Memory Issues

[marshall23]

AT held a fundraiser for Rufus instead of honoring Joe

Like the whole crew on The Ship of Fools.....he doesn't possess a conscience.

 

[marshall23]

SHHHHHHHHHH! Also, don't tell all the angry Joe-hating women in the media that Joe was a huge proponent of Title IX and expanding scholarship opportunities for female athletes . . .

It's funny you bring up Peetz. She hasn't gotten nearly the attention she deserves. What a piece of human excrement.

 

[SmithtonLion]

Just now catching up on this thread. It seems there's been a few examples of memory issues among some posters here and there, several with regard to things that happened in early November 2011.

If you are interested in the statements issued back then, along with links, I put them all in this blogpost:
https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/when-the-scandal-broke-revisiting-november-2011/

And here is brief snip from the middle of that blogpost:

Recapping Early November 2011

On Saturday November 5, 2011, Sandusky was arrested and Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly publicly released the Grand Jury Presentment.

The presentment created the false implication that Mike McQueary saw an anal rape and reported that to Joe Paterno.

On Sunday November 6, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement attempting to correct that false implication stating, “It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report.”

On Monday November 7, 2011, Attorney General Linda Kelly held a press conference detailing the charges against Sandusky. She stated that Paterno was a cooperative witness and was not considered a target of the investigation. One reporter asked her about the implication in the presentment that Paterno was told explicitly of an anal rape. This presented her with an opportunity to correct the false implication; however, she chose to say she couldn’t share more than what appears in the presentment.

After Linda Kelly took questions from the media, and the press conference was over, Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan went back to where the reporters were gathered. He was asked about Paterno’s responsibility. Rather than stick to what the legal requirements were, Noonan chose to question Paterno’s morality.

On Tuesday November 8, 2011, roughly one hundred members of the media gathered for Paterno’s regularly scheduled press conference. The Penn State Board of Trustees cancelled it.

A half hour later the New York Times published an article citing two sources with information that the Penn State Board of Trustees was planning Paterno’s exit. (A former assistant managing editor at the New York Times was a member of the Penn State board.)

That same article also cites a source that claims Paterno was explicitly told of an anal rape, refuting Paterno’s denial two days prior.

By mid-afternoon Tuesday, ESPN’s coverage of the scandal finally found the right moral outrage, according to independent ombudsman Kelly McBride, one of the country’s leading voices on media ethics. She also wrote that the mob of normally vitriolic web commenters were “right to take up its virtual torches and pitchforks.”

Late Tuesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees issued its first statement on the scandal, and “aligned itself with the anger the public is expressing over this incident.” They committed to forming a committee to conduct a “full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report,” and, “to determine what failures occurred.”

On Wednesday, November 9, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement in the morning expressing his sorrow and announcing his retirement effective at the end of the season. A source close to Paterno said it was the coach’s decision to retire and that he has had no contact with the board of trustees.

Late Wednesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees met behind closed doors before holding a press conference where they announced Paterno was fired.

The board fired Joe Paterno without ever speaking to him. When questioned, Vice Chairman John Surma justified the firing “in consideration of all the facts,” which he said amounted to nothing more than what was in the grand jury presentment and whatever the media had written.

OK, excellent detail. Thank you. Now I have some questions that I'd like to ask.

I have always suspected that the BOT knew something of these allegations before, let's say, 2009 (no particular date, just early enough to be before the investigation got rolling). Is that true? Or did they mostly find out as the investigation and GJP were being put together, say in early 2011?

Do we have evidence of other board member's dislike for Paterno, similar to the evidence of Surma (at least his brother's dislike)?

 

[marshall23]

Didn't Paul Suhey approach Tim Curley and ask him when he (Tim) was going to do something about JS? Also, Drew Garban and I think it was Dorothy Huck were present at the meeting where JS "resigned?"

 

[marshall23]

OK, excellent detail. Thank you. Now I have some questions that I'd like to ask.

I have always suspected that the BOT knew something of these allegations before, let's say, 2009 (no particular date, just early enough to be before the investigation got rolling). Is that true? Or did they mostly find out as the investigation and GJP were being put together, say in early 2011?

