With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had known the definition of hindsight.
OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had known the definition of hindsight.
Or can argue they did not identify the same risks that you did.
Fair enough, I;'ll play along.
Given Zenophile's inability to list a single possible reward --- let me re-phrase.
Zenophile agrees with me that C/S/S embarked on a plan in February 2001 that brought no possible rewards to Penn State.
Said another way, "C/S/S embarked on a plan in February 2001 that brought no possible risks to Penn State." I can write words too. It doesn't make either of us correct.
Well, that's obviously incorrect, given we're out $250,000,000. There WERE risks.
If there was a reward, I don't think it's a reward that we have realized. Right?
And identifying those risks in February 2001 is not me applying "hindsight" (as Zenophile argues). It was damn obvious even then. C/S/S all were compensated very heavily in February 2001. It was their damn job to identify those possible risks.
I'm not in some "C-Suite position" (like C/S/S were), but I get challenged to identify risks (and rewards) with taking actions all the time in my job. Most folk, once they move beyond entry-level positions, that's part of their job.
Showing up late, implies there is a rule to be there by a certain time. Break a rule... possibly get fired. Missing a deadline is poor performance, something you can be fired or suspended for. I can't believe I have to explain this. Show me what Penn State rule or policy the admins broke.
If you think that the Admins cost PSU $250 Million, it shows you lack understanding of the situation.
Perhaps I missed your original point; I thought your original point was that since you could identify 3 risks and no rewards, then clearly they wouldn't have embarked on that plan unless they were covering up for JS. If that wasn't your point, I apologize for misunderstanding.
I would argue that there was not a reasonable way that they could have seen those risks at the time. But there is not way that anyone can ever prove that one way or another.
MNL, they weighed the risks of doing nothing and instead chose to revoke Jerry's guest privileges and notify the mandated reporters at Jerry's employer which had care, control and custody over said guests. They were prepared to take further steps if the message was not heard and acted upon. In other words, they devised a plan to protect the university from any possible misunderstandings.
They employed multiple risk response strategies, that without the benefit of hindsight, were perfectly acceptable behaviors. They could not have planned for being thrown under the bus. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that there is nothing they could have done that would have changed the outcome.
What type of risk response strategy involves identify "benefits" and weighing them versus risk?
I've been saying this for pages, the used risk mitigation by revoking his guest privileges, they used risk transfer by informing TSM, and they accepted the residual risk that the previous two actions were not enough.
They couldn't have foreseen that everyone would ignore the fact that they told TSM.
the real question there is why did PSU agree to such a stupid stipulation? Misder's opinion is probably correct. There are too many incestuous relationships and probably more different, but similar, shenanigans to be uncovered if someone wanted to poke. Nothing else makes sense as to why PSU took the bullet, the grenade, the machine gun and the atom bomb in this mess.
You cannot possibly be as stupid as that remark!
Showing up late to work does not land one in Jail.
Showing up late to work does not have one charged with perjury.
Showing up late to work does not get you multiple felonies.
You are trying to assert that arriving late at work is a reason to be thrown in jail. That is now the dumbest post I have ever read.
CS&S did nothing illegal! Absolutely, positively nothing at all.
I'm willing to bet they showed up to work on time every day too.
Bingo. Three levels of proactive risk management.
PSU BOT membership offered 100% indemnification protections. TSM BOD did not. Therefore, let's burn PSU to the ground to save our asses. Simple as that.
Whoa! Guilty of what? There was no victim!
Last edited:
Occam's razor.
A lot of PSU people had ties to TSM and they were in cya mode. Blame a few people, pay the accusers, and hope it all goes away.
Last edited:
1) Jerry was a saint, doing the Lord's work, and everybody wanted to be associated with TSM...including PSU.
That's not the right question. Nothing happened in 2001 that left them vulnerable. In order to become vulnerable, Sandusky would have to disobey their directive and then be accused of something.
They wanted to protect PSU in the future without throwing Sandusky under the bus in the present. The solution at which they arrived accomplished that, Corbett's vendetta against Spanier not withstanding.
