BobPSU92 seems to be on a crusade to ignore (and get others to ignore) those who don't see things as he does.
Fair enough, if's it an "echo chamber" one wants, there are ways to achieve that.
Paterno had two legacies and his followers need to accept it
- Thread starter bdgan
- Start date
BobPSU92 seems to be on a crusade to ignore (and get others to ignore) those who don't see things as he does.
Fair enough, if's it an "echo chamber" one wants, there are ways to achieve that.
This needs context.
1) Joe made his remarks because of Noonan's totally inappropriate and unprofessional comments at the PC.
2) Joe's remarks were made after he had learned what exactly was put forth in the GJ presentment, which we now know to have been fabricated by the OAG.
Apparently I need to respond to this again. Your question is not relevant, because there was only suspected abuse.
Are you seriously comparing DUI to child rape? Child molestation is probably more similar to shop lifting, or taking a sip and then topping off at the fountain soda machine.
And I have asked you a germane question in response.
And I'm still waiting.
I wonder why you take such pleasure in tearing down Paterno? The man did nothing but dedicate his life to Penn State. Your accusations are nothing more than speculation. Paterno said he was not aware of 1998. He reported MM's vague testimony to his superiors the next day (what he thought was right with what he understood). He acknowledged years after the fact and with hindsight he wished he had done more - an honest reflection no one else associated with this tragedy has made. He cooperated with the Grand Jury and gave honest testimony from conversations that happened 10 years earlier. The Penna. authorities have stated that Paterno was not part of a cover up. He whole life and legacy at PSU is one of integrity and yet you enjoy tearing it down. You judge his actions in 2001 without knowing all the facts (none of us do) and with the advantage of hindsight. You assume a few emails to and from others, which don't use his name, or reference any action on his part, prove he participated in a cover up of a known pedophile. And now you infer because he cut short a vacation in 1997 he knew about the 1998 investigation. Instead giving a reputable man at least the benefit of doubt you take great pleasure in stating, based speculative interpretation of a few selected emails and statements, that he covered up a known pedophile. And you come on here gloat with your 'I am always right' lecture. And you call other people on this Board pathetic. You may want to take a closer look in the mirror.
Very well said. I will never understand why people are so quick to believe that not only 1 person, but multiple people, one (Spanier) who was an abuse victim himself, would be OK with children being abused. This is especially absurd when one of those people was Joe Paterno, while he wasn't perfect, was still a great man with a proven track record. In addition, there was no need to cover anything up, there was no motivation to cover for an ex-employee that nobody particularly liked, when turning him in would garner positive press.
right...and the real question is TSM. What were these people doing? I gut that they may have been "fooled" but to have zero checks and balances, no records, after the 1998 incident is beyond the pale. Then, on top of that, the various governmental oversight groups' failures...yet, Joe Paterno is the problem because he reported it as policy dictates and didn't go outside of policy. Jeesh.
Bottom feeders are bottom feeders. Yes there will be the 1/2% out there... the yellow press crowd that thrive on the highly speculative .. unsubstantiated... there will be the 1/2% that are jealous to a shade on green that will also cling to the same..... then there are the totally stupid ...hard to tell these days how many there are.... they will have one legacy .... the rest of us that knew Joe ... including so many of his peers...like Spurrier will keep the only important and meaningful legacy alive. BTW there will always be jackasses. So, what!
I have no reason to think that Joe had that ability. We all know that it is difficult to spot and identify these types. I did not respond to you initially because my post never addressed Joe's ability to ID pedophiles; I only addressed made up facts which get repeated here over and over to the point many posters believe them.
.
Understood -- thank you.
And I asked the question to specifically address your post as well as the common misconception that Joe should or could have "done more". This is predicated on the notion that Paterno was (in 2001) somehow convinced that Sandusky was a child predator, despite the fact that licensed professionals with more & direct exposure (Raykovitz, et al.) and more information (DPW/CYS) were not so convinced.
This is a patently absurd notion.
Those who criticize Joe on his limited response is not necessarily based on Joe being convinced that Sandusky was a child predator. I think that position is based on the fact that Joe received a report of interaction between Sandusky and a young boy which was sexual in nature. There are reasonable people who feel he had a moral obligation to make sure that report was passed on to at least the chief of the University police. There are others who are well represented on this board who feel there was no need to do that. All that shows is that individual moral standards vary; no surprise there.
I know what a "circle jerk" is --- your ideal version of a Penn State message board.
Let's all gather around the statue and enjoy ourselves!!!
So if Harmon was informed and JVP believed that CYS/DPW was notified, then you would have no criticism of JVP?
Those who advocate for the prevention of CSA would respectfully disagree.
I doubt that was the case. You are assuming that testimony regarding a conversation 10 years earlier is reliable.
Everyone's actions in 2001 do not support the argument that Mike witnessed something "sexual" and that he told other people that he witnessed something "sexual."
If Harmon was informed within a few days of the incident, or a couple of weeks at the outside, I would have zero problem with anything Paterno did or didn't do.
But who informed Harmon and why haven't they said so?
Joe's testimony, recollection from 10 years prior... trying to put a monster behind bars... was not cross examined. Also, Joe put enough qualifiers like "I don't know what you'd call it" on his statements. These facts make his testimony worthless. We've also never heard the testimony, so the transcript may mischaracterize his words.