Do we have evidence of other board member's dislike for Paterno, similar to the evidence of Surma (at least his brother's dislike)?

You might enjoy reading Ray Blehar's article that traces the withdrawal of Trustees(and their Corp.) financial support of TSM. Some coincidence if they didn't know about the investigation.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Flat denials don't help situations like this either. We differ here, sorry you cannot handle it.

Lajolla, this is not a difference of opinions. Joe did the right thing. As colt has said, that is a fact. Not sure why you are not seeing it, or you are choosing to ignore it, but it is a fact. I also work in the field and Joe did exactly what he should have.

 

[SmithtonLion]

You might enjoy reading Ray Blehar's article that traces the withdrawal of Trustees(and their Corp.) financial support of TSM. Some coincidence if they didn't know about the investigation.

I looked for it, but could not find it. Do you have a link? The timing will be interesting.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Lajolla, this is not a difference of opinions. Joe did the right thing. As colt has said, that is a fact. Not sure why you are not seeing it, or you are choosing to ignore it, but it is a fact. I also work in the field and Joe did exactly what he should have.

No. A fact is a fact. An opinion is an opinion. People clearly have different opinions on this. I am not saying Joe did anything to hide anything, but since we have no idea on his knowledge of what was investigated in 98, it's clear their is some room for information there. I know some here cannot hear handle an opinion that dares to question Joe, but I don't think the man was a naive idiot. People can make mistakes and not break a law or do it intentionally. Well everyone but Joe i guess. I know I look back on things that I could have done better, but not Joe.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Flat denials don't help situations like this either. We differ here, sorry you cannot handle it.

It is obvious that you cannot handle it and you have attack the observations of someone that sees things differently than you as a pre-emptive strike against those that apply reason to facts regarding this subject. The NCAA trials and the NCAA release of what 'a university employee should do in these matters' is on the record. If your constant state of PMS can't allow you to grasp this.... so be it.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

It is obvious that you cannot handle it and you have attack the observations of someone that sees things differently than you as a pre-emptive strike against those that apply reason to facts regarding this subject. The NCAA trials and the NCAA release of what 'a university employee should do in these matters' is on the record. If your constant state of PMS can't allow you to grasp this.... so be it.

Yep. That must be it.

 

[BBrown]

Up is Down, Down is Up - and we are in Wonderland. And what's even worse - Ditka was using Jack to justify the fact that when CYS called TSM with the CMHS complaint by Aaron Fisher - that Jack acted SWIFTLY and appropriately, and removed Jerry from all children's programming. Hence if Tim Curley HAD JUST CALLED CYS Jerry would have been "stopped".

Just.Like.That.

Never mind the fact that CMHS told Fisher to go home and think about it. I doubt the Jury knew a single thing about the failures at CMHS.

And never mind the fact that in the same testimony Jack stated that Curley bringing his complaint to TSM was a proper decision and the appropriate place to do so. Because "protecting children" was part of the mission of TSM.

And never mind the fact that our state placed Matt Sandusky in that home, which Jack Raykovitz had a hand in facilitating as well.

So go figure.

But anyway - that's all off topic, JmmyW makes excellent points and brings a lot of food for thought here.

I think of all the victims this one bothers me the most, as far as culpablity and paying huge sums of money too goes. How was this one EVER PSU's fault?

 

[bjf1991]

Even though he wasn't a trustee at the time, AT is no better than the worst of them.

Adam T ?


Why was a self-serving shine box like AT overwhelming voted into a BOT seat by the alumni?

 

[SmithtonLion]

It is obvious that you cannot handle it and you have attack the observations of someone that sees things differently than you as a pre-emptive strike against those that apply reason to facts regarding this subject. The NCAA trials and the NCAA release of what 'a university employee should do in these matters' is on the record. If your constant state of PMS can't allow you to grasp this.... so be it.

But here is the problem. LaJolla isn't being irrational. He isn't saying Joe was a bad man. He is just saying (I think, I guess he can speak for himself), that JoePa could have made better choices.