Has there ever been a list made of 2011 PSU BoT members and who in their families (themselves/ spouses/ kids/ cousins etc) were on the Second Mile BoT or worked for that organization?
Shubin is uber cool. Why should he not walk free?
Remember, on February 10, 2012, Shubin had a heated discussion with Office of Attorney General (OAG) Agent Anthony Sassano, demanding that his client (who alleged to be Victim 2) be interviewed as part of the Sandusky investigation. During the discussion, Shubin claimed that there had been "both oral and anal sex" between his client and Sandusky.
Shubin's client was interviewed by Postal Inspection Service Agent, M. J. Coricelli on February 28th, March 8th, and March 16th, 2012. At no time during these interviews did his client corroborate Shubin's allegations. In fact, at the March 16th interview, his client stated that he had never discussed the specific details to anyone -- not even Shubin (Commonwealth v. Sandusky, PCRA Appendix, page 00447).
Shubin arranged for a April 4, 2012 meeting with Coricelli and Sassano to interview his client again.
When they arrived for the meeting, Shubin's client was absent. Coricelli was told that the client was too upset to be interviewed because of a recent death of a friend. Then Shubin attempted to provide Coricelli with three typed pages purported to be the allegations of his client.
Coricelli examined the document and surmised that it was written by Shubin. After consultation with Sassano, the decision was made that there would be no future investigation regarding Shubin's client. (Commonwealth v. Sandusky, PCRA Appendix, page 00448)
Recent filing
Shubin's recent filing for a protective order regarding John Doe 71 -- the individual featured in the preposterous story of a 1971 victim written by Sara Ganim -- stating his client can't be interviewed due to health and safety concerns. Shubin alleged his client has "significant emergent cardiac issues."
So I can't help but wonder.....any chance any of Nassar's victims is awarded 20 million? How about 12 million? I guess the poor lawyers will have to make up the short fall in the volume of accusers. Shubin is a despicable human being. But in the Commonwealth he rakes in millions and Tim Curley goes to prison.
As for the fake accuser, I say bully for him. We knew there were liars who ended up multi millionaires, the only question is how many?
As for the fake accuser, I say bully for him. We knew there were liars who ended up multi millionaires, the only question is how many?
Actually, Shubin said he would not testify to any conversations between himself and his clients, which would fall under attorney-client privilege. He also asserted work-product privilege. Cleland granted the attorney-client issue and said he would address work-product should it arise.
The client in question was the young man known as Victim 2, the boy who then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary told the grand jury he saw being assaulted in the shower by Sandusky.
Sandusky’s attorney Al Lindsay has pinned some of the PCRA on the idea that the prosecution misrepresented information about Victim 2, including closing statements with the suggestion that boy was “known only to God.”
Shubin confirmed that prosecutors had been made aware that his client “self-identified” as Victim 2.
“Did you make any efforts to make the prosecution aware of your representation of (Victim 2)?” Lindsay asked.
“I sent a couple of letters, maybe an email or two to (prosecutor) Joe McGettigan in February 2012, May 2012. I likely spoke to Mr. McGettigan and (prosecutor) Frank Fina on a couple of occasions,” Shubin said.
“He showed no interest in your client?” he asked about McGettigan’s response.
“That was my feeling — no follow-up. I believe that I said something along the lines of ... ‘this is the person who has self-identified as Victim 2,’ ” Shubin said. “He was never interviewed. Let's just leave it at that.”
Shubin also represented three other of the total 10 victims in the criminal case, as well as Sandusky’s adopted son Matthew, in obtaining settlements from Penn State.
Also on the stand Monday morning were investigators from the state police and Victim 1’s psychologist and book co-author who spoke to leaks and information obtained by former Centre Daily Times and Patriot-News reporter Sara Ganim.
Leaked grand jury information is another key argument in the PCRA petition.
Sandusky was convicted of 45 of 48 counts of child sex abuse charges. He was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison. He is seeking a new trial.
