NCAA to subpoena Clemente, Berlin, and Thornburgh's firm

[simons96]

So, you say there is an email where the NCAA basically tells Freeh what to write? Wow, that is quite a smoking gun. Is there a copy of that somewhere link perhaps?

Well, Aoshiro said the suit would claim that Joe was denied his rights under NCAA bylaws and I was wondering what those rights were since the wins IIRC belong to the school and not just Joe. Did they suspend Joe from future jobs? Did they sanction him personally?

When you say concern for the kids, wasn't Freeh's charge to find out who knew what about the scandal at PSU (not the Second Mile, DPW etc) and when they knew it? I thought his charge was to find out whether somebody at PSU screwed up. Why did these BOT members hate the football program and Paterno who brought great benefit to the school. Did they think Paterno was too powerful. Did he ignore them or piss them off by not retiring? I don't get why they would deliberately just trash their own school for no reason. What was the naute of the hate?

here's a link to the NCAA/Freeh meetings - LINK

I believe under NCAA bylaws, Paterno would have had the right to an appeal (though he had passed by the time the sanctions were announced, I believe his estate would have had that right) since he was named personally in the sanctions (probably one of the worst moves by the NCAA, and I agree the victories belong to the school, the players, and the coach. I still do not understand why the NCAA insisted on slamming Joe personally in the consent decree, except maybe they were being led by the nose by the BoT members who hated him)

based on all I have read since November 2011, I think arrogance, hubris, and pure jealousy of the BoT members were at the heart of the dislike for Joe. Joe was no powerful. he was popular. he was well liked and respected. they wheeled him out every time the University wanted to raise money, but they couldn't fire him like many wanted.

but to show you how dysfunctional the board members are, I heard from 3 different people who had had direct conversation with Karen Peetz that she openly despised all the attention the football program received. She played field hockey. The football program paid for the field hockey program (among most other sports at PSU), and was widely regarded (even by Mark Emmert) to be the hallmark NCAA collegiate athletic program in the country. You'd think they'd be more supportive.

 

[CCFlamingo]

I would imagine that the NCAA is trying to turn the tables on the Paternos and find evidence that their report wasn't as independent as they portrayed. On another point, it is interesting that in a thread where the topic of astroturfing is discussed there are basically three new posters on page 3 alone.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

I would imagine that the NCAA is trying to turn the tables on the Paternos and find evidence that their report wasn't as independent as they portrayed. On another point, it is interesting that in a thread where the topic of astroturfing is discussed there are basically three new posters on page 3 alone.

Very valid points.

 

[RentechCEO]

here's a link to the NCAA/Freeh meetings - LINK

I believe under NCAA bylaws, Paterno would have had the right to an appeal (though he had passed by the time the sanctions were announced, I believe his estate would have had that right) since he was named personally in the sanctions (probably one of the worst moves by the NCAA, and I agree the victories belong to the school, the players, and the coach. I still do not understand why the NCAA insisted on slamming Joe personally in the consent decree, except maybe they were being led by the nose by the BoT members who hated him)

based on all I have read since November 2011, I think arrogance, hubris, and pure jealousy of the BoT members were at the heart of the dislike for Joe. Joe was no powerful. he was popular. he was well liked and respected. they wheeled him out every time the University wanted to raise money, but they couldn't fire him like many wanted.

but to show you how dysfunctional the board members are, I heard from 3 different people who had had direct conversation with Karen Peetz that she openly despised all the attention the football program received. She played field hockey. The football program paid for the field hockey program (among most other sports at PSU), and was widely regarded (even by Mark Emmert) to be the hallmark NCAA collegiate athletic program in the country. You'd think they'd be more supportive.

Thanks for your answers.

I have looked about on the web regarding the emails between Freeh and the NCAA but don't see a smoking gun that the NCAA "told" Freeh what to write. In any event I can't see Freeh really wanting to curry favor with the NCAA per se that would lead him to doctor a report to please them. I guess one could speculate future business but anyone who investigated it could also be said to be doing that as well. What the emails DO seem to shed light on is that the NCAA knew they were on very shaky ground with the sanctions and I think most of "us out here" never bought off on the sanctions anyway. I guess I am missing a connection that would show Freeh to have falsified a report to please the NCAA.

