OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)

[michnittlion]

It wasn't grounds. It was an excuse. What he said ("That's why I have decided to announce my retirement effective at the end of this season. At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can. ") has multiple meanings: one could be perceived an insubordination (although even that is a stretch), and the other is "The university has way more important things to worry about (child abuse victims) than me." Anyone who had heard Paterno speak over the previous 20 years knows the statement was said without malice.

What was the point of including "At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can."

Seriously - what was the point of that??? Those 3 sentences added NOTHING to his statement, beyond calling out the Board of Trustees.

 

[michnittlion]

ain't it amazing how people like michnitwitidiot STILL try to float their same old tired lies on here??

What's a "lie"?

As I've said many many times before --- part of the problem with the "Paterno Loyalists" faction of our fan base is their refusal to concede ANYTHING.

The "Paterno Loyalists" faction would have more credibility if they'd admit at least some faults with JoePa. For instance, that statement he made on 9-November-2011. It was arrogant and a huge tactical mistake. And it was a reason he got fired.

Nobody's perfect. JoePa may not have been technically fired until the evening of 9-November-2011, but he signed his own termination slip that morning.

 

[RussianEagle]

What's a "lie"?

As I've said many many times before --- part of the problem with the "Paterno Loyalists" faction is their refusal to concede ANYTHING.

The "Paterno Loyalists" faction would have more credibility if they'd admit at least some faults with JoePa. For instance, that statement he made on 9-November-2011. It was arrogant and a huge tactical mistake. And it was a reason he got fired.

Nobody's perfect.

I’m not saying Joe was perfect. He should not have believed those snakes at the OAG and that scumbag McQueary.

 

[sluggo72]

What was the point of including "At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can."

Seriously - what was the point of that??? Those 3 sentences added NOTHING to his statement, beyond calling out the Board of Trustees.

was it Scott or Jay that used to hit you in the back of the head with spit balls ?

 

[indynittany]

...JoePa made a huge tactical mistake if he thought his comments weren't going to draw some sort of reaction from his bosses. It was a very high-risk, low-reward comment to make.

IMO, the BOT made a huge tactical mistake by not following Joe's advice. $250 million and counting backs me up.

 

[michnittlion]

IMO, the BOT made a huge tactical mistake by not following Joe's advice. $250 million and counting backs me up.

So you think we would NOT be out $250,000,000 if the BoT had NOT fired JoePa on 9-November-2011? Is that your argument (yes or no)?

 

[michnittlion]

I’m not saying Joe was perfect. He should not have believed those snakes at the OAG and that scumbag McQueary.

Fair enough. This is also sadly true: if only one person amongst Curley, Schulz, McQueary, Spanier, Dranov, Paterno and Reykovitz had gone to law enforcement in February 2002 - it wouldn't have mattered whether Joe believed McQueary or not.

It would have been in law enforcement's hands to determine the validity of McQueary's claims.

 

[RussianEagle]

So you think we would NOT be out $250,000,000 if the BoT had NOT fired JoePa on 9-November-2011? Is that your argument (yes or no)?

We would not be out $250 million if we had a BOT with balls. Firing Joe was just one of many balls less moves.

 

[BobPSU92]

ain't it amazing how people like michnitwitidiot STILL try to float their same old tired lies on here??

And his basketball team still got creamed last night.

 

[RussianEagle]

Fair enough. This is also sadly true: if only one person amongst Curley, Schulz, McQueary, Spanier, Dranov, Paterno and Reykovitz had gone to law enforcement in February 2002 - it wouldn't have mattered whether Joe believed McQueary or not.

It would have been in law enforcement's hands to determine the validity of McQueary's claims.

Schultz actually did talk to police chief Harmon according to an email in the Freeh Report. This was before talking with McQueary. Since he did not get the police involved after talking to McQueary, that just supports the theory that McQueary didn’t describe anything major to Curley and Schultz.

 

[LundyPSU]

Unfortunately for Joe, his GJ testimony and his interview with Sally Jenkins provided a reasonable basis for termination without the Freeh report.

Neither was known at the time he was fired. Supposedly, the only info the BOT had was the GJ presentment.

 

[michnittlion]

Schultz actually did talk to police chief Harmon according to an email in the Freeh Report. This was before talking with McQueary. Since he did not get the police involved after talking to McQueary, that just supports the theory that McQueary didn’t describe anything major to Curley and Schultz.

Yes - Schultz did "talk" to Harmon in February 2001. The ENTIRETY of their documented February 2001 conversations was Schultz asking one question, as to whether the 1998 Sandusky incident was documented and imaged in their archives.

You may be technically correct that they did "talk" - but that's a rather far cry from reporting (or even considering reporting) any of McQueary's claims to law enforcement.

 

[indynittany]

So you think we would NOT be out $250,000,000 if the BoT had NOT fired JoePa on 9-November-2011? Is that your argument (yes or no)?

