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

[marshall23]

I don't get folks that say JS didn't assault Allen Myers, yet don't want a new trial. That belief, coupled w/ the ridiculous janitor fabrications that no one believes, doesn't say "new trial", it SCREAMS it.

The crying janitor story deserves fairy tale status. Like the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. We have a crusty ex GI, Korean War Vet, who faced a million pissed off Chinese crying because he allegedly saw someone giving a kid a hummer. Somehow, his taped conversation where he says it wasn't Sandusky gets buried and the story is told anyway as an excited utterance. Only God knows how many lies Fina, Eshbach and company told.

 

[indynittany]

Agree, but C&S should have documented what MM told them and also their response. HR 101. Shame on them.

In hindsight, that would seem obvious. I also appreciate the reluctance to start a paper trail over something so delicate. To your point, I think there was an effort made here to protect Jerry from himself. If everyone went into CYA mode, it could have had the opposite effect.

I'm in the camp that believes the worst that can be said about C/S/S is that they, too, were fooled. More likely, IMO, everyone in '01 did the right thing.

 

[francofan]

Francofan, I have not read the explanation of this point. Can you give me the reader's digest version please?

TIA

OL

Scott Paterno hired Jim Clemente. The Paterno family critique of the Freeh Report includes a part written by Clemente that is used as evidence that Sandusky is in the top 1% of pillar of the community, nice guy pedophiles. I don't believe that Jim Clemente was ever that well versed in the nuts and bolts details of the case and he has an apparent prosecutorial bias in regard to his opinions of what exactly happened due to his work with the FBI and that he was a survivor of CSA himself. I believe a much more objective view of what exactly happened is held by Dr. Fred Berlin, who was also part of the Parterno family critique of the Freeh Report. Berlin, the Director of The John Hopkins Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit, wrote the back cover book review of Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment" encouraging people who are interested in the Penn State fiasco to read the book. I don't believe that Scott Paterno and Jim Clemente did the legacy of Joe Paterno any favors by being so adamant that Sandusky was a pedophile when there is little hard evidence that demonstrates that he is and there is a lot of good evidence to suggest that he isn't. If Sandusky is shown to be innocent, then I can't imagine that Joe Paterno's legacy won't be restored.

I believe that Jay is much more open to just how culpable Sandusky is in this fiasco and/or if Sandusky is culpable at all.

 

[RussianEagle]

Scott Paterno hired Jim Clemente. The Paterno family critique of the Freeh Report includes a part written by Clemente that is used as evidence that Sandusky is in the top 1% of pillar of the community, nice guy pedophiles. I don't believe that Jim Clemente was ever that well versed in the nuts and bolts details of the case and he has an apparent prosecutorial bias in regard to his opinions of what exactly happened due to his work with the FBI and that he was a survivor of CSA himself. I believe a much more objective view of what exactly happened is held by Dr. Fred Berlin, who was also part of the Parterno family critique of the Freeh Report. Berlin, the Director of The John Hopkins Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit, wrote the back cover book review of Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment" encouraging people who are interested in the Penn State fiasco to read the book. I don't believe that Scott Paterno and Jim Clemente did the legacy of Joe Paterno any favors by being so adamant that Sandusky was a pedophile when there is little hard evidence that demonstrates that he is and there is a lot of good evidence to suggest that he isn't. If Sandusky is shown to be innocent, then I can't imagine that Joe Paterno's legacy won't be restored.

I believe that Jay is much more open to just how culpable Sandusky is in this fiasco and/or if Sandusky is culpable at all.

Ziegler actually claims that Jay gave him the impression he thought Sandusky was railroaded even back when Ziegler still believed Sandusky was guilty. Anyway unlike Scott, Jay has left out calls to focus on the victims from any of his writings and that should be very revealing.

It’s also important to note both Scott and Jay have political ambitions, which is sure to be a factor in either adopting such a toxic position.

