that didn't come from Paterno or Spanier.
It must have come from someone with "juice" and I'm guessing it was a trustee.
@marshall23 I gotta say - upon further review, you might very well be on to something. If Soapsuds had a sponsor on the BOT, it would explain a hell of a lot, wouldn't it?
The question now is, what trustee gained the most from glomming on to 2M and basking in the reflected glory?
Then when TSHTF, who had the most to lose from their association with the Sudsy One? Lots of motive for deflection and smoke screens.
I went to school in close proximity as you know. I always wished I could buy the Swarthmore and Haverford grads for what they were worth, and sell them for what they THOUGHT they were worth.
For reasons I don't remember, I went to the Bryn Mawr College library one afternoon. The only memory I have of that visit was a Bryn Mawr girl sneezing in my face. I also remember thinking at the time that real smart girls are odd.
Many years later I had a girlfriend who graduated Bryn Mawr, as did her mother. They weren't particularly odd but they both were very smart.
The guys at Haverford, Swarthmore, the girls at BrynMawr -- yeah, they were smug and proud of it.
Read his comment literally and in context.
Spanier said: "The ONLY downside is if our message is not heard and acted upon and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it."
What he's saying, first of all, is that they are sending Jerry a message. He can't shower alone with kids in the facilities going forward. IF he gets the message, fine. IF not, THEN they could be vulnerable. It's an if/then scenario. Their vulnerability would ONLY be triggered IF Sandusky doesn't get the message and THEN does it again and, like '98, an investigation ensues.
I ask you. How could a future incident be the ONLY downside if they believed a boy had been sexually assaulted in their facilities? How could the risk that the boy might go to the authorities not be the elephant in the room?
Yeah, according to what he told the New Yorker, at that point he had no information that a sexual assault had taken place. That was mentioned in the article. I re-read it today.
Thank You. I read your question about ten times but I cannot see what you are getting at. My initial point was that Spanier's statement seems a little damning all things considered.
In my profession, f you think there is a vulnerability, you address it to remove the risk. Hindsight, here, but if you already know you are vulnerable... address it before it becomes a reality. Stated differently, it seems like there was a queasy feeling in the room, but a poor decision was made. That's all
PSU admins had no control over JS access to kids however they did have control over his guest privileges, which they revoked in addition to informing JR at TSM (who did have control over JS access to kids). That was all they could do from their end re: removing the risk since the witness never felt the need to file a police report.
If you want to know about anything that was moved or shaken with the BOT in the 90's, Huck, Hintz, and Junker are a good place to start.
Without seeing the original pulled from the server, it's hard. We simply don't know if Freeh altered emails, mixed them up in their chain or did other sleight of hand.
One would think, since we now know the OAG had these emails well before Freeh, why didn't they just produce them and slap Spanier with charges?
Why use Freeh to pitch out the idea of a "cover up" with these emails? Why didn't Kelly just hold another grandstanding press conference waving these emails?
I think we have to question everything fed...er, given to us by the OAG & Freeh.
I also have to ask where the media is on the issue of the OAG violating CHRIA by sharing these emails with Freeh. Why are Kelly & Fina skating on this?
I'm fairly certain that at some point in time we will see their attorneys taking these issues to the public. They will not go away quietly, as some here hope and believe.
There sure doesn't seem to be anything coming out of this trial so far that gives any validity to claims that PSU retaliated against a whistle blower. Maybe some bad HR decisions from people who shouldn't have been even in the job they were in. But that's about it.
John McQueary testified today. Said the same as he's said before (and like before, was confused with the questioning).
Said Mike saw something sexual, but yet he didn't think it was a big enough deal to go to police with
http://fox43.com/2016/10/20/former-...rys-father-testify-in-penn-state-civil-trial/
Said Mike saw something sexual, but yet he didn't think it was a big enough deal to go to police with
http://fox43.com/2016/10/20/former-...rys-father-testify-in-penn-state-civil-trial/
I see JM dropped another "sexual in nature" comment. Why is everyone using this vague/odd phrase that has no defined meaning? It smells fishy.
That statement alone doesn't make any sense.
Yet, it summarizes John McQueary's testimony.
Remember that time at the JS trial when JM completely denied even being at the 12/16/11 prelim (gee I wonder why, could it be that it destroys the current narrative??), even though Romiger was waving his testimony in front of him and the judge didn't think this was a big deal at all or hold JM in contempt?? Good ol' PA...
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-