I agree with him, he COULD have made better choices, and in hindsight, it is somewhat obvious. But in no way do I think that makes Joe bad, or evil, or even less than the great man he was.

But Lajolla, I'm curious as to what your position is as regards the fact that Joe, and C/S/S, could have made better choices. Aren't we talking about the normal behavior of human beings, and normal aversion to dealing with things that are too big or too outside their scope of experience to handle?

We are intelligent people, but we are still instinctual animals. Our instinct is avoid things like Sandusky because it is deviant beyond words.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

But here is the problem. LaJolla isn't being irrational. He isn't saying Joe was a bad man. He is just saying (I think, I guess he can speak for himself), that JoePa could have made better choices.

I agree with him, he COULD have made better choices, and in hindsight, it is somewhat obvious. But in no way do I think that makes Joe bad, or evil, or even less than the great man he was.

But Lajolla, I'm curious as to what your position is as regards the fact that Joe, and C/S/S, could have made better choices. Aren't we talking about the normal behavior of human beings, and normal aversion to dealing with things that are too big or too outside their scope of experience to handle?

We are intelligent people, but we are still instinctual animals. Our instinct is avoid things like Sandusky because it is deviant beyond words.

Yes to all of it. Jerry also groomed these men for years. I just think the second time it should have raised a bigger alarm in their heads. None of these men were bad men but even good men can miss something every now and then.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Yep. That must be it.

Another fine fake discussion of facts by an emotional stonewaller. Keep up the good work.

 

[SmithtonLion]

One thing I want to make clear about my opinions, after reading the words of Surma and hearing him in the press conference where Joe was fired.

Joe Paterno was a thousand times the leader that scumbag Surma was. Joe was willing to talk honestly and I surely wish he would have had his press conference. I am almost certain things would have gone far differently had that happened.

And Joe was at least a hundred times the leader that the rest of the BOT is, simply because not one of them stood up to Surma.

Listening to Surma and his ridiculous "corporate leader" answers makes me sick.

I haven't changed my mind much about who did what, who is responsible, what could have been done differently. But one thing has changed for me - Surma is a vindictive man, and it is entirely possible that Joe Paterno was fired simply because Surma was waiting for the right opportunity.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Another fine fake discussion of facts by an emotional stonewaller. Keep up the good work.

You aren't capable of a rational discussion. You only want to hear your opinion and freak out at a different one. You have your image in your head, just ignore the adult conversations on this matter.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Yes to all of it. Jerry also groomed these men for years. I just think the second time it should have raised a bigger alarm in their heads. None of these men were bad men but even good men can miss something every now and then.

So, you believe the proper approach for Joe, not having witnessed anything would have been to drop everything and resort to vigilante-ism. Have any of you hysterical types ever read the conclusions of the expert psychologists which discredited the statements of AM for a decade and a half regarding JS. Or, do you all just freeze up when you hear the word pedophile?

 

[SmithtonLion]

Yes to all of it. Jerry also groomed these men for years. I just think the second time it should have raised a bigger alarm in their heads. None of these men were bad men but even good men can miss something every now and then.

Here is where you and I differ on human behavior.

If someone is investigated for some insanely deviant act, and the result of that investigation is that the person is not arrested, then I tend to believe that the next time it is just another false accusation.

To me, it is like these college rape accusations. My immediate reaction to an allegation of rape and abuse at the hands of some frat boys is that the "victim" is a liar. That is obviously not fair or true in all cases, but who the hell is going to believe the next Duke Lacrosse victim?

You, on the other hand, seem to think that the allegations of 1998 should have keyed them into the possible behavior. Had the cops gone to PSU and said as follows, I would agree: "Hey, we investigated this. We know, but cannot prove, that JS is a pedophile. Keep your eye on him and call us as soon as you see something. Trust me - you may not believe it, but we've seen this a thousand times. It's called grooming."

But when they say nothing and I see JS walking around like everything is fine....I start to believe that everything is fine.