 

[Diego Badman]

Scott Paterno hired Jim Clemente. The Paterno family critique of the Freeh Report includes a part written by Clemente that is used as evidence that Sandusky is in the top 1% of pillar of the community, nice guy pedophiles. I don't believe that Jim Clemente was ever that well versed in the nuts and bolts details of the case and he has an apparent prosecutorial bias in regard to his opinions of what exactly happened due to his work with the FBI and that he was a survivor of CSA himself. I believe a much more objective view of what exactly happened is held by Dr. Fred Berlin, who was also part of the Parterno family critique of the Freeh Report. Berlin, the Director of The John Hopkins Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit, wrote the back cover book review of Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment" encouraging people who are interested in the Penn State fiasco to read the book. I don't believe that Scott Paterno and Jim Clemente did the legacy of Joe Paterno any favors by being so adamant that Sandusky was a pedophile when there is little hard evidence that demonstrates that he is and there is a lot of good evidence to suggest that he isn't. If Sandusky is shown to be innocent, then I can't imagine that Joe Paterno's legacy won't be restored.

I believe that Jay is much more open to just how culpable Sandusky is in this fiasco and/or if Sandusky is culpable at all.

Since the start of this fiasco in November, 2011 until the present, I am convinced that everyone, including the Paterno family, would have been served better by not listening to Scott. Basically, whatever Scott says, the opposite happens. When Joe died, the Paterno family suffered a real void in leadership. They sued the NCAA when they should have been suing Louis Freeh. Once they discredit Louie, the NCAA is easy-pickings. They took bad advice from too many people, and Scott was allowed too much say.

 

[RussianEagle]

With all this out in the open, I'd expect Scott and Jay Paterno to step into the breach in defense of their dad. And since they aren't, what gives?

I see this type of circular reasoning all the time. People will call anyone who questions Jerry’s guilt a child rape defender, then they will say the lack of people close to the case making public defenses of Jerry proves he is guilty.

 

[OhioLion]

I believe that Jay is much more open

Thanks.

OL

 

[bdgan]

In hindsight, that would seem obvious. I also appreciate the reluctance to start a paper trail over something so delicate. To your point, I think there was an effort made here to protect Jerry from himself. If everyone went into CYA mode, it could have had the opposite effect.

I'm in the camp that believes the worst that can be said about C/S/S is that they, too, were fooled. More likely, IMO, everyone in '01 did the right thing.

Agree that they were fooled. 100% disagree that their reluctance to document things is understandable. That's HR 101. Every company with > $30 million in revenues has policies on how to handle such reports. PSU has nearly $6 billion in revenues. The documents can be kept confidential. NO EXCUSE.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Agree that they were fooled. 100% disagree that their reluctance to document things is understandable. That's HR 101. Every company with > $30 million in revenues has policies on how to handle such reports. PSU has nearly $6 billion in revenues. The documents can be kept confidential. NO EXCUSE.

It is HR 101 and it was botched. The witch hunt sucked and ruined some peoples lives, but when you get an incident...it is HR 101 to make the report just to CYA. Even more so when a lawyer advises you to make a formal report and you don't.

 

[bdgan]

It is HR 101 and it was botched. The witch hunt sucked and ruined some peoples lives, but when you get an incident...it is HR 101 to make the report just to CYA. Even more so when a lawyer advises you to make a formal report and you don't.

I'll even cut C&S a "little bit" of slack for not reporting to CPS. Lawyers cover their own butts too - to a fault. Here's an example. If you have a poor performing employee that's over 40, is a minority, has a disability, etc. the lawyer often says don't fire them. No lawsuit but you're stuck with a poor employee. That's no good.

Reporting to CPS aside, assume that PSU documented exactly what MM told them. Assume further that the documentation showed that MM was concerned that he might have experienced something inappropriate but couldn't be sure what it was. I don't this thing would have turned into such a sh!tstorm. No he said vs. she said. No evidence of a cover-up

 

[RussianEagle]

I'll even cut C&S a "little bit" of slack for not reporting to CPS. Lawyers cover their own butts too - to a fault. Here's an example. If you have a poor performing employee that's over 40, is a minority, has a disability, etc. the lawyer often says don't fire them. No lawsuit but you're stuck with a poor employee. That's no good.

