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

[L.T. Young]

Continuing our debates based upon evidence provided to the public by the OAG "Story". Use tthe "Story" - a fabrication of lies and partial truths - to prove the "Story" - IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE. The "Story" says that PSU needed to report to DWP...WHY???? Because OAG changed the 10 year old event to match its illegal needs!

If there was no LEGALLY compelling report from MM and MM was the only witness and MM took only 3 minutes to talk to Paterno then what make you so sure that the DWP report was required??? BECAUSE the OAG "Story" says so!!!! Come on.....

If you presume that MM's testimony was what was in the OAG GJP document - YES....PSU needed to report that kind of event.... (but - without a name to corroborate MM's testimony????) - that was not the case!

AT VERY BEST....MM's recount of what he saw was CONJECTURE - a level of certainty which is NOT legally acceptable for reporting a crime with NO Victim's name.

Keep pushing the "Story" and ignore everything else...GET YOUR MONIES WORTH - someone in Harrisburg spent taxpayers $$$ for this fictitious construction!!

They reached out to legal counsel and were advised to report it to DPW. There’s no getting around it.

They lied about having knowledge of 98. Again, there’s no getting around it.

Had they done what they were advised to do, or owned what they did instead of lying, Paterno would still have his legacy intact.

 

[Obliviax]

They reached out to legal counsel and were advised to report it to DPW. There’s no getting around it.

They lied about having knowledge of 98. Again, there’s no getting around it.

Had they done what they were advised to do, or owned what they did instead of lying, Paterno would still have his legacy intact.

On counsel's recommendation to report it, was that admitted by C&S? I believe that was what counsel said but wouldn't be surprised if that was a lie given the shit storm that came down. If he had NOT recommended that, he'd have been charged as well. My point is that I am not 100% certain "no way around that" applies.

They did, however, lie about '98.

 

[Bob78]

Based on what has been made public, I have no issue with JVP and how he handled this.

Me neither.

But interesting phrasing on your part. Is there information that you are aware of, and/or know details of, that has not been made public, and may or would change a reasonable person's mind about how JVP handled this?

If so, what is it?

Thanks, Lundy.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

On counsel's recommendation to report it, was that admitted by C&S? I believe that was what counsel said but wouldn't be surprised if that was a lie given the shit storm that came down. If he had NOT recommended that, he'd have been charged as well. My point is that I am not 100% certain "no way around that" applies.

They did, however, lie about '98.

unless you were on the phone with Courtney or Schultz in 2001, no idiot can definitively claim what was actually said. Courtney said recently he told them to contact DPW. but his claim was a bit . . . evasive.

In all reality, it seems likely he told Schultz IF you believe a sexual assault occurred, then you MUST report it to DPW.

 

[Bob78]

Sounds like a very good reason to keep ones mouth shut.....in the shit hole justice system of The Commonwealth.

I know Tim has no intention of saying anything during his probation period. The judge has the prerogative to send him back to prison if he violates parole, and speaking out could be viewed as a violation of parole. Given the judge wanted to show his toughness at the trial, that is not a far stretch to assume the worst would happen.

I'm not sure if he will talk after probation (roughly July 2019), but of course I hope he does.

 

[lionville]

Panda, maybe you are older than me. In the 90s English 15 was "Composition and Rhetoric" (I just looked at a copy of my transcript I have at my desk) and was the freshman writing class everyone had to take.

(I was responding to Lajolla who doesn't like it when I point out issues with his vocabulary).

LaNotta lion won’t know what English 15 is because, well, he’s not a grad of PSU. He just hangs out here because he knew someone who went to Penn State. And he’s an expert on fanatics because he’s studied them.

 

[JmmyW]

I have to believe that Schultz had more documentation than what we have seen.

I've wondered about that, too. Schultz said soemthing striking at the Spanier trial. He said he has absolutely no recollection of having ever talked to Wendell Courtney in 2001. He also said realizes he must have talked to him twice. It makes me wonder if he took notes during those meetings/phone calls. I also wonder if he took notes during the meeting with McQueary.

A long time ago I wondered if either or both of Baldwin and Al Horvath ever looked for those notes. Horvath may have had cause to look for them (they were in his office after all) after the first subpoena to PSU in January 2010 (assuming as VP overseeing HR that he was aware of that subpoena). Horvath also could have easily stumbled on them (again, since they were in his office). Then there's Baldwin - she had enough information in January 2011 to know of possible existence of notes and that they would have been in Schultz's old office. There's also evidence that somebody retrieved Sandusky's retirement contract in February 2011. Was that found in the Schultz files?