Irrespective of what he was told, he did exactly what CSA advocates train employees to do. Those who say otherwise have an agenda.
There are also those on this board who set a moral bar so high, just so no one can clear it. Especially an octagenerian college football coach.
You are saying that a man who has been charged with criminal offenses has "testified" that CYS was notified. Is this another made up fact which is now considered true since it has been repeated countless times on this board?
Ask Lundy whether your statement is true.
I agree 100%. If he would have "done more" with such vague hearsay, the same idiots with an agenda would be here saying that he overstepped his bounds. "Who did Joe think he was? He's not god! He should have just turned it over to school officials and gotten out of the way!" They'd probably try to say that since Joe got too involved and he is too high profile, that it actually provided cover for Jerry.
Huh - so you are now you saying Paterno and others who believe Joe responded correctly made a morally inferior choice. First I believe the 'civilian' leader of the PS campus police was informed and it is certainly reasonable to believe that he had the authority and resources to conduct an investigation. Second your assumption that you would have called the police has the advantage of hindsight. The eye witness did not feel compelled to make a police report and neither did the other two people he informed that evening. But Joe was morally inferior because he elected to refer the report to Curley and then to Shultz? With the advantage of hindsight we all wish, as did Paterno, anyone of the four would have went directly to the police. But at least in Paterno's case he has stated he did what he thought was right. It certainly does not make his choice 'morally' inferior to what you think you might have done. If any of us find ourselves in a similar circumstance in the future we all now know what to do. Back then and with a vague report from MM I am sure it was much less certain. I would be a little more thoughtful about ranking the morality of one action versus another without actually being in the moment.
Ken Frazier and Karen Peetz facilitated an entire report of "made up facts" cleverly masked as "findings".
no need for Lundy check---got it here for you!!! the transcripts of preliminary hearing on Perjury....or hell even look in the Freeh report for that matter pages noted for you
Report to CYS
Gary Schultz and Wendell Courtney recalled reporting the incident to Children and Youth Services. Schultz's statement is on page 213 of the Preliminary Perjury hearing transcripts, while Courtney's is on page 84 of the Freeh Report.
For some reason, these reports were immediately discounted because PSU didn't report the incident to DPW. Legally, a report to DPW is not required if a report was made to CYS. CYS has the responsibility, once notified, to file an abuse report with ChildLine.
Despite the Freeh team spending nine months on the PSU campus, there is no indication in the Freeh Report that the team took any investigative steps to determine if that report occurred. Certainly, a group that could pin point the exact date and time of an internet search conducted 11 years prior (to find the chair of Second Mile) should have the wherewithal to check some phone records at PSU or CYS or check call logs to determine if a report was made. But those investigative steps weren't taken.
Also, few have considered that the OAG investigator did not check to see if a report was made in 2001. Detective Anthony Sassano stated at the Preliminary Perjury hearing that he contacted CYS and DPW to check on a 2002 report of abuse. Sassano indicated the agency officials answered negatively, however, Sassano also stated that DPW had a record of the incident in its possession. At some point, the Commonwealth expunged this record, but it appears the record survived at least until Sassano made the inquiry.
Given the above, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving that Schultz and/or Courtney did not make the report. That's a tall order because the state can only rely on the testimony of the DPW investigator, Jerry Lauro (who is not a reliable witness) and Carol Smith, a CYS official who has every reason to want to shift the blame for Sandusky on PSU after her agency's miserable performance in 1998
But I am sure this wont satisfy you.
One might also want to ask why a certain email(s) between Schultz and Harmon re: 2001 were omitted from the Freeh Report.
I don't know where you got that from and I'd like to see a link, but it is manifestly incorrect. Courtney said he heard that somebody reported it to somebody but he knows it wasn't him because he has no record of reporting it an d he would have kept a record if he had and other than that he doesn't know anything. Schultz's testimony was that somebody reported something to a "child protection agency" and it might have been him or it might not have been him (yeah, he may have asked the DPW/CYS to investigate Jerry Sandusky for child sex abuse, but he can't remember for sure).
well did you check the Freeh report pg 84??? and did you check the transcript of the Preliminary Perjury hearings transcripts page 213?? You are the one saying it's incorrect, so go to those pages and show me it's incorrect!!!!!!
I sent you 2 row boats and a helicopter!!!
Glad you are keeping an open mind, since these are still open questions. Too many are quick to condemn on incomplete (and possibly inaccurate) information.
There's nothing on page 84 of Freeh's report that comes close to what you wrote. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...ndusky-penn-state-20120712-pdf-htmlstory.html
Neither does Schultz's testimony at 212-13 resemble what you wrote. https://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/schultz-curley-preliminary-hearing-transcript.pdf
Instead, in both cases it reflects exactly what I wrote, you fricking moron.
Why would the Gang of Three have been trading emails in the 2/26-28/01 timeframe about whether they should report Sandusky to the authorities if Harmon already knew about it?
At that point, it's Harmon's problem.
I m a friking moron??? go read Schultz testimony again. Paraphrasing he says what ever agency looked into 98 they asked them again to look into 2002 (sic)
What part of they were asked to look into these allegations you having a hard time with. I ll get to WC later