Reporting to CPS aside, assume that PSU documented exactly what MM told them. Assume further that the documentation showed that MM was concerned that he might have experienced something inappropriate but couldn't be sure what it was. I don't this thing would have turned into such a sh!tstorm. No he said vs. she said. No evidence of a cover-up

Tim Curley would actually agree with you. People who know him say he is devastated that he did not document the event or actually speak to the boy. Curley is convinced Jerry is innocent and does feel some responsibility for what happened.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I'll even cut C&S a "little bit" of slack for not reporting to CPS. Lawyers cover their own butts too - to a fault. Here's an example. If you have a poor performing employee that's over 40, is a minority, has a disability, etc. the lawyer often says don't fire them. No lawsuit but you're stuck with a poor employee. That's no good.

Reporting to CPS aside, assume that PSU documented exactly what MM told them. Assume further that the documentation showed that MM was concerned that he might have experienced something inappropriate but couldn't be sure what it was. I don't this thing would have turned into such a sh!tstorm. No he said vs. she said. No evidence of a cover-up

A written record would have been smart, again this is HR 101.

 

[indynittany]

Agree that they were fooled. 100% disagree that their reluctance to document things is understandable. That's HR 101. Every company with > $30 million in revenues has policies on how to handle such reports. PSU has nearly $6 billion in revenues. The documents can be kept confidential. NO EXCUSE.

To be clear, you're not saying they should have reported to DPW. You're simply saying they should have documented what they did. I'm not sure I agree completely, but I won't argue with you.

My argument is with those who believe they should have reported to DPW to cover their butts and not because a child may have been abused. I think that report by itself could have invited a civil suit, depending on the "victim" and his mother. It could have harmed Sandusky's reputation unfairly and hurt TSM.

If you think like a lawyer, the only solution was to throw Jerry under the bus. I think it's sad that in the world we live in, you're right.

 

[bdgan]

To be clear, you're not saying they should have reported to DPW. You're simply saying they should have documented what they did. I'm not sure I agree completely, but I won't argue with you.

My argument is with those who believe they should have reported to DPW to cover their butts and not because a child may have been abused. I think that report by itself could have invited a civil suit, depending on the "victim" and his mother. It could have harmed Sandusky's reputation unfairly and hurt TSM.

If you think like a lawyer, the only solution was to throw Jerry under the bus. I think it's sad that in the world we live in, you're right.

I understand they might have felt it was unnecessary to report to DPW. I don't know what they knew so I'm willing to cut them some slack on this. Remember, Dranov testified that he didn't hear anything that warranted calling authorities.

But I can't imagine ANY curcumstance where documenting MM's report and PSU's response would be considered unnecessary.

 

[indynittany]

Tim Curley would actually agree with you. People who know him say he is devastated that he did not document the event or actually speak to the boy. Curley is convinced Jerry is innocent and does feel some responsibility for what happened.

I don't think it would have been Tim's place to seek out the boy. That was Jack's responsibility.

 

[Connorpozlee]

To be clear, you're not saying they should have reported to DPW. You're simply saying they should have documented what they did. I'm not sure I agree completely, but I won't argue with you.

My argument is with those who believe they should have reported to DPW to cover their butts and not because a child may have been abused. I think that report by itself could have invited a civil suit, depending on the "victim" and his mother. It could have harmed Sandusky's reputation unfairly and hurt TSM.

If you think like a lawyer, the only solution was to throw Jerry under the bus. I think it's sad that in the world we live in, you're right.

I think you can file a civil for anything you want. That said, if you made a call in good faith believing a child was at risk of harm or had been harmed then the suit wouldn’t go anywhere.

 

[L.T. Young]

Let me get this straight. If someone tells a lie we should accept it and “move on” because telling the truth is counterproductive? Telling the truth is is never counterproductive. This is the thinking of the OGBOT. It’s to bad a great man was unfairly trashed, oh well, nothing we can do now. If telling the truth hurts Joe’s legacy it is only because someone’s I.Q. Is to low to have an open mind.

Talk about irony.

 

[indynittany]

I think you can file a civil for anything you want. That said, if you made a call in good faith believing a child was at risk of harm or had been harmed then the suit wouldn’t go anywhere.

The point is they did not believe a child was at risk of harm or had been harmed.

 

[Connorpozlee]

The point is they did not believe a child was at risk of harm or had been harmed.

That was not the point you made though.