 

[PSU2UNC]

unless you were on the phone with Courtney or Schultz in 2001, no idiot can definitively claim what was actually said. Courtney said recently he told them to contact DPW. but his claim was a bit . . . evasive.

In all reality, it seems likely he told Schultz IF you believe a sexual assault occurred, then you MUST report it to DPW.

Also, didn't Schultz consult Courtney *before* he talked to MM? So he was speaking to Courtney about hypotheticals and then when he got more details from the eyewitness, the circumstances changed.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Also, didn't Schultz consult Courtney *before* he talked to MM? So he was speaking to Courtney about hypotheticals and then when he got more details from the eyewitness, the circumstances changed.

you are correct

 

[marshall23]

you are correct

I don't trust Courtney....

 

[PSU2UNC]

They reached out to legal counsel and were advised to report it to DPW. There’s no getting around it.

They lied about having knowledge of 98. Again, there’s no getting around it.

Had they done what they were advised to do, or owned what they did instead of lying, Paterno would still have his legacy intact.

Please see my comment above about talking to legal counsel before talking to the eyewitness (MM). That definitely "gets around it."

Nothing in the testimony definitively shows they lied about 1998. The questions were all phrased oddly and the answers were truthful. Even if they DID lie about 1998 (perhaps because they weren't supposed to know about an investigation that resulted in no charges), that has ZERO bearing on 2001.

 

[step.eng69]

Panda, maybe you are older than me. In the 90s English 15 was "Composition and Rhetoric" (I just looked at a copy of my transcript I have at my desk) and was the freshman writing class everyone had to take.

(I was responding to Lajolla who doesn't like it when I point out issues with his vocabulary).

What was it called in the 60's?

 

[LundyPSU]

I've wondered about that, too. Schultz said soemthing striking at the Spanier trial. He said he has absolutely no recollection of having ever talked to Wendell Courtney in 2001. He also said realizes he must have talked to him twice. It makes me wonder if he took notes during those meetings/phone calls. I also wonder if he took notes during the meeting with McQueary.

A long time ago I wondered if either or both of Baldwin and Al Horvath ever looked for those notes. Horvath may have had cause to look for them (they were in his office after all) after the first subpoena to PSU in January 2010 (assuming as VP overseeing HR that he was aware of that subpoena). Horvath also could have easily stumbled on them (again, since they were in his office). Then there's Baldwin - she had enough information in January 2011 to know of possible existence of notes and that they would have been in Schultz's old office. There's also evidence that somebody retrieved Sandusky's retirement contract in February 2011. Was that found in the Schultz files?

I thought WC had the retirement contract (only thing he said he had) when contacted by CB

 

[LundyPSU]

Me neither.

But interesting phrasing on your part. Is there information that you are aware of, and/or know details of, that has not been made public, and may or would change a reasonable person's mind about how JVP handled this?

If so, what is it?

Thanks, Lundy.

I don't have any non-public info.

 

[Lattner]

Also, didn't Schultz consult Courtney *before* he talked to MM? So he was speaking to Courtney about hypotheticals and then when he got more details from the eyewitness, the circumstances changed.

Courtney was playing by the #s, so his info has always been suspect.

Courtney told The New York Times in 2011 that he was never told of Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children, and if he had "any idea that there was even remotely improper conduct with children on any day since the beginning of time, nothing in the world would have kept me from being absolutely certain that it was reported to the police immediately. That is my duty."

Neither Courtney nor Schultz lawyer Tom Farrell responded to messages seeking comment Thursday.

Courtney said in the deposition that even though the meeting was noted in the university-commissioned 2012 report on the Sandusky scandal by a team led by former FBI director Louis Freeh, no one from Penn State has ever asked him about what he told Schultz.

"Perhaps the reason why (Penn State) avoided making the inquiry was because it knew the answer to the question," McQueary's lawyers wrote.

The Freeh report said Courtney emailed Schultz in January 2011, a decade later, to say his successor as the school's top lawyer had called to ask him what he knew "about JS issue I spoke with you and Tim about circa eight years ago. I told her what I remembered. She did not offer why she was asking, nor did I ask her." Courtney declined to be interviewed by the Freeh team.

"Penn State engaged the Freeh firm to investigate the matter and, as set forth in Freeh's report, Courtney declined to be interviewed by Freeh upon advice of counsel," Penn State spokesman Lawrence Lokman said in an email Thursday. "So any implication that Penn State did not want the benefit of Courtney's input is simply not correct."