Think about how the lower level employees felt about Enron. After seeing guys making millions of dollars a year walking around like everything is fine for YEARS, don't you think that these lower level guys start to believe that "Hey, this type of accounting is normal. It is done everywhere. Maybe I wouldn't do it, but it is probably OK"

 

[SmithtonLion]

So, you believe the proper approach for Joe, not having witnessed anything would have been to drop everything and resort to vigilante-ism. Have any of you hysterical types ever read the conclusions of the expert psychologists which discredited the statements of AM for a decade and a half regarding JS. Or, do you all just freeze up when you hear the word pedophile?

You discredit yourself by pretending that there were only two choices. Joe could easily have called the police. To pretend that option was not realistic is not rational. It was an option. I get 100% why he didn't and have no problem with it. But the idea that to do so would have been wrong or impossible, or breaking some rule is not reasonable.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Yes to all of it. Jerry also groomed these men for years. I just think the second time it should have raised a bigger alarm in their heads. None of these men were bad men but even good men can miss something every now and then.

What are those choices? Could he have interfered with the investigation? Could he have filed a lawsuit? Could he have threatened JS? Should he as emperor of PSU in your minds had JS kidnapped and taken to Guantanamo for a month of two of water boarding? What are your ideas?
Also, no balls McQuery.....What do you think he should have done? Is Mike just a good man that missed something? There is this thing called division of responsibility. I am afraid too many of you bought the BS that Joe had super powers.... and still are buying into it. He was a football coach at a division I school. He was not a soothsayer. He was so powerful, he couldn't even get the BOT to deny JS emeritis status which he had not earned. BTW can you name one other person over the last 20 years involved with the case that maybe, just maybe and not in hind sight, actually should have done more?

 

[Bob78]

Yes to all of it. Jerry also groomed these men for years. I just think the second time it should have raised a bigger alarm in their heads. None of these men were bad men but even good men can miss something every now and then.

LaJolla, even though I sometimes disagree with some or much of what you say, I appreciate you keeping this on an even keel with others who wish to do the same.

In your post above, I can see your point of view with all of it. But, I am of the thought that knowledge of the '98 incident was more likely to quiet any alarms that may have gone off, given the investigation and benign outcome resulting from it. And imo, it was Dr. Jack R. who should have seen and heard those alarms for what they were, not the untrained athletic / financial / admin people who were bystanders to how the pros handled '98.

But after trying to read up on these things (e.g. Clemente, and our own advocate contributors here), I certainly agree that offenders like JS groom much more than just their potential victims. It is that often gray area that is most troubling to people like me, who would want to recognize and react to grooming techniques, but without training and experience are more likely to miss the signs either way and go with a default gut reaction based on their direct relationship with the person.
I remain convinced that none of C/S/S (let alone JVP) really knew what they were dealing with. So when between a rock and a hard place, defaulted to their instinct which was bolstered by the '98 outcome.

All just my opinion.... and admittedly biased by knowing Tim and believing he could not even entertain doing something deliberately wrong. (and yes, I recognize the potential irony there!)

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Here is where you and I differ on human behavior.

If someone is investigated for some insanely deviant act, and the result of that investigation is that the person is not arrested, then I tend to believe that the next time it is just another false accusation.

To me, it is like these college rape accusations. My immediate reaction to an allegation of rape and abuse at the hands of some frat boys is that the "victim" is a liar. That is obviously not fair or true in all cases, but who the hell is going to believe the next Duke Lacrosse victim?

You, on the other hand, seem to think that the allegations of 1998 should have keyed them into the possible behavior. Had the cops gone to PSU and said as follows, I would agree: "Hey, we investigated this. We know, but cannot prove, that JS is a pedophile. Keep your eye on him and call us as soon as you see something. Trust me - you may not believe it, but we've seen this a thousand times. It's called grooming."

But when they say nothing and I see JS walking around like everything is fine....I start to believe that everything is fine.

Think about how the lower level employees felt about Enron. After seeing guys making millions of dollars a year walking around like everything is fine for YEARS, don't you think that these lower level guys start to believe that "Hey, this type of accounting is normal. It is done everywhere. Maybe I wouldn't do it, but it is probably OK"

That is fine and plausible as well. It isn't definitive just as my opinion is not either. I just don't think Joe was an idiot at all. The other 3 at least thought about making a call. So there was some doubt there IMO. Thanks for a civil discussion.