 

[MtNittany]

New JZ Podcast. PSU is hour 2

 

[indynittany]

That was not the point you made though.

My point was that even a false accusation against Jerry could have left PSU vulnerable in a civil suit if it's a he said/he said scenario. Had the mom of V6 chosen to sue in '98, there would have been pressure on PSU (deep pockets) to settle in order to avoid the bad publicity.

Schultz wrote on 02/25/01, "Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone to Lasch Bldg." It was the alone part that had him concerned, otherwise why stipulate that?

 

[Connorpozlee]

My point was that even a false accusation against Jerry could have left PSU vulnerable in a civil suit if it's a he said/he said scenario. Had the mom of V6 chosen to sue in '98, there would have been pressure on PSU (deep pockets) to settle in order to avoid the bad publicity.

Schultz wrote on 02/25/01, "Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone to Lasch Bldg." It was the alone part that had him concerned, otherwise why stipulate that?

My point was that we are all vulnerable to a civil suit every day. If you make a call in good faith you are not really at risk of losing a civil suit.

 

[Bob78]

It is HR 101 and it was botched. The witch hunt sucked and ruined some peoples lives, but when you get an incident...it is HR 101 to make the report just to CYA. Even more so when a lawyer advises you to make a formal report and you don't.

Had HR been involved, there would have been documentation. However, involving Counsel more or less moves the role of HR into the office of the Counsel. Not involving HR directly is a bit less of an issue at that point. Still, full documentation was an essential need.
My assumption is that they did not think of involving HR directly since the incident involved a non-employee, as well as having mentioned whatever they mentioned to Counsel. Faulty thinking, faulty process, in hindsight.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Had HR been involved, there would have been documentation. However, involving Counsel more or less moves the role of HR into the office of the Counsel. Not involving HR directly is a bit less of an issue at that point. Still, full documentation was an essential need.
My assumption is that they did not think of involving HR directly since the incident involved a non-employee, as well as having mentioned whatever they mentioned to Counsel. Faulty thinking, faulty process, in hindsight.

Quite possible, but MM was a GA on the staff so it would have been wise there just to get it on the record what he said and saw...but I can see your point. Had they actually done that, the what did MM say BS goes away.

 

[pandaczar12]

My point was that we are all vulnerable to a civil suit every day. If you make a call in good faith you are not really at risk of losing a civil suit.

But if you were pretty sure abuse didn't occur, which is what happened, your scenario doesn't apply.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

But if you were pretty sure abuse didn't occur, which is what happened, your scenario doesn't apply.

So they felt the need to call Jack because they were "pretty sure" abuse didn't occur. Some of you need to think out your story lines a bit better. People are just saying they should have had a written report....not an off the wall statement.

 

[psudukie]

Quick question.

Was one of Gary S responsibilities as VP ... head of HR?

Thank uou

 

[drblue1977]

If there's ever a successful appeal, it will be on the Federal level I assume. It would take not a bomb shell, but a nuclear explosion for PA to go back and revisit it at this point. It would be admitting their own malfeasance.

I seems unlikely that ..............Pennsylvania will admit to any failures.
See above.

 

[drblue1977]

Had HR been involved, there would have been documentation. However, involving Counsel more or less moves the role of HR into the office of the Counsel. Not involving HR directly is a bit less of an issue at that point. Still, full documentation was an essential need.
My assumption is that they did not think of involving HR directly since the incident involved a non-employee, as well as having mentioned whatever they mentioned to Counsel. Faulty thinking, faulty process, in hindsight.

What exactly did Courtney state in his letter to Schultz? Oh, it was ........misfiled! Well, at least the billing record was found.

 

[indynittany]

Quite possible, but MM was a GA on the staff so it would have been wise there just to get it on the record what he said and saw...but I can see your point. Had they actually done that, the what did MM say BS goes away.

If Spanier could appreciate the potential risk of not reporting '01 should a subsequent incident occur, how could he not appreciate the immediate risk associated with a current PSU employee witnessing an act of CSA and choosing to abandon the victim?