In essence. They should have let Spanier lead the university through this and called for due process. In light of the OAG whiffing on 15 felony charges brought against C/S/S, I would say that had PSU stood behind its people and the rule of law, the focus would have settled on TSM, as it should have been.

 

[Misder2]

Fair enough. This is also sadly true: if only one person amongst Curley, Schulz, McQueary, Spanier, Dranov, Paterno and Reykovitz had gone to law enforcement in February 2002 - it wouldn't have mattered whether Joe believed McQueary or not.

It would have been in law enforcement's hands to determine the validity of McQueary's claims.

You still think that law enforcement wasnt aware of the questions regarding Sandusky back then?

 

[Misder2]

In essence. They should have let Spanier lead the university through this and called for due process. In light of the OAG whiffing on 15 felony charges brought against C/S/S, I would say that had PSU stood behind its people and the rule of law, the focus would have settled on TSM, as it should have been.

This is a very valid statement, I agree with you.

 

[indynittany]

Fair enough. This is also sadly true: if only one person amongst Curley, Schulz, McQueary, Spanier, Dranov, Paterno and Reykovitz had gone to law enforcement in February 2002 - it wouldn't have mattered whether Joe believed McQueary or not.

It would have been in law enforcement's hands to determine the validity of McQueary's claims.

It never mattered what Joe believed once MM spoke with C/S.

And if MM had made claims of abuse, I suspect at least somebody would have exhibited some concern about the "victim". Including Mike!

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Neither was known at the time he was fired. Supposedly, the only info the BOT had was the GJ presentment.

if only there's been a few lawyers on the BoT who would have known a GJ presentment is not a statement of facts

 

[michnittlion]

In essence. They should have let Spanier lead the university through this and called for due process. In light of the OAG whiffing on 15 felony charges brought against C/S/S, I would say that had PSU stood behind its people and the rule of law, the focus would have settled on TSM, as it should have been.

Fair enough. That would have been an extreme case of a high-risk (but potentially high-reward) strategy.

I'll argue that Penn State would not be out $250,000,000 if any one of Curley/Schulz/Spanier had not done what they have either pled guilty to or been found guilty of in court - "failure to report."

As far as I'm concerned, they each cost Penn State $83,333,333.33. I'll pitch in the $0.01 to make it an even $250,000,000.

 

[indynittany]

....You may be technically correct that they did "talk" - but that's a rather far cry from reporting (or even considering reporting) any of McQueary's claims to law enforcement.

That speaks more to what Mike reported than it does to what Schultz did or didn't do with that report.

 

[sluggo72]

It never mattered what Joe believed once MM spoke with C/S.

And if MM had made claims of abuse, I suspect at least somebody would have exhibited some concern about the "victim". Including Mike!

The Victim? The Victim of what? Who is the Victim?

 

[pandaczar12]

What was the point of including "At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can."

Seriously - what was the point of that??? Those 3 sentences added NOTHING to his statement, beyond calling out the Board of Trustees.

The point is he wanted to make it as easy for them as possible. They had far more important matters to address, and he didn't want them to spend a single minute discussing his status.

So you think we would NOT be out $250,000,000 if the BoT had NOT fired JoePa on 9-November-2011? Is that your argument (yes or no)?

Who is this "we" you refer to.

Fair enough. This is also sadly true: if only one person amongst Curley, Schulz, McQueary, Spanier, Dranov, Paterno and Reykovitz had gone to law enforcement in February 2002 - it wouldn't have mattered whether Joe believed McQueary or not.

It would have been in law enforcement's hands to determine the validity of McQueary's claims.

This is even more true: if only one person amongst McQueary, his parents, his GF, Dranov, the guy who posts here and claims he heard the next day,or Raykovitz had gone to law enforcement in Febrary of 2001 (or December 2000 in Mike's case) - it wouldn't have mattered whether Joe beleived McQueary or not.

 

[pandaczar12]

Fair enough. That would have been an extreme case of a high-risk (but potentially high-reward) strategy.

I'll argue that Penn State would not be out $250,000,000 if any one of Curley/Schulz/Spanier had not done what they have either pled guilty to or been found guilty of in court - "failure to report."

As far as I'm concerned, they each cost Penn State $83,333,333.33. I'll pitch in the $0.01 to make it an even $250,000,000.

Please provide a link that shows that they either pled guilty to or been found guilty of in court - "failure to report."

Of course I already know what you will find, this is an exercise to show what level of credibility your opinion has around here.

 

[michnittlion]

It never mattered what Joe believed once MM spoke with C/S.

And if MM had made claims of abuse, I suspect at least somebody would have exhibited some concern about the "victim". Including Mike!

McQueary is a coward himself - I consider him a moral failure too as regards this affair.

You are correct - and I've admitted this myself. From a purely legal POV, Joe was clear after MM spoke with C/S.

 

[indynittany]

Fair enough. That would have been an extreme case of a high-risk (but potentially high-reward) strategy.