As far as your BOT, if they are what you say, I wonder how they ever got to be on the BOT and why would they want to be on it. If it were for prestige well then they shot themselves in the foot by firing Paterno etc. and they would have done better to fight back. As an outsider I don't see them in any more positive light because they fired Joe and then signed a consent decree. So, that seems really strange that they would do that on purpose.

We had a few issues with our QB but the coach and the admin stood behind him on the rape allegation while punishing him for the cussing and stealing crablegs but refused to throw him off the team for the rape allegations since he was never charged. They took a lot of heat for it but stood their ground. So, you are saying that the BOT not only fell asleep but also assigned internal blame maliciously? Wow, that is major. If true, they should all go and I can't imagine why they would stay.

 

[psu00]

So, you say there is an email where the NCAA basically tells Freeh what to write? Wow, that is quite a smoking gun. Is there a copy of that somewhere link perhaps?

Well, Aoshiro said the suit would claim that Joe was denied his rights under NCAA bylaws and I was wondering what those rights were since the wins IIRC belong to the school and not just Joe. Did they suspend Joe from future jobs? Did they sanction him personally?

When you say concern for the kids, wasn't Freeh's charge to find out who knew what about the scandal at PSU (not the Second Mile, DPW etc) and when they knew it? I thought his charge was to find out whether somebody at PSU screwed up. Why did these BOT members hate the football program and Paterno who brought great benefit to the school. Did they think Paterno was too powerful. Did he ignore them or piss them off by not retiring? I don't get why they would deliberately just trash their own school for no reason. What was the naute of the hate?

Rentech- first off I love the signature line at the end of all your posts. Just classic. .

That said, yes the NCAA sent representatives to Freeh and his minions (IIRC to the Nittany Lion Inn to give a prepared PowerPoint presentation) to instruct them on what they would need to charge rule violations (loss of institutional control etc). It was basically their walking orders to him. It's a matter of record (for those paying attention- which means the national media ignored it so I'm not surprised outsiders don't know).

It's also a matter of record that NCAA infraction people said there was nothing in their jurisdiction but Emmert and Remy (NCAA lawyer) disagreed and pushed the issue because they wanted to show the NCAA was "relevant" and had teeth.

As for the PSU BoT that's a long story, much discussed here. There was a Surma family vendetta against Paterno (over one of their sons playing time and lifestyle IIRC). Again- well known from public Surma statements. There was a Peetz vendetta because she thought football got too much attention compared to her field hockey (former player- again public comments). There were several members on the board over the years who were very closely involved with the Second Mile and had spouses/ kids serving on the SM board. There was an awful lot of CYA for themselves and their family members so when the media predictably jumped on the big name of Paterno trying to escalate the hype they were all too happy to keep the attention there and not on their family members.

To this day no one from the second mile has been held accountable, charged or even investigated by the media. That is the children's charity that JS personally created, led, groomed kids and got his victims from. It's utterly amazing that they have received no serious scrutiny now over 3 years on.

 

[simons96]

Thanks for your answers.

I have looked about on the web regarding the emails between Freeh and the NCAA but don't see a smoking gun that the NCAA "told" Freeh what to write. In any event I can't see Freeh really wanting to curry favor with the NCAA per se that would lead him to doctor a report to please them. I guess one could speculate future business but anyone who investigated it could also be said to be doing that as well. What the emails DO seem to shed light on is that the NCAA knew they were on very shaky ground with the sanctions and I think most of "us out here" never bought off on the sanctions anyway. I guess I am missing a connection that would show Freeh to have falsified a report to please the NCAA.

As far as your BOT, if they are what you say, I wonder how they ever got to be on the BOT and why would they want to be on it. If it were for prestige well then they shot themselves in the foot by firing Paterno etc. and they would have done better to fight back. As an outsider I don't see them in any more positive light because they fired Joe and then signed a consent decree. So, that seems really strange that they would do that on purpose.

We had a few issues with our QB but the coach and the admin stood behind him on the rape allegation while punishing him for the cussing and stealing crablegs but refused to throw him off the team for the rape allegations since he was never charged. They took a lot of heat for it but stood their ground. So, you are saying that the BOT not only fell asleep but also assigned internal blame maliciously? Wow, that is major. If true, they should all go and I can't imagine why they would stay.