In the days after conferring with Courtney, Schultz and Curley met to review a 1998 complaint from a woman about Sandusky showering with her child, according to the Freeh report. Curley subsequently told Sandusky not to bring children into school athletic facilities.

Sandusky continued for nearly a decade to run a charity for at-risk children before being charged in 2011 and convicted the next year of 45 counts of abuse involving 10 boys, including Victim 2. McQueary was a key witness against him.

 

[JmmyW]

I thought WC had the retirement contract (only thing he said he had) when contacted by CB

Good memory. Although it looks like he sent it to Schultz, not CB. This is from Freeh, p.83:

On December 28, 2010, after Schultz spoke to Baldwin, he contacted Courtney. On December 30, 2010, Courtney emailed Schultz, “[t]he attached is the last thing in my Penn State file re Sandusky. There is nothing regarding the issues we discussed.” The attachment to the email was a 1999 letter concerning Sandusky's retirement.

 

[Bob78]

Is it me, or is the number of bots growing in this thread? jerot and Lattner.... geez.

Isn't me - Bobbot - posting punishment enough?!

 

[Legion of Lions]

They reached out to legal counsel and were advised to report it to DPW. There’s no getting around it.

They lied about having knowledge of 98. Again, there’s no getting around it.

Had they done what they were advised to do, or owned what they did instead of lying, Paterno would still have his legacy intact.

I could call you out on the BS "mistakes" you quote above....but I won't. Already, too much focus and time has been spent on arguing the public misinformation on which this "Story" is based! Arguing public details with known flaws promoted over the past 7 years is fruitless if you want the truth. Problem is....some with vested interests want these known lies to continue!

Instead, I'll just state the obvious......Your answer AGAIN is based on 2011+ interpolation of what might have happened - yet you want us to forget all of this happened 10 years EARLIER - in 2001. Testimony taken AFTER 2011 is (to be polite again) suspicious at best. NO ONE's ACTIONS IN 2001 supports ANYTHING like what the "Story" version of testimonies taken by the OAG says happened. One reason is every document quoted is off TRANSCRIPTION!!

Face it!!! MM's 2012 testimony is a lie. Doubt this is possible....Check how illegal manipulation by the OAG and their investigators continuously occurs throughout this affair.

The OAG case against PSU and Paterno is an engineered "Story" based solely on supposition, manipulation of testimony and outright lies!

This is 2018...too much is known about the lack of integrity PA exhibited over a stretch of 19 years for this "Fairy Tale" to continue!!

 

[Courtneywendell]

unless you were on the phone with Courtney or Schultz in 2001, no idiot can definitively claim what was actually said. Courtney said recently he told them to contact DPW. but his claim was a bit . . . evasive.

I can say for certain Courtney told them to report

 

[Courtneywendell]

I don't trust Courtney....

I’m not sure Courtney trusts you either. Hmmm....

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Don't forget the obvious -

• Harmon was neighbors with Sandusky and attended the same church.
• Harmon didn't make an entry in the crime log for the 1998 incident.
• On June 1, Sandusky was interviewed at 11:00AM by Detective Schreffler and Jerry Lauro (DPW).
• On June 1, at 1:10 PM, Chief Tom Harmon e-mailed Gary Schultz to inform him there would be no charges.
• Harmon said he never discussed the case with Ray Gricar.
• Schreffler said Gricar told Harmon to close the case.

Hmmm, Gricar. Haven't heard a peep from him. Whatever happened to him?

 

[MtNittany]

Face it!!! MM's 2012 testimony is a lie. Doubt this is possible....Check how illegal manipulation by the OAG and their investigators continuously occurs throughout this affair.

There's a word for it. I think it's blackmail.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

I can say for certain Courtney told them to report

 

[MtNittany]

Hmmm, Gricar. Haven't heard a peep from him. Whatever happened to him?

JS and JVP had him killed years ago. Probably paid for the hit out of NLC funds.

 

[lionville]

JS and JVP had him killed years ago. Probably paid for the hit out of NLC funds.

Did they contract the hit out to the Polish or Italian mafia?

 

[marshall23]

Did they contract the hit out to the Polish or Italian mafia?

JVP the most powerful man in Pa. was a CIA operative. He likely was the shooter on the grassy knoll. Everyone knew if you suspected child abuse....Joe was the man to call.

 

[Lattner]

Hmmm, Gricar. Haven't heard a peep from him. Whatever happened to him?

He's still around, probably getting drunk at Frosty's.