 

[Connorpozlee]

No. A fact is a fact. An opinion is an opinion. People clearly have different opinions on this. I am not saying Joe did anything to hide anything, but since we have no idea on his knowledge of what was investigated in 98, it's clear their is some room for information there. I know some here cannot hear handle an opinion that dares to question Joe, but I don't think the man was a naive idiot. People can make mistakes and not break a law or do it intentionally. Well everyone but Joe i guess. I know I look back on things that I could have done better, but not Joe.

And the fact is that Joe Paterno did exactly what everybody in the field would say to do. That is a fact. You can call it an opinion if you want, but the fact of the matter is that Joe did exactly what he should have with the information.
You're pushing too hard to try to find a spot where Joe should/could have some fault.

 

[marshall23]

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/10/tsms-2001-decision-driven-by-money.html

 

[LaJolla Lion]

And the fact is that Joe Paterno did exactly what everybody in the field would say to do. That is a fact. You can call it an opinion if you want, but the fact of the matter is that Joe did exactly what he should have with the information.
You're pushing too hard to try to find a spot where Joe should/could have some fault.

Or are some pushing even harder to say he was perfect? It cuts both ways. I guess I may have held him to higher standards due to the respect I had for him. Others may not have thought he was an exceptionally smart and good man, but I did. Still do, but he was still human.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Or are some pushing even harder to say he was perfect? It cuts both ways.

You've not payed attention to what I have had to say on this if you think that's my agenda. I'm talking about how joe handled the information he was presented with by Mike. He did exactly what he should have done. Exactly what anybody who works in the field would have recommended he do. That doesn't really cut both ways.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You've not payed attention to what I have had to say on this if you think that's my agenda. I'm talking about how joe handled the information he was presented with by Mike. He did exactly what he should have done. Exactly what anybody who works in the field would have recommended he do. That doesn't really cut both ways.

Two different discussions and maybe you should have read my original post. I was talking about his regrets which was clear as day. I'm not just talking about the legal CYA. Sorry you somehow took it that way.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Two different discussions and maybe you should have read my original post. I was talking about his regrets which was clear as day. I'm not just talking about the legal CYA. Sorry you somehow took it that way.

Nor am I talking about legal CYA. I'm talking about best practices. You get a report, you take it to the people who are to handle it, step aside.

 

[YYZ86]

You've not payed attention to what I have had to say on this if you think that's my agenda. I'm talking about how joe handled the information he was presented with by Mike. He did exactly what he should have done. Exactly what anybody who works in the field would have recommended he do. That doesn't really cut both ways.

It's hard for people to hear what you are saying. They don't understand how interference from people in Paterno's position can damage the investigation. I have not read the NCAA's new policy on this type of incident, but I doubt they would advise anyone in Paterno's position to do more. If Paterno was the eye witness, that is a different story. The eye witness should have contacted authorities. The emotion of CSA causes people to not understand. I think all involved including the eye witness did what they thought was best. Sandusky's fame, connections, and position at TSM made this a perfect storm.

 

[Zenophile]

Nor am I talking about legal CYA. I'm talking about best practices. You get a report, you take it to the people who are to handle it, step aside.

I was surprised in 2011 when the media went nuclear with the "Joe should have done more" narrative that there weren't more stories clarifying what he should have done (which, at the time I thought was a fair question). So I contacted a few abuse prevention nonprofits to inquire about how to respond to a potential abuse report. I was shocked (at the time) to hear that they all endorsed Paterno's response. I asked why they weren't more vocal about it. "We've tried, but no one wants to hear that right now."

Sadly that remains a true story.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Nor am I talking about legal CYA. I'm talking about best practices. You get a report, you take it to the people who are to handle it, step aside.