I'll argue that Penn State would not be out $250,000,000 if any one of Curley/Schulz/Spanier had not done what they have either pled guilty to or been found guilty of in court - "failure to report."

As far as I'm concerned, they each cost Penn State $83,333,333.33. I'll pitch in the $0.01 to make it an even $250,000,000.

That's not what they were found guilty of or plead to. The failure to report charges were dropped.

I know I'm repeating myself, but....

When PSU officials received a report of inappropriate behavior between an ex employee and a child unrelated to the university, they took measured steps to prevent that occurrence going forward.

When TSM officials received a report of inappropriate behavior between a current employee and a child participant in its programs, they took measured steps to ensure that behavior would continue.

Who endangered the welfare of a child? Who enabled a pedophile? Graham Spanier or Jack Raykovitz?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Fair enough - maybe they did have bigger things to worry about.

But who was coaching against Nebraska was ALSO a thing that they needed to "worry about."

Then JoePa comes in unprompted and tells them "hey, don't worry about that - I've already decided that for you! I'm coaching Saturday."

JoePa made a huge tactical mistake if he thought his comments weren't going to draw some sort of reaction from his bosses. It was a very high-risk, low-reward comment to make.

Except that's not what he said at all. But sure whatever helps your tired narrative.

 

[PSU2UNC]

What was the point of including "At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can."

Seriously - what was the point of that??? Those 3 sentences added NOTHING to his statement, beyond calling out the Board of Trustees.

He was announcing his retirement and that was a totally reasonable thing to say in that context.

 

[indynittany]

McQueary is a coward himself - I consider him a moral failure too as regards this affair.

You are correct - and I've admitted this myself. From a purely legal POV, Joe was clear after MM spoke with C/S.

And I would just add that when Spanier replied to Curley with, "This approach is acceptable to me....", he was taking full responsibility for this incident. We can argue about Spanier's culpability, but Joe was effectively out of the loop at that point.

 

[michnittlion]

That speaks more to what Mike reported than it does to what Schultz did or didn't do with that report.

But if McQueary's claims had no merit (as you're arguing) --- what's the point of asking Harmon about whether the 1998 incident was on the records?

 

[sluggo72]

McQueary is a coward himself - I consider him a moral failure too as regards this affair.

You are correct - and I've admitted this myself. From a purely legal POV, Joe was clear after MM spoke with C/S.

what other point of view is there in this case?

 

[michnittlion]

Please provide a link that shows that they either pled guilty to or been found guilty of in court - "failure to report."

Of course I already know what you will find, this is an exercise to show what level of credibility your opinion has around here.

My bad (see I am able to admit my mistakes) - child endangerment.

 

[michnittlion]

That's not what they were found guilty of or plead to. The failure to report charges were dropped.

I know I'm repeating myself, but....

When PSU officials received a report of inappropriate behavior between an ex employee and a child unrelated to the university, they took measured steps to prevent that occurrence going forward.

When TSM officials received a report of inappropriate behavior between a current employee and a child participant in its programs, they took measured steps to ensure that behavior would continue.

Who endangered the welfare of a child? Who enabled a pedophile? Graham Spanier or Jack Raykovitz?

Raykovitz belongs in jail. Definitely.

 

[michnittlion]

what other point of view is there in this case?

The moral one. The one I've argued from the beginning.

 

[sluggo72]

The moral one. The one I've argued from the beginning.

What moral one? He had hearsay, and reported up the line. What did you want him to do, open an investigation himself?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Unfortunately for Joe, his GJ testimony and his interview with Sally Jenkins provided a reasonable basis for termination without the Freeh report.

Please provide specific passages from each that support this assertion.

 

[michnittlion]

He was announcing his retirement and that was a totally reasonable thing to say in that context.

Fine. If you're announcing your retirement, just announce your retirement.

Joe knew that the BoT might have an opinion on who coached vs. Nebraska. So he put the 3 other sentences in there.

 

[michnittlion]

What moral one? He had hearsay, and reported up the line. What did you want him to do, open an investigation himself?

Joe also had the knowledge that this was not a first accusation against Sandusky. He knew about 1998 in 2001.

 

[sluggo72]

Joe also had the knowledge that this was not a first accusation against Sandusky. He knew about 1998 in 2001.

knew? what specifically did JVP know about 1998 in 2001?

 

[LundyPSU]

You still think that law enforcement wasnt aware of the questions regarding Sandusky back then?

who and when?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Fine. If you're announcing your retirement, just announce your retirement.

Joe knew that the BoT might have an opinion on who coached vs. Nebraska. So he put the 3 other sentences in there.

You are projecting that onto his words.

However, he certainly deserved to coach the rest of the season. The only reason to fire him when they did (other than a conspiracy theory) is that they were buckling to (misdirected) public outrage.

 

[LundyPSU]

Joe also had the knowledge that this was not a first accusation against Sandusky. He knew about 1998 in 2001.

Joe also likely knew it was investigated by police, DPW, CYS and they determined that nothing criminal occurred.