The client in question was the young man known as Victim 2, the boy who then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary told the grand jury he saw being assaulted in the shower by Sandusky.
Sandusky’s attorney Al Lindsay has pinned some of the PCRA on the idea that the prosecution misrepresented information about Victim 2, including closing statements with the suggestion that boy was “known only to God.”
Shubin confirmed that prosecutors had been made aware that his client “self-identified” as Victim 2.
“Did you make any efforts to make the prosecution aware of your representation of (Victim 2)?” Lindsay asked.
“I sent a couple of letters, maybe an email or two to (prosecutor) Joe McGettigan in February 2012, May 2012. I likely spoke to Mr. McGettigan and (prosecutor) Frank Fina on a couple of occasions,” Shubin said.
“He showed no interest in your client?” he asked about McGettigan’s response.
“That was my feeling — no follow-up. I believe that I said something along the lines of ... ‘this is the person who has self-identified as Victim 2,’ ” Shubin said. “He was never interviewed. Let's just leave it at that.”
Shubin also represented three other of the total 10 victims in the criminal case, as well as Sandusky’s adopted son Matthew, in obtaining settlements from Penn State.
Also on the stand Monday morning were investigators from the state police and Victim 1’s psychologist and book co-author who spoke to leaks and information obtained by former Centre Daily Times and Patriot-News reporter Sara Ganim.
Leaked grand jury information is another key argument in the PCRA petition.
Sandusky was convicted of 45 of 48 counts of child sex abuse charges. He was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison. He is seeking a new trial.
What made you think that? Did he say something publically?
Okay I'll play.
PSU prevents any further embarrassing situations created by Sandusky's actions. [embarrassing being his goofy seemingly inappropriate actions not the illegal stuff he was convicted of]
PSU not involved in an ugly situation involving a local legend [JS] being wrongly accused.
PSU solves it's problems without damaging TSM a hugely successful local charity that helps disadvantaged youths when JS is found to be wrongly accused.
TC and GS should have documented the meeting without question, but to suggest in 2001 when TSM and JS were very very highly thought of locally and nationally, and as we have all said these kids have disadvantaged backgrounds, so to wrongly accuse someone isn't such a crazy idea is 20/20 hindsight.
Let me ask of you if this is so crystal clear to you. IF THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE, why didn't JS get
indicated in 1998 when the accusations were much more clear and first hand than 2001 and these folks are the subject matter experts.
In fact while people on both sides say 1998 should have been either the big red flag, or the oh no hear he goes again, I come down on the latter. It is much easier for me to see where they say well we know how this will turn out if we turn it over to CYS, OAG etc. let's handle it ourselves as far as we are concerned and turn it over to TSM as to larger picture of how to handle Jerry.
I figured after Schultz came clean it would sink in that mistakes were made and they weren’t completely honest in front of the Grand Jury.
Like you said, nothing is going to change where things currently stand. I do marvel at what they’re willing to believe though.
Of course everyone knows that when you are offered a bribe to commit fraud, the first person you call is an unemployed narcissist in LA.
Sounds legit.
The joke is on PSU and the small but intrepid members of the hang the PSU3 and JVP. The accuser found out he didn't need any corroborating testimony....all he had to do was cash the check.
Funny how when someone makes a claim against PSU, they are instantly above reproach. Yet the same people who feel that way are close minded to any other information.
You have to remember some things about Schultz -
• The graduate assistant informed Joe Paterno the next day, and Paterno told Curley the day after that. About a week and a half after that, the graduate assistant met with Curley and Gary Schultz, Penn State's Vice President for Finance and Business and the other school administrator to be charged with perjury and failure to report an allegation. The graduate assistant described what he saw as being of a "sexual nature." Paterno said the graduate assistant had told him Sandusky's actions were "disturbing" and "inappropriate." Curley acknowledged to the grand jury that he was told Sandusky's actions were "inappropriate" and that they had made the graduate assistant "uncomfortable"; however, Curley denied under oath that he was told Sandusky had done anything sexual. Schultz conceded under oath that the graduate assistant had told him of inappropriate sexual conduct. But he also testified that the allegations were "not that serious" and that he and Curley were unaware any crime had taken place.