On June 2, 1998, District Attorney Ray Gricar decided not to prosecute the Penn State football coach. Four years later, the boy, referred to as victim # 6, took the stand at Sandusky's sexual abuse trial and described how the coach had lathered him up with soap then said, "I'm going to squeeze your guts out." Ronald Schreffler, later with the Department of Homeland Security, testified in June 2012 that he had wanted Ray Gricar to prosecute Sandusky in 1998, but was overruled.

Had Ray Gricar prosecuted Jerry Sandusky for indecent assault, corruption of a minor, and child endangerment, more victims, ones Sandusky had raped, might have come forward. Even if they hadn't, Gricar would have exposed a pedophile within the Penn State system, and have possibly acquired a conviction on these lesser charges.

In 1999, Jerry Sandusky retired from Penn State. He was awarded the title professor emeritus, and given an office in the football building. He had full access to all of the sports facilities, and used this access and his youth organization to attract and molest young boys.

I don't believe that Ray Gricar was murdered, or that he's still alive. That leaves suicide. The question is, did Gricar's decision not to prosecute Jerry Sandusky weigh on his conscience, and play a role in his suicide? Between the time the prosecutor closed the case on Sandusky and his disappearance, Gricar must have been aware that accusations against the coach were still being made. Did he have regrets? Was Gricar second-guessing himself?

 

[interrobang]

They reached out to legal counsel and were advised to report it to DPW. There’s no getting around it.
.

That's not true. Legally, they were advised that they weren't obligated to report it (since really nothing was reported to them). But he said as a CYA they should report it, not because they were obligated to.

 

[MtNittany]

That's not true. Legally, they were advised that they weren't obligated to report it (since really nothing was reported to them). But he said as a CYA they should report it, not because they were obligated to.

L.T. is one of the better "reverse answer keys" that post here. His inaccuracy rates have him securely on that Mt. Rushmore right now.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

That's not true. Legally, they were advised that they weren't obligated to report it (since really nothing was reported to them). But he said as a CYA they should report it, not because they were obligated to.

would now be a good time to remind him that the OAG acknowledged in their amended complaint . . . in 2001, they weren't even legally required to report ANYTHING they heard to DPW??

I hate having to type that over and over, but the dummies keep recycling their same tired, disproven trash

 

[LaJolla Lion]

That's not true. Legally, they were advised that they weren't obligated to report it (since really nothing was reported to them). But he said as a CYA they should report it, not because they were obligated to.

And he was right telling them to CYA, wasn't he. Let me guess, they were confused by him telling it's a good idea to CYA.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Well now you've gone and done it JZ...

View embedded media

View embedded media

Funny how I haven't seen Roxine's name show up in relation to Michigan State. Must be too busy climbing trees....

 

[marshall23]

Funny how I haven't seen Roxine's name show up in relation to Michigan State. Must be too busy climbing trees....

I wonder which lawyer s(he) works for. $$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Bob78]

JS and JVP had him killed years ago. Probably paid for the hit out of NLC funds.

No wonder they needed that damn STEP program....

 

[L.T. Young]

That's not true. Legally, they were advised that they weren't obligated to report it (since really nothing was reported to them). But he said as a CYA they should report it, not because they were obligated to.

So they were advised to report it to DPW which is exactly what I said.

I don’t care if it was CYA or obligation. They were advised to report it and didn’t. They knew it left them vulnerable.

I will never understand how they get a pass? If Joe did exactly his was supposed to then not reporting it is where some of the blame belongs.

 

[indynittany]

So they were advised to report it to DPW which is exactly what I said.

I don’t care if it was CYA or obligation. They were advised to report it and didn’t. They knew it left them vulnerable.

I will never understand how they get a pass? If Joe did exactly his was supposed to then not reporting it is where some of the blame belongs.

First of all, so what? They took Courtney's counsel under advisement. They broke no law. And they never ruled out reporting JS, but in their judgment it wasn't necessary unless Sandusky disobeyed their directive. Obviously, once Jack Raykovitz was informed, the ball was in his court.

Secondly, blame for what? No one thought Allan Meyers was ever in any danger!

Their sole focus was to prevent a future he said/he said scenario. The boy was not even alluded to in the notes or emails.

Finally, not reporting did not leave them vulnerable because of what Sandusky had already done, but for what he might do in the future. And as it turned out, he did not do.

 

[Legion of Lions]

So they were advised to report it to DPW which is exactly what I said.

I don’t care if it was CYA or obligation. They were advised to report it and didn’t. They knew it left them vulnerable.

I will never understand how they get a pass? If Joe did exactly his was supposed to then not reporting it is where some of the blame belongs.

