Wait, Michigan's playing Akron first too????
News regarding our first football opponent (Akron)
- Thread starter michnittlion
- Start date
Wait, Michigan's playing Akron first too????
True, the state of PA (Gricar) didn't think enough was there in 1998 to formally charge Sandusky.
As regards Joe in 2001 though. He knew about the 1998 investigation, then 3 years later heard something from MM that involved these 5 phrases: "Jerry Sandusky ....... young boy ...... shower ....... both naked ........ late at night in a deserted Lasch Building."
Only folks without eyebrows wouldn't raise an eyebrow at that.
Ah, "specificity." Interesting goal post movement here.
So "Coach is anxious to know where it stands" (per the e-mails), and we are to presume that even if a discussion occurred, nobody told Paterno anything specific in those ensuing discussions?
How did that conversation go?
Curley: "Jerry Sandusky, one of your direct reports, is being investigated criminally by the Centre County DA."
Paterno: "Wow. Uh ...... wow. What is he being investigated for?"
Curley: "Can't tell you that Joe."
Paterno: "What can you tell me? Anything?"
Curley: "Nope. Just letting you know he's being investigated. But nothing more."
Paterno: "OK, fair enough. Thanks for the information Tim."
Come on now .............
Last edited:
If you don't like the premise of #1, then see #2.
And you are -- by far -- my new favorite hindsight superhero.
As regards #2, my response there is the same as to sluggo72:
Joe in 2001. He knew about the 1998 investigation, then 3 years later heard something from MM that involved these 5 phrases: "Jerry Sandusky ....... young boy ...... shower ....... both naked ........ late at night in a deserted Lasch Building."
Only folks without eyebrows wouldn't raise an eyebrow at that.
**************************
If you want to call that "michnittlion using hindsight", fair enough.
I call it "JoePa not using foresight." A horrific case of not using foresight.
And for that, Joe will never be, in my mind, a Penn State legend. Instead, Joe is one we should move on from.
In this case, one mistake does have a very large effect as regards his legacy.
You said the same about James Franklin. You're as good as a #CronkLock.
I have never claimed to be correct on all my predictions.
Besides, my mind is still open to be changed re: JoePa. Maybe Sollers will release that "indisputable evidence." Is that something you'd like to see happen?
If there is a lack of "new news" as regards this story, yes I'm ready to "move on." After 61 months, I'm tired of waiting on Wick Sollers.
"No new news" just means we're inevitably talking in circles.
For better or worse --- I honestly haven't seen much "new news" come from the "Paterno Loyalists" camp for several years now. Do you disagree with that?
Last edited:
No doubt about that. Not a single damn thing has come out showing Joe broke policy and procedure in reporting Mike's story up the chain of command.
That's true. JoePa was never charged with a crime.
Many folk --- myself included --- still think JoePa's knowledge of 1998 in 2001 means that he should have done more in 2001, once it became apparent that none of McQueary, Curley, Schultz or Spanier had the fortitude to go to law enforcement themselves.
Now, if JoePa did NOT know about 1998 in 2001, I would NOT be saying that.
But, IMO, the preponderance of evidence has consistently been on the side of "Joe did know about 1998 in 2001."
Perhaps someday Wick Sollers will release his "indisputable evidence" (that would be "new news") and change my mind.
So, if Joe DID know about 1998 then you're saying he should -- or should not -- have followed policy and procedure in 2001?
Strength of schedule non conference schedule is meaningless. Washington got in with a non conference schedule of Idaho, Rutgers and FCS Portland State. Second all those teams are not going to play one and done games. With the 9 game conference schedule Penn State has to schedule 2 one and done games or else they will have years with only 6 home games. If you are willing to donate the $5 million lost in having only 6 home games I am sure they would gladly schedule more schools you suggest. Until then it simply not going to happen.
(1) When you hear, from a direct witness, the words "Jerry Sandusky ... young child ... shower ... both naked ... late at night ... Lasch Building",
(2) as regards someone you know was already investigated for inappropriate sexual behavior as regards children,
(3) and the person who is the direct witness doesn't have the fortitude to go to law enforcement himself,
(4) and after you tell you superiors about this (following corporate policy and procedure),
(5) yet,
(6) your superiors also decide not to go to law enforcement.
(7) yes,
(8) that's a good time to say "to hell with corporate policy and procedure", because
(9) somebody SHOULD go to law enforcement,
(10) because that's the right thing to do.
You truly, truly know nothing about this
You're hatred for all things Paterno clouds your judgment
You do a disservice to everyone (yes including the victims) with your attitude
As I've said ...