• It is worth noting here what Paterno did upon hearing a first-hand story from a "very upset" graduate assistant, in the words of the report, about "Jerry Sandusky ... fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy": Paterno took no action except to tell his athletic director.
• Curley and Schultz did tell Penn State president Graham Spanier what they had heard, but Spanier told the grand jury that Curley and Schultz had described Sandusky's actions to him as mere "horsing around in the shower." Spanier also denied any knowledge of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky by university police. Spanier issued a statement Saturday saying Curley and Schultz had his "unconditional support."
• Schultz's duties included oversight of the university police. He testified that he was aware of the 1998 incident and acknowledged similarities between it and the 2002 allegations. But according to the grand jury report, Schultz "never sought or reviewed a police report on the 1998 incident and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the university did so. Schultz did not ask the graduate assistant for specifics. No one ever did. Schultz expressed surprise upon learning that the 1998 investigation by University Police produced a lengthy police report. Schultz said there was never any discussion between himself and Curley about turning the 2002 incident over to any police agency." The graduate assistant was also never questioned by police.
• Sandusky was told he could no longer bring children into Penn State's football facility in light of the 2002 incident, and the executive director of The Second Mile was made aware of that fact, in addition to the incident. Schultz testified that Spanier had approved this decision. Schultz also said he believed he and Curley had informed a "child protection agency" about the 2002 incident. Curley also admitted "the ban on bringing children to the campus was unenforceable," in the words of the report.
• Records show that the 2002 incident was never reported to the Department of Public Welfare, Children and Youth Services, or the university police, in violation of state law.
• The Patriot-News of Harrisburg reported Saturday that a source close to the investigation said Paterno would not be charged and that he would testify against Sandusky at trial.
• One of Sandusky's victims told the grand jury Sandusky had brought him to Penn State's preseason practices in 2007—a full five years after Paterno was made aware of sexual activity involving Sandusky and another boy.
What is the source of the information you have posted??? I am amazed that it contains the 2002 date.
Just wondering how valid your posting is based on what is known/suspected in 2018.
Here's a link to both parts of the interview JZ did with @WRSC1390.
https://t.co/WYpoY9z5Ws
Both are worth the listen.
Randomly:
I don't know what I think about the date thing with MM. It certainly speaks to Mike's credibility.
In the end, if what he walked in on was enough for Dr. Dranov to be told and it was enough for C/S/S to go so far as to revoke Jerry's guest privileges, then JR should have reined Jerry in. His behavior was putting TSM, not to mention PSU, at risk. Instead, Captain Swim Trunks encouraged that behavior to continue. To their credit, C/S/S wanted no part of that. Odd that Bruce Heim didn't share their concern.
I'm really curious about the medical condition Jerry is alluded to have. It could explain a lot.
The people who are so self righteously protecting the privacy of the victims are misguided at least, and possibly disingenuous. Once a "victim" hires an advocate and seeks $ millions in damages from another party through the courts, they have invited whatever scrutiny they receive. That doesn't mean they have to get dragged through the mud or harassed. When there's corroborating evidence, less scrutiny is necessary. But it also shouldn't mean they can't get dragged through the mud or harassed when it looks like they might be committing some sort of fraud. To adopt this holier than thou, hands off approach only invites fraudulent claims. It's wrong when we see it here. It's negligence when we see it employed by PSU.
I'm not naive. I understand the financial trade off between paying these people to go away as opposed to enduring the negative publicity, if they had decided to fight it. But what it appears we have here is collusion between the university, the OAG and the lawyers for these victims to commit fraud. And it also appears that PSU has attempted to commit insurance fraud.
JZ gets a lot of grief. He brings much of it on himself. But he also deserves a lot of credit. He came into this because his instincts told him that Joe was wronged. It took six years for his work to take him where he is today.