I think Freeh was told what to write. Remember, his client was NOT Penn State or even the Board of Trustees. His client was the Special Investigative Task Force. And there was a LOT of pressure to justify the firing of Paterno, who the OAG had initially called a cooperative and truthful witness. It can be argued that Paterno's support of McQueary's testimony allowed the OAG to move forward with their indictment and trial of Sandusky. In fact, if you recall the story was kind of slow and weak when first reported since most people didn't even know who Sandusky was. Once Paterno's press conference was cancelled by John Surma (Tues) and Joe was fired (Thurs), that was when the narrative about Joe changed.

So yes, many Penn Staters are still angry that Joe (and the other admins) seemed to have been maliciously thrown under the bus. Consider this: everyone involved with this scandal who was accountable to an election (State AG, alumni elected trustees, Governor) and had a role in misdirecting the blame on to Paterno and the football program (instead of the state agencies that endemically failed the children under their care) . . . was booted from office.

 

[Aoshiro]

Thanks for your answers.

I have looked about on the web regarding the emails between Freeh and the NCAA but don't see a smoking gun that the NCAA "told" Freeh what to write. (1) In any event I can't see Freeh really wanting to curry favor with the NCAA per se that would lead him to doctor a report to please them. I guess one could speculate future business but anyone who investigated it could also be said to be doing that as well. What the emails DO seem to shed light on is that the NCAA knew they were on very shaky ground with the sanctions and I think most of "us out here" never bought off on the sanctions anyway. I guess I am missing a connection that would show Freeh to have falsified a report to please the NCAA.

(2) As far as your BOT, if they are what you say, I wonder how they ever got to be on the BOT and why would they want to be on it. If it were for prestige well then they shot themselves in the foot by firing Paterno etc. and they would have done better to fight back. As an outsider I don't see them in any more positive light because they fired Joe and then signed a consent decree. So, that seems really strange that they would do that on purpose.

We had a few issues with our QB but the coach and the admin stood behind him on the rape allegation while punishing him for the cussing and stealing crablegs but refused to throw him off the team for the rape allegations since he was never charged. They took a lot of heat for it but stood their ground. So, you are saying that the BOT not only fell asleep but also assigned internal blame maliciously? Wow, that is major. If true, they should all go and I can't imagine why they would stay.

(1) The NCAA was looking to outsource enforcement (multimillion dollar contract). Freeh wanted that business. Corman discovery uncovered emails between a Freeh rep and Julie Roe specifically discussing it. Here's one:

(2) They did it on purpose. Various motivations. This was written very early in this mess, and is therefore missing some info, but it's probably the least hyperbolic summary. http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...ower-struggle-spread-penn-state-state-capital

 

[pandaczar12]

From Paterno's testimony after McQueary told him he saw Sandusky in a shower fondling a young boy:

"Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."

Okay, so McQueary just had to tell Paterno that he saw Sandusky in a shower molesting a youngster and Paterno knew that Sandusky was taking some kind of inappropriate action with the kid.

Doesn't that seem really odd to you? I would think Paterno's reaction would be to tell McQueary to get the hell out of his house. If he's got something to say, go tell the cops but Jerry Sandusky loves kids. "I've known him for almost forty years, there's no way he could be a child molester, etc." At a minimum, he'd question McQueary to make sure he really saw what he said he saw.

But that's not what happened. He just accepted what McQueary said.

According to Paterno.

Why do you trolls always highlight/bold the wrong parts? You could point out the parts that make his non-cross examined testimony completely ambiguous and worthless.

"Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

 

[BobPSU92]

Why do you trolls always highlight/bold the wrong parts? You could point out the parts that make his non-cross examined testimony completely ambiguous and worthless.

"Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

Because if they were honest, they wouldn't be trolls.

 

[jjsocrates]

cdw could be biggest idiot on the planet, but while I think he is an idiot, I don't believe that he believes everything he posts. Rather, I believe he gets off on posting the same tired, inaccurate drivel because he knows he will get a rise out of people and thereby derail a thread. We are on Page 3 of this thread, and instead of discussing the significance of the real thread subject (the content of the firstr post), most of the posts are in response to him or are between the rest of us about him.

XenForo has a very effective ignore feature. If everyone would put him on their ignore list, then he would get no responses to his bullshit and he would give up. His posts only have value, to him, if people engage him. Engaging his tired crap again and again is pointless. Put him on your ignore list and forget about him.