The words "Jerry Sandusky ... young child ... shower ... both naked ... late at night ... Lasch Building", as regards someone you know was already investigated for inappropriate sexual behavior as regards children.
And I said you have "no clue" ... And you do not
Or it could have been "Here we go again. This happened back in 98 and they found it was nothing so I'm sure it's nothing again". But don't ever look at alternative possibilities, it's not as fun for you I'm sure.
Good deal. So, just so you know, when I was a member at Northwestern University's Henry Crown Sports Pavilion, just about every time I went through the locker room to access the pool, there would be "men ... boys ... naked ... at all hours ... Norris Aquatic Center." In fact, nude showers were actually required at Northwestern. So, now you know. Please keep us updated on your report to law enforcement and the ensuing investigation.
As I said ... "as regards someone you know was already investigated for inappropriate sexual behavior as regards children."
Unless that was the case with the folk you saw at Northwestern ...... your analogy isn't an analogy.
We'll have to agree to disagree about strength of OOC schedule.
As for your other point, I was not aware that PSU regularly played eight home games per season. Living on the West Coast, I've never been a PSU season ticket holder, so the thought that the Lions may play so many home games never occurred to me. If that is true it is extraordinary. Pac 12 teams regularly play a pretty balanced schedule in terms of home games vs away games. About six of each. But money no doubt talks. If you can sell 90,000 seats for opponents as lousy as Akron and Georgia State, I guess you should do it. It is no doubt a very good way of pumping up both the pocketbook and the number of wins..
Was there an allegation of inappropriate sexual behavior in 1998? Must have missed that. What was the outcome?
You are right. It was possible, in 2001, that it was nothing when "someone already investigated for inappropriate sexual behavior with children was witnessed naked with young boys in a shower late at night when nobody else was around."
But what exactly was the "upside" there in terms of not reporting to law enforcement?
The downside? As we all know, there was a TON of downside there.
Simply report to law enforcement. Let them decide if it was "nothing" or "something."
Raykovitz is an idiot who should have been charged as regards Sandusky. Believe me, I don't defend THAT guy.
Seems to me that the 1998 situation was investigated by both the center county district attorney's office as well as the PA department of welfare and resulted in an outcome of Unfounded. Which, of course, we all now know is Football Coach Codespeak for, "He's clearly a child predator."
You aren't? Had they not both been naked in the shower, the list you've been repeating ad nauseum shrinks by 20%.
As Lauro assured Jerry at the time, DPW investigated situations far worse than 1998. Nothing to worry about.
But, MM has been consistent in that aspect of his testimony (that both parties were naked).
Note that I've abstained throughout this thread from using phrases like "slapping sounds" and "penetration" and such. I'm not talking about that. I'm keeping it at simpler terms. Simply whether or not they were both "naked."
Your "what if question" may be interesting - but let's be clear, it is only a "what if" question.
I'm sorry, but my list has not yet "shrunk by 20%."
But, boy oh boy, that Joe Paterno surely should have known better, right @michnittlion?
As I said, what JoePa was made aware of in 2001 was this:
"someone already investigated (in 1998) for inappropriate sexual behavior with children was witnessed naked with young boys in a shower late at night when nobody else was around."
I didn't say "found guilty/indicted/criminally charged." It's on the record that none of that occurred in 1998.
Anyway, back to 2001. We have a person who (1) was "already investigated for inappropriate sexual behavior with children was witnessed naked with young boys in a shower late at night when nobody else was around", yet (2) puts himself in positions where he is caught, late at night, in a shower naked with a young boy?
That person is --- at the least --- a full-scale, reckless idiot in terms of his current behavior. Would you agree with that? Is there anyone who would disagree with that?
Mike McQueary's been clear & consistent (under oath) about the report he made to Joe. But it doesn't support your position, so round and round we go.
This is a fact that you made up. Repeating it ad nauseum won't make it come true.
There are 2 parts to my statement.
So, to be clear --- which part are you saying I "made up"?
(1) Sandusky being investigated in 1998?
OR
(2) MM telling JoePa that he witnessed Sandusky naked with young boys in the shower late at night?
Those two items are indeed facts by themselves. It's when you insist on conflating them into a singular premise that they necessarily become one false fact.
And just how many boys is McQueary reporting to Joe in your current fantasy?
perhaps #1 you need to add, investigated and cleared of any inappropriate contact with a minor...
Wait ...
A is true.
B is true.
Doesn't that necessarily mean "A and B are true?"
My mistake, yes - mistakenly used the plural instead of the singular.
Of course. #1 is correct with or without the addition of the phrase "and cleared of any inappropriate contact."