 

[LundyPSU]

Seems that Schultz was documenting many things, so strange that nothing was documented (retained or disclosed) about the conversation with MM

 

[LaJolla Lion]

If Spanier could appreciate the potential risk of not reporting '01 should a subsequent incident occur, how could he not appreciate the immediate risk associated with a current PSU employee witnessing an act of CSA and choosing to abandon the victim?

Spanier knew there was a chance they would be vulnerable and even stated it...guess what happened in the end? A little written record saying what MM said could have gone a long way....it's common sense HR crap that anyone in their position should have known.

 

[indynittany]

Spanier knew there was a chance they would be vulnerable and even stated it...guess what happened in the end? A little written record saying what MM said could have gone a long way....it's common sense HR crap that anyone in their position should have known.

True. But that vulnerability had to be triggered by a subsequent incident. As far as Spanier was concerned, had Sandusky dropped dead the next day, PSU would never have been vulnerable. That puts in context how concerned they were with what had been reported to them.

With the benefit of hindsight, you're right. If Tom Corbett is never elected governor, this is not an issue.

 

[francofan]

Quick question.

Was one of Gary S responsibilities as VP ... head of HR?

Thank uou

@psudukie - I am sorry for the ordeal that you and your family have suffered over the last several year. I respect your posting style and the way you support other posters.

I am not sure if Schultz had oversight responsibilities for HR. In hindsight, I believe that Schultz wishes he would have done more to document the incident that Mike reportedly saw in the 2000-2001 timeframe.

I have a question for you and you don't need to respond if you don't want to. In your opinion, do you think it is possible that the incident in the Lasch building that Mike observed between Sandusky and v2 happened in December 2000 and not February 2001?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

True. But that vulnerability had to be triggered by a subsequent incident. As far as Spanier was concerned, had Sandusky dropped dead the next day, PSU would never have been vulnerable. That puts in context how concerned they were with what had been reported to them.

With the benefit of hindsight, you're right. If Tom Corbett is never elected governor, this is not an issue.

It's not guess work here, they should have documented this better. How anyone could even argue that is beyond me at this point in time. I'm not calling them criminals, but this is simply HR 101 common sense stuff and the reason why people do make reports on every little thing.

 

[indynittany]

So they felt the need to call Jack because they were "pretty sure" abuse didn't occur. Some of you need to think out your story lines a bit better. People are just saying they should have had a written report....not an off the wall statement.

And if Jack was told of an incident serious enough to cause PSU to revoke Jerry's guest privileges, what were his legal and professional obligations?

 

[kgilbert78]

My point was that we are all vulnerable to a civil suit every day. If you make a call in good faith you are not really at risk of losing a civil suit.

Eh, these days?? Not so sure. Juries award big payments all the time to folks that they "feel sorry for"--it's why lawyers always look for the "big pockets" defendant, even if they had little to do with the situation.

 

[psudukie]

Franco, while you and I will not agree with much, I think at least most times you try to be kind ... maybe not right word... you try to be understanding in your approach. Thank you.

I do not have any reason to believe that is the case.

The same goes for the myth that my father was out of town when mike called the house that night.

If I may I would like to make sure that I u derstabd two things from your view point.

First you believe strongly that js may suffer from a condition that has rendered him impotent since at least 2008?

Second you believe mr Pendergast book is based on very truthful factual statements and information?

Thanks and I get if you don’t answer. I certainly don’t answer everyone or everything.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

And if Jack was told of an incident serious enough to cause PSU to revoke Jerry's guest privileges, what were his legal and professional obligations?

Why would Jack would do something when you are saying they weren't told of an assault or thought nothing happened? Did they lie to Jack and say there was more? You can't have it both ways indy. You can't call out Jack for not doing something they failed to do themselves when you say they didn't know, but they told Jack...it's not even attempting to put logic to anything. That is called passing the buck. The guys at the top usually don't get paid more than everyone else for no reason, they are also the most accountable and CYA is a part of that.

 

[Connorpozlee]

But if you were pretty sure abuse didn't occur, which is what happened, your scenario doesn't apply.

I don’t have a scenario. Indy is saying that fear of a civil suit is a good reason to not make a call to report. I am saying that making a call in good faith protects you legally.
If you are saying that you should not make reports of abuse when you don’t think it happened, I agree with you. But that is separate from what Indy is saying.