Well different life experiences I guess. I have made reports before (not on abuse) and nothing was done. I did what I had to legally, but the lack of action above was appalling. I took it outside the chain and low and behold this person was no longer committing fraud. I did exactly what was expected initially but then went above that. If you need to think your opinion is some authoritative one to sleep better, by all means that is the case for you. It's not for me and you can disagree with it as you do apparently.

 

[didier]

Until we learn exactly why Jerry was not prosecuted in 1998 I don't think we will have a full understanding of this situation and subsequent events.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Well different life experiences I guess. I have made reports before (not on abuse) and nothing was done. I did what I had to legally, but the lack of action above was appalling. I took it outside the chain and low and behold this person was no longer committing fraud. I did exactly what was expected initially but then went above that. If you need to think your opinion is some authoritative one to sleep better, by all means that is the case for you. It's not for me and you can disagree with it as you do apparently.

What a jackassical statement. I'm not sure why the need to step into the realm of "if you think your opinion .....". It's just nonsense. I sleep pretty much the same whether you spout nonsense or not. I'm simply trying to inform you that in this situation, Joe did what he was supposed to. Not really much more to say about.

 

[Mixolydian]

What a jackassical statement. I'm not sure why the need to step into the realm of "if you think your opinion .....". It's just nonsense. I sleep pretty much the same whether you spout nonsense or not. I'm simply trying to inform you that in this situation, Joe did what he was supposed to. Not really much more to say about.

Projection. It's what he does these days. Comical.

 

[GTACSA]

Nor am I talking about legal CYA. I'm talking about best practices. You get a report, you take it to the people who are to handle it, step aside.

You said you would do the same thing Joe did and you work in the field.

What would you do if you got a report and took it to those people who are to handle it, but nothing happened as far as you could tell. Would you just ignore it and compartmentalize it as SmithtonLion suggested?

Or are you more of a LaJolle Lion who would followup with an inquiry?

I don't think anyone has an issue of reporting it up the ladder, rather it's the "what's the next step" decision if there is no apparent investigation by those to whom you have reported.

 

[marshall23]

You said you would do the same thing Joe did and you work in the field.

What would you do if you got a report and took it to those people who are to handle it, but nothing happened as far as you could tell. Would you just ignore it and compartmentalize it as SmithtonLion suggested?

Or are you more of a LaJolle Lion who would followup with an inquiry?

I don't think anyone has an issue of reporting it up the ladder, rather it's the "what's the next step" decision if there is no apparent investigation by those to whom you have reported.

It depends on what is reported to you.

 

[bjf1991]

You said you would do the same thing Joe did and you work in the field.

What would you do if you got a report and took it to those people who are to handle it, but nothing happened as far as you could tell. Would you just ignore it and compartmentalize it as SmithtonLion suggested?

Or are you more of a LaJolle Lion who would followup with an inquiry?

I don't think anyone has an issue of reporting it up the ladder, rather it's the "what's the next step" decision if there is no apparent investigation by those to whom you have reported.

BwaaaHaaaaaHaaaaaaa

GT is back!!!!

 

[Connorpozlee]

You said you would do the same thing Joe did and you work in the field.

What would you do if you got a report and took it to those people who are to handle it, but nothing happened as far as you could tell. Would you just ignore it and compartmentalize it as SmithtonLion suggested?

Or are you more of a LaJolle Lion who would followup with an inquiry?

I don't think anyone has an issue of reporting it up the ladder, rather it's the "what's the next step" decision if there is no apparent investigation by those to whom you have reported.

I am in an entirely position than Joe was.
That said, once I make a report the cabinet is involved and they either choose to accept the report and investigate it or they choose not to.

 

[wensilver]

Until we learn exactly why Jerry was not prosecuted in 1998 I don't think we will have a full understanding of this situation and subsequent events.

Going off topic for the thread - but Harmon stated to the court that Gricar, absent a confession from Jerry, had nothing to work with in order to prosecute.

But I do get where you're coming from on the whole Seasock thing. To this day - I don't understand why Dr. Chambers didn't make more of a stink about the grooming and why that's not exactly a cool thing to have in a kids charity founder.

And of course the lack of a written safety plan by TSM.

Sigh