Quick answer, based upon 2001 actions and multiple testimonies from MM "listeners" - THERE WAS NO REASON TO REPORT ANYTHING. Sandusky was a model citizen at the time and there was no "victim" (no crime). Only LATER...after "the Men in Black" jogged MM's memory was there any reason to take any action with authorities.

WRONG AGAIN, LT, but, you are so hel-bent on blaming Penn State for something..... I will give you the REAL error of Penn State's handling of 2001 - they needed to get a signed statement from MM as to what he saw and why he acted in that situation the way he did - this would remove all doubt based on 2001 information.

If that document existed AND the Men in Black did not take his family hostage, then MM would have never provided to the OAG the cornerstone of this "Story" by way of a 10 year old revision (what I call an "enhancement") of the 2001 Sandusky Shower event.

Remember....in 2001, based on what was known about Sandusky IN PUBLIC....this form of documentation was totally OPTIONAL. It only becomes necessary when someone 10 years later engineers a "Story" and you need proof that the "Story" is plain BS!

 

[L.T. Young]

I could call you out on the BS "mistakes" you quote above....but I won't. Already, too much focus and time has been spent on arguing the public misinformation on which this "Story" is based! Arguing public details with known flaws promoted over the past 7 years is fruitless if you want the truth. Problem is....some with vested interests want these known lies to continue!

Instead, I'll just state the obvious......Your answer AGAIN is based on 2011+ interpolation of what might have happened - yet you want us to forget all of this happened 10 years EARLIER - in 2001. Testimony taken AFTER 2011 is (to be polite again) suspicious at best. NO ONE's ACTIONS IN 2001 supports ANYTHING like what the "Story" version of testimonies taken by the OAG says happened. One reason is every document quoted is off TRANSCRIPTION!!

Face it!!! MM's 2012 testimony is a lie. Doubt this is possible....Check how illegal manipulation by the OAG and their investigators continuously occurs throughout this affair.

The OAG case against PSU and Paterno is an engineered "Story" based solely on supposition, manipulation of testimony and outright lies!

This is 2018...too much is known about the lack of integrity PA exhibited over a stretch of 19 years for this "Fairy Tale" to continue!!

I stated facts. They were advised to report it to DPW and they lied about having knowledge of 98. Those were facts in 2011 and they’re facts in 2018.

Believing it’s all a grand conspiracy with the only innocent victims being the admins, Joe and Sandusky is the fairytale.

 

[Legion of Lions]

(slightly adjusted from the original LT response) I misstated the facts. They were advised to report it to DPW (for CYA purposes) and they lied about having knowledge of 98. Those were misstatements of facts in 2011 and they’re still misstatements of facts in 2018.

Believing it’s all a grand conspiracy with the only innocent victims being the admins, Joe and Sandusky is the fairytale.

WHO advised them to report it to DPW? REPORT WHAT??? No name to report - no 2001 call for any crime by MM based on 2001 reports (NOT 2011 OAG enhanced "testimony")!

Let me refresh your memory - sort of take you "...statements of Guilt..." and give to you the WHOLE situation ....let's now include the "...with the benefit of hindsight..." qualifier so we can get closer to reality.

....Legally, they were advised that they weren't obligated to report it (since really nothing was reported to them). But as a CYA they should report it, not because they were obligated to...
Why CYA???? CYA is only required if you EXPECT you need to CYA....obviously no one believed that. 2001 = Sandusky was a model citizen.

I always have trouble with this part of the OAG "Story" (a cornerstone part of it no less). Rather than "proving" PSU guilt it just serves to confirm that a lot of OAG sponsored "STORY" engineering went into constructing this fantasy - "...lying about having knowledge of 98..."

Knowledge....What knowledge??? What level of knowledge??? Unless you have a LEGALLY DEFINITE event this vague reference to "...knowledge of 98..." does not confirm anything. Since 1998 was a legally satisfied (and closed) event it was THEREFORE NOT important - why would you remember a non-event 10 years later??? If you forgot about it - are you lying??? If you place it in the context of a LEGAL investigation, you might THEN remember "something" - BUT LYING????? You are trying to CREATE a lie about "lying" - nothing less

Are these partially qualified distortions of the truth just another version of the famous Noonan legal edict "...he only did the minimum required under the law...he had a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to do more..." MORAL RESPONSIBILITY for above the law actions??? Is this IRAN we are talking about????

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS TRASH???? Oh, that's right...your trying to stay only with the "Story" and your ignoring everything else.
Want some good advice - change your medication!

 

[Connorpozlee]

It makes sense to me that if they bothered seeking legal counsel, they should have listened to it. If they were going to ignore it they shouldn’t have bothered seeking it out.