Agreed. Done. Just put Cruising, CDW, getmyjive on ignore, and I think there are 3-4 other usual suspects and JJ clones that need the same treatment.

 

[jjsocrates]

On another point, it is interesting that in a thread where the topic of astroturfing is discussed there are basically three new posters on page 3 alone.

'nuf ced.

 

[jjsocrates]

Hell, the Bagwell emails revealed that the BoT was (via a PR firm) was monitoring online sentiment. And not just articles being posted. Tweets and comments here and on various other PSU sites were being monitored for sentiment.

Very true, and pretty clear evidence that these clowns ARE monitoring Social Media sites (boy, they hate it when you mess with their Wikipedia pages) and are actively monitoring what is being said about them.

Exactly how much is PSU paying David La Torre and exactly WHAT have those PR firms been doing? Seems like La Torre charges PSU $100,000 every time he issues a "no comment" to anything. Pretty sure paying Johnnie Jacobs $10/week to troll the internet isn't breaking that budget.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

For?

Could be as simple as just sticking his nose into it.

Or, could be that he exerted his influence.

I think it is worth noting, though, that his name has not popped up in any of the official or unofficial investigation or judicial information that we have seen so far. That is why it might make a big splash when it eventually does happen. Because, it did happen.

 

[sluggo72]

From Paterno's testimony after McQueary told him he saw Sandusky in a shower fondling a young boy:

"Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

That's Paterno's testimony?? How do you know?? What we know is, that's what was read in as JVP testimony. Joe gave his testimony to a Grand Jury, he was not around to testify at trial, so they read in his testimony. Now if they guy reading the testimony, or the person that took and transcribed his testimony, change around 2 words, what Joe says makes sense. read the above lines, they don't make sense. What makes sense is,' Was it of a sexual nature?? I'm not sure exactly what you call it' Now that makes sense, and it is clear, JVP did not know what was up. And this is why the audio tapes of JVP testimony have been subpoenaed. But I bet you already know that, don't you.

 

[mdahmus]

Those claiming everybody are hired commenters are as tiresome and stupid as those who think there aren't any, ever.

In fact, it's just as likely, if not more, that the Paternos or CSS have hired commenters as that the BOT have.

(I'm not a hired commenter, just an alum disgusted at the apologia displayed by the truthers).

 

[lionlurker]

If so, I'd like to apply for one of those pro-Paterno jobs.

 

[bamasota]

Those claiming everybody are hired commenters are as tiresome and stupid as those who think there aren't any, ever.

In fact, it's just as likely, if not more, that the Paternos or CSS have hired commenters as that the BOT have.

(I'm not a hired commenter, just an alum disgusted at the apologia displayed by the truthers).

Interesting point. That road does run in both directions.

 

[jjsocrates]

Those claiming everybody are hired commenters are as tiresome and stupid as those who think there aren't any, ever.

In fact, it's just as likely, if not more, that the Paternos or CSS have hired commenters as that the BOT have.

(I'm not a hired commenter, just an alum disgusted at the apologia displayed by the truthers).

You're going on ignore now too buddy. Maybe you should establish some cred beyond 34 posts before showing up here claiming to NOT be a hired commenter.

 

[Aoshiro]

You're going on ignore now too buddy. Maybe you should establish some cred beyond 34 posts before showing up here claiming to NOT be a hired commenter.

Oh we know who Mike is, he's been bashing Paterno for over a decade. He's a prime example of the football-first mentality that Freeh claimed the rest of us have. He's perfectly happy to be called a pedophile-enabler as long as we are rid of Curley and Paterno and have a shot at a national championship.

 

[bamasota]

You're going on ignore now too buddy. Maybe you should establish some cred beyond 34 posts before showing up here claiming to NOT be a hired commenter.

So you think that he was placed here in 2010 as a mole agent to be activated if and when the BOT required his services?

That is a bit of a stretch.

 

[simons96]

Question. I wonder if professional trolls recognize other professional trolls? Is there a professional troll community or association?

I think their next conference is scheduled for the premiere of Jem and the Holograms

 

[WeR0206]

That's Paterno's testimony?? How do you know?? What we know is, that's what was read in as JVP testimony. Joe gave his testimony to a Grand Jury, he was not around to testify at trial, so they read in his testimony. Now if they guy reading the testimony, or the person that took and transcribed his testimony, change around 2 words, what Joe says makes sense. read the above lines, they don't make sense. What makes sense is,' Was it of a sexual nature?? I'm not sure exactly what you call it' Now that makes sense, and it is clear, JVP did not know what was up. And this is why the audio tapes of JVP testimony have been subpoenaed. But I bet you already know that, don't you.