What may be more significant than any of us realize is the influence David Jones had on Scott Paterno.
I really think the two who should collaborate on a story are Snedden and Cipriani. Let the focus be on PSU rather than Sandusky.
https://t.co/WYpoY9z5Ws
Both are worth the listen.
Randomly:
I don't know what I think about the date thing with MM. It certainly speaks to Mike's credibility.
In the end, if what he walked in on was enough for Dr. Dranov to be told and it was enough for C/S/S to go so far as to revoke Jerry's guest privileges, then JR should have reined Jerry in. His behavior was putting TSM, not to mention PSU, at risk. Instead, Captain Swim Trunks encouraged that behavior to continue. To their credit, C/S/S wanted no part of that. Odd that Bruce Heim didn't share their concern.
I'm really curious about the medical condition Jerry is alluded to have. It could explain a lot.
The people who are so self righteously protecting the privacy of the victims are misguided at least, and possibly disingenuous. Once a "victim" hires an advocate and seeks $ millions in damages from another party through the courts, they have invited whatever scrutiny they receive. That doesn't mean they have to get dragged through the mud or harassed. When there's corroborating evidence, less scrutiny is necessary. But it also shouldn't mean they can't get dragged through the mud or harassed when it looks like they might be committing some sort of fraud. To adopt this holier than thou, hands off approach only invites fraudulent claims. It's wrong when we see it here. It's negligence when we see it employed by PSU.
I'm not naive. I understand the financial trade off between paying these people to go away as opposed to enduring the negative publicity, if they had decided to fight it. But what it appears we have here is collusion between the university, the OAG and the lawyers for these victims to commit fraud. And it also appears that PSU has attempted to commit insurance fraud.
JZ gets a lot of grief. He brings much of it on himself. But he also deserves a lot of credit. He came into this because his instincts told him that Joe was wronged. It took six years for his work to take him where he is today.
What may be more significant than any of us realize is the influence David Jones had on Scott Paterno.
I really think the two who should collaborate on a story are Snedden and Cipriani. Let the focus be on PSU rather than Sandusky.
Last edited:
You've got a lot of info there that is largely accurate but perhaps not completely accurate. To this date we still don't know the context of some of the statements that were made. When C&S said they were unaware of 1998 they might have honestly meant that they were unaware of anything sexual/criminal. When Joe said "of a sexual nature" that could mean hugging a kid in the shower. The contest of these statements is important and we just don't know that context.
I don't understand L.T. Young's comment about what people believe and how C&S handled things. I don't think anybody thinks they handled it well. I've continually talked about how they failed miserably at HR 101. I'm even OK with those who opine that Paterno should have done more to follow up. My issue is that people have been led to believe that C/S/S/P knowingly allowed a pedophile to abuse kids for more than a decade in order to preserve the reputation of the football program. That's what Freeh said. That's what the judge sentencing C&S suggested. That was the basis for the santions and that's what most of the public believes. That's also incredibly unfair and unsupported by the evidence. That's why we continue to speak out.
Most likely:
- MM saw something that was very disturbing but he wasn't sure exactly what it was and he didn't want to make a false accusation. Thus a soft report.
- PSU administrators responded with a soft approach because they didn't consider MM's report to be sexual assault (by their definition) and also to give the benefit of the doubt to their colleague.
- When pressured for why MM didn't do more he started to embellish his story.
- Everybody from the BOT, police, DPW, CPS, TSM, JM, Dranov, C/S/S, etc. went into cya mode. That's probably true to former coaches as well (they got lawyers and got quiet).
- With the benefit of hindsight a lot of people could and should have done more but there is very little evidence to support the narrative that there was a coverup to protect football. Actually, common sense says that a coverup would have included getting JS off campus forever after 1998. If you wanted to keep things quiet you wouldn't risk having more assaults on campus.
Wait a minute LaJolla, I thought you have repeatedly said we can not question the victims.
Go get them. Drive by and stalk them too as that is pretty sane. Just like his plant that cannot come forward. Nigerian Prince Ziegler.
Similar threads