Exactly right sluggo. Also, don't forget that the person who read Joe's GJ testimony into record was Fina's mole, James Barker. This is the guy who testified against Kane in the GJ looking into her and who she had fired and escorted out of the building via security a few weeks ago.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

So you think that he was placed here in 2010 as a mole agent to be activated if and when the BOT required his services?

That is a bit of a stretch.

That's not how it works. Initially, the PR firm while look through message board/social media and find people who are already expressing the sentiment/narrative they wish to push, and then they recruit those people into their fold. After they get a couple allies, more and more new users ("hired guns") will show up.

Now, I do not think that mdahmus is a hired gun. I think he's just confused. Or perhaps he feels this is a form of penance for his own personal shortcomings. Another big Penn State fan that I remember always buying into the media narrative from day 1 was the infamous SportsChatChuck, who was the creepiest dude on twitter, constantly sexually harassing young women with his tweets, and recently got arrested for soliciting a prostitute behind a little league baseball field. To me, SportsChatChuck's opinion about PSU was an attempt to cover his own sexual deviance with a cloak of righteousness.

I think it's more likely that mdahmus is just a confused person that may have a grudge against Paterno and/or PSU football. But he has been so vocally anti-Paterno, anti-CSS, and anti-PSU since day 1 (before we knew anything), that I can't help but wonder what he's trying to cover for. The other possibility is that mdahmus was an early Sandusky victim, or a victim of CSA, and in that case, I completely understand where he'd be coming from, because if that were to happen, it is almost impossible to look at this whole scandal rationally.

Just some thoughts I've had for awhile, as outsider who has just tried to look at the facts - and only the facts - from day 1.

 

[bamasota]

That's not how it works. Initially, the PR firm while look through message board/social media and find people who are already expressing the sentiment/narrative they wish to push, and then they recruit those people into their fold. After they get a couple allies, more and more new users ("hired guns") will show up.

Now, I do not think that mdahmus is a hired gun. I think he's just confused. Or perhaps he feels this is a form of penance for his own personal shortcomings. Another big Penn State fan that I remember always buying into the media narrative from day 1 was the infamous SportsChatChuck, who was the creepiest dude on twitter, constantly sexually harassing young women with his tweets, and recently got arrested for soliciting a prostitute behind a little league baseball field. To me, SportsChatChuck's opinion about PSU was an attempt to cover his own sexual deviance with a cloak of righteousness.

I think it's more likely that mdahmus is just a confused person that may have a grudge against Paterno and/or PSU football. But he has been so vocally anti-Paterno, anti-CSS, and anti-PSU since day 1 (before we knew anything), that I can't help but wonder what he's trying to cover for. The other possibility is that mdahmus was an early Sandusky victim, or a victim of CSA, and in that case, I completely understand where he'd be coming from, because if that were to happen, it is almost impossible to look at this whole scandal rationally.

Just some thoughts I've had for awhile, as outsider who has just tried to look at the facts - and only the facts - from day 1.

And you formed this opinion after analyzing all of his 34 posts over 5 years? Sure, that seems to be a valid sample size.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

And you formed this opinion after analyzing all of his 34 posts over 5 years? Sure, that seems to be a valid sample size.

Nope... he used to post over at BSD as M1EK before he was banned. Between BSD, OTE, and twitter, I've seen thousands of his comments for the past 3.5 years.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

And you formed this opinion after analyzing all of his 34 posts over 5 years? Sure, that seems to be a valid sample size.

And just to clarify, my official position on mdahmus - based on a couple thousand comments I've read over 3.5 years - is that there is nothing nefarious about him. He's just confused, or unable to look at this matter rationally for some reason. What that reason is, I don't know.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

but to show you how dysfunctional the board members are, I heard from 3 different people who had had direct conversation with Karen Peetz that she openly despised all the attention the football program received. She played field hockey. The football program paid for the field hockey program (among most other sports at PSU), and was widely regarded (even by Mark Emmert) to be the hallmark NCAA collegiate athletic program in the country. You'd think they'd be more supportive.

The portion of your statement that I have bolded is not inaccurate. However, to be more accurate, or at least more complete, you should state "She played field hockey and lacrosse." Peetz was on PSU's field hockey team in '74, '75, and '76, and PSU's LAX team in '74, '75, '76, and '77.

Once Paterno's press conference was cancelled by John Surma (Tues) and Joe was fired (Thurs), that was when the narrative about Joe changed.

Technically, the PC was canceled by Spanier, in a telephone call between Spanier and JoePa Tuesday morning about an hour before the PC. As for who ordered the PC to be canceled, I have conflicting info from 2 sources that are almost never incorrect, so it's hard for me to say for sure whether Surma ordered that it be canceled, or if Gov. Corbett ordered that it be canceled.

I must also point out that Joe was fired on Wednesday evening, not Thursday.

 

[bamasota]

And just to clarify, my official position on mdahmus - based on a couple thousand comments I've read over 3.5 years - is that there is nothing nefarious about him. He's just confused, or unable to look at this matter rationally for some reason. What that reason is, I don't know.

Fair enough, you obviously are more familiar with his body of work.

However, the post he made above was both true and rational. If there are "hired gun" posters from one camp active here, there are just as likely ones from both camps.

 

[Obliviax]

That's not how it works. Initially, the PR firm while look through message board/social media and find people who are already expressing the sentiment/narrative they wish to push, and then they recruit those people into their fold. After they get a couple allies, more and more new users ("hired guns") will show up.

Now, I do not think that mdahmus is a hired gun. I think he's just confused. Or perhaps he feels this is a form of penance for his own personal shortcomings. Another big Penn State fan that I remember always buying into the media narrative from day 1 was the infamous SportsChatChuck, who was the creepiest dude on twitter, constantly sexually harassing young women with his tweets, and recently got arrested for soliciting a prostitute behind a little league baseball field. To me, SportsChatChuck's opinion about PSU was an attempt to cover his own sexual deviance with a cloak of righteousness.

I think it's more likely that mdahmus is just a confused person that may have a grudge against Paterno and/or PSU football. But he has been so vocally anti-Paterno, anti-CSS, and anti-PSU since day 1 (before we knew anything), that I can't help but wonder what he's trying to cover for. The other possibility is that mdahmus was an early Sandusky victim, or a victim of CSA, and in that case, I completely understand where he'd be coming from, because if that were to happen, it is almost impossible to look at this whole scandal rationally.

Just some thoughts I've had for awhile, as outsider who has just tried to look at the facts - and only the facts - from day 1.

Here's what happened.

In 1998, the issue came up, was fully investigated and the officials decided to not press charges. while PSU officials may or may not have known all of the specifics, they knew JS was exhonerated while practicing in a high risk environment for such charges.

In 2001, MM was never clear. What is clear is that he told several different stories. Regardless of his specific wording to Paterno, Paterno handled it exactly as he should have in 2001. Moreover, that's exactly how the NCAA would have wanted him to handle it in 2015; report the former employee to the officials in charge and outside of the sports vertical.

In 2011, another report comes to the police. Now aware of three incidents, they make their case. They know MM is the lynchpin to the entire case as none of the victims came forward previously, the one that did told officials in 98 nothing happened that was illegal. The janitor was unstable and probably not admissible. So the put together a GJ report that is explosive, untrue and cause a huge firestorm. They finger C, S & S so that they do not destroy MM's testimony (and thus, their case fall apart). it is also possible that the police told MM to buff up his testimony to make it more crisp.

Once that fire storm got lit, and the press picked it up, I think it shocked the prosecutors, and politicians. This includes the BOT. They had to act quickly and decisively to keep their personal behinds clean. So they fire Paterno (without cause) and put on leave C & S (later, Spanier because he supported C & S). We now know that firing paterno was stupid because he has come out 100% clean. However, the BOT had to justify their actions, the NCAA had to justify their position too. That brings us to Freeh. BTW, just so you know, consultants are paid to push an agenda their bosses cannot push. So Freeh did what his customers wanted: hang Paterno. If you read Freeh, there is ample reason to hammer Shultz, but not Curley or Paterno. Paterno followed the rules and is really a tangential player (he didn't see anything and had no direct responsibility but to report it to those in charge of such things). So why was there any report about Paterno at all? The answer is clear; the BOT had to justify their knee jerk reaction to firing Paterno.

In the end, as we see the situation develop in hindsight, the BOT wants this to go away. They develop "One Team" and use the University's money to pay for their "confidentiality". Thus, PSU is a quarter of a billion dollars lighter today than they were in 2011.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

Fair enough, you obviously are more familiar with his body of work.

However, the post he made above was both true and rational. If there are "hired gun" posters from one camp active here, there are just as likely ones from both camps.

I absolutely agree. Though it is unlikely they would be commenting on BWI. It'd be a waste of time and resources to post here, were the sentiment is already very strongly pro-Paterno. They'd most likely be commenting on non-PSU sports sites, newspapers, and twitter, and they would likely be outsiders not affiliated with Penn State.

I do not believe the Paternos would be likely to do this (except for Scott... I could see him hiring a PR firm for astroturfing). But it could be done by the Paterno estate's legal team without the Paternos' knowledge.

But to your point, yes, mdahmus is absolutely right that it can cut both ways.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

Here's what happened.

In 1998, the issue came up, was fully investigated and the officials decided to not press charges. while PSU officials may or may not have known all of the specifics, they knew JS was exhonerated while practicing in a high risk environment for such charges.

In 2001, MM was never clear. What is clear is that he told several different stories. Regardless of his specific wording to Paterno, Paterno handled it exactly as he should have in 2001. Moreover, that's exactly how the NCAA would have wanted him to handle it in 2015; report the former employee to the officials in charge and outside of the sports vertical.

In 2011, another report comes to the police. Now aware of three incidents, they make their case. They know MM is the lynchpin to the entire case as none of the victims came forward previously, the one that did told officials in 98 nothing happened that was illegal. The janitor was unstable and probably not admissible. So the put together a GJ report that is explosive, untrue and cause a huge firestorm. They finger C, S & S so that they do not destroy MM's testimony (and thus, their case fall apart). it is also possible that the police told MM to buff up his testimony to make it more crisp.

Once that fire storm got lit, and the press picked it up, I think it shocked the prosecutors, and politicians. This includes the BOT. They had to act quickly and decisively to keep their personal behinds clean. So they fire Paterno (without cause) and put on leave C & S (later, Spanier because he supported C & S). We now know that firing paterno was stupid because he has come out 100% clean. However, the BOT had to justify their actions, the NCAA had to justify their position too. That brings us to Freeh. BTW, just so you know, consultants are paid to push an agenda their bosses cannot push. So Freeh did what his customers wanted: hang Paterno. If you read Freeh, there is ample reason to hammer Shultz, but not Curley or Paterno. Paterno followed the rules and is really a tangential player (he didn't see anything and had no direct responsibility but to report it to those in charge of such things). So why was there any report about Paterno at all? The answer is clear; the BOT had to justify their knee jerk reaction to firing Paterno.

In the end, as we see the situation develop in hindsight, the BOT wants this to go away. They develop "One Team" and use the University's money to pay for their "confidentiality". Thus, PSU is a quarter of a billion dollars lighter today than they were in 2011.

Oh, I know the facts of the case as I've covered it non-stop since late Oct. 2011. And it is because I read everything about it that I never rushed to judgment, like so many outsiders.

To your point about the Freeh Report... i dont think it was just about justifying the firing of Paterno. That was one thing for sure. But it was also to cover the asses of those closely affiliated with TSM.

 

[simons96]

The portion of your statement that I have bolded is not inaccurate. However, to be more accurate, or at least more complete, you should state "She played field hockey and lacrosse." Peetz was on PSU's field hockey team in '74, '75, and '76, and PSU's LAX team in '74, '75, '76, and '77.

Technically, the PC was canceled by Spanier, in a telephone call between Spanier and JoePa Tuesday morning about an hour before the PC. As for who ordered the PC to be canceled, I have conflicting info from 2 sources that are almost never incorrect, so it's hard for me to say for sure whether Surma ordered that it be canceled, or if Gov. Corbett ordered that it be canceled.

I must also point out that Joe was fired on Wednesday evening, not Thursday.

jeez Tom, nice nitpicking.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

jeez Tom, nice nitpicking.

Hey, you can't play fast and loose with the facts. You'll look like Louie Freeh

 

[BobPSU92]

Those claiming everybody are hired commenters are as tiresome and stupid as those who think there aren't any, ever.

In fact, it's just as likely, if not more, that the Paternos or CSS have hired commenters as that the BOT have.

(I'm not a hired commenter, just an alum disgusted at the apologia displayed by the truthers).

You didn't seem like such an idiot when we were in college. Yes, I know you.

 

[mdahmus]

And just to clarify, my official position on mdahmus - based on a couple thousand comments I've read over 3.5 years - is that there is nothing nefarious about him. He's just confused, or unable to look at this matter rationally for some reason. What that reason is, I don't know.

And my official position on you and the BSD guys is that I'm the rational one (who can get rid of the initial hero-worship and see things more clearly) and you guys aren't. There is a population of Penn State fans who gave up forums like this one and even BSD who agree more with me than with you. There's a guy who hangs out on EDSBS who still views his ban from BSD as a badge of honor.

The rest of the armchair theorizing is garbage. I was a huge Paterno fan growing up, too.

 

[Obliviax]

And my official position on you and the BSD guys is that I'm the rational one (who can get rid of the initial hero-worship and see things more clearly) and you guys aren't. There is a population of Penn State fans who gave up forums like this one and even BSD who agree more with me than with you. There's a guy who hangs out on EDSBS who still views his ban from BSD as a badge of honor.

The rest of the armchair theorizing is garbage. I was a huge Paterno fan growing up, too.

Well, the fact remains...JoePa did everything by the book in 1998, 2001 and 2011. In fact, its still "the book" today. there may be things that CS&S did wrong, we still don't know...but Paterno did nothing wrong and that's a fact.

 

[mdahmus]

Well, the fact remains...JoePa did everything by the book in 1998, 2001 and 2011. In fact, its still "the book" today. there may be things that CS&S did wrong, we still don't know...but Paterno did nothing wrong and that's a fact.

No, it isn't. Paterno could have done more, based on the available evidence. He may have been involved in the decision to do less than should have been done back then, based on the available evidence.

He is far less to blame than CSS, again, based on the available evidence, but that does not mean he did "nothing wrong and that's a fact".

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

And my official position on you and the BSD guys is that I'm the rational one (who can get rid of the initial hero-worship and see things more clearly) and you guys aren't. There is a population of Penn State fans who gave up forums like this one and even BSD who agree more with me than with you. There's a guy who hangs out on EDSBS who still views his ban from BSD as a badge of honor.

The rest of the armchair theorizing is garbage. I was a huge Paterno fan growing up, too.

Well, considering I'm an Ohio State alumnus, saying I can't see things clearly like PSU fans because of "hero worshipping" of Paterno is kind of silly.

Also, you had a reputation for being a self-loathing PSU fan for awhile around BSD. You would go out of your way to take shots at PSU constantly while still saying you were a fan. You called the 2011 schedule a creampuff schedule. Alabama? Iowa (when they were still good... just a year and a half removed from an Orange Bowl win)? and a final stretch of vs. Nebraska, @ Ohio State, and vs. Wisconsin is a creampuff schedule? That is a brutal final stretch. I mean, sure, you're entitled to your opinion on things like that, but it just seems consistent with your MO of going out of your way to bash Penn State whenever possible. You had the reputation for awhile. And it is convenient that - after disappearing from BSD for awhile - you showed up exactly one week after Paterno was fired. Literally days after PSU hired a PR firm and the first social media/blog monitoring reports starting pouring into the BoT inboxes. I might have to change my opinion. You may very well be a hired gun, because your past history on BSD would have made you a ripe candidate for PSU's PR firm to recruit you for the purposes of astroturfing.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

No, it isn't. Paterno could have done more, based on the available evidence. He may have been involved in the decision to do less than should have been done back then, based on the available evidence.

He is far less to blame than CSS, again, based on the available evidence, but that does not mean he did "nothing wrong and that's a fact".

I gotta get back to work, because I don't get paid to do this like some people.... But... what would you have had Joe do? You hold him to a ridiculously high standard based on what he heard being pretty vague hearsay information. I'll chekc your response later.

 

[royboy]

No, it isn't. Paterno could have done more, based on the available evidence. He may have been involved in the decision to do less than should have been done back then, based on the available evidence.

He is far less to blame than CSS, again, based on the available evidence, but that does not mean he did "nothing wrong and that's a fact".

Really? Can you, perhaps theoretically WITHOUT the benefit of hindsight, tell us what he "should have done"?