Most people knew it was gonna be a shitstorm and were prepared for it, unlike you. But by all means, keep regurgitating the trash from other folks because their opinions mean so much...
Maybe you and jerseylion can go halfsies on a bottle of Xanax.
PDF page 69 starts the john doe 150, "I told Joe" testimony..
- Thread starter step.eng69
- Start date
Most people knew it was gonna be a shitstorm and were prepared for it, unlike you. But by all means, keep regurgitating the trash from other folks because their opinions mean so much...
Maybe you and jerseylion can go halfsies on a bottle of Xanax.
Nate completely out of touch with reality AGAIN.
Stop buying into the media narrative. Lubrano has said all along that they have a plan and they just need time to execute it. Have faith that the "victims" will all be proven liars at some point.
Two people posted they don't see how this will be bad for Joe. But keep believing all is good.
This bullshit is horrible and is going to worst. A lot worst.
Who do we turn too?
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Today is a day for satellite radio and stay off the internet websites and especially stay away from blogs/comment sections of news story's.
Does anyone really believe that Sandusky was a$$ fingering some kid in front of others? How unrealistic is that? That wasn't even his MO. C'mon man. This stuff has gotten absurd
Well - I'm waiting for Zippy to tell me. Because Ken Frazier & Ira Lubert OBVIOUSLY had this all under control.
I suggest you place a call to our Auditor General and complain : (717) 705-9077
And our Solicitor General and complain :
(717) 705-3833
I think you think too much. I think those twitters are ignorant, simply that.
Paterno F'ed this up from the start. He let his moron son Scott do the talking. A lawyer or PR guy could have simply said, "Joe has ALWAYS encouraged any victim or witness of any crime to go to the police." It would be tough for anyone to dispute the claim. At that point Joe would have been covered if a kid from 70s or the day after Joe was born told him. The only people we definitely know knew about the abuse were the victims. It was up to them to go to the police.
You need to turn to a grammar coach. Now stfu and let those who know how do the heavy lifting.
I posted this last month when the column by Ganim was posted:
Interesting comment following an article of the john doe 150 (1976 victim):
Tim Berton
Dan Mealing - Thanks. Don't know why CDT left out that critical fact.
“State College News is also reporting that the 1971 accuser who told his story to CNN is petitioning the court that he not be forced to testify. I don't see how he should be allowed to avoid testimony after he gave his story to CNN. CNN made it easy to ID him so he threw away his anonymity as well.
Too bad local newspapers don't seem to be investigating his story and background.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
Listening to the carnival-barker, the voice of WILK radio-steve corbett several weeks ago, corbett was bragging on the show that he contacted Sara Ganum of CNN for the contact information of the 1971 accuser, conformed on the radio that corbett spoke with the accuser, and believed the accuser that Joe Paterno was protecting Sandusky. The accuser also told corbett that he had more information to provide; corbett said he will share the added information to his audience. Since these accusers wish not to be deposed again, why feel free to flap their lips to reporters and a$$e$ like WILK Corbett?
Of course corbett is so intellectually ignorant of the facts of entire 4 ½ years of the Sandusky case, but still spills to his audience the poison and malice toward Paterno and Penn State.
Shouldn’t Corbett be subpoenaed by Wick for testimony concerning the accuser?
Balanced write up from Susan Snyder at the Inquirer.
Susan is probably the most well versed on all the moving parts. I would love to see the Inquirer actually do an investigative piece here - which includes a certain Philadelphia element to dig into - and I've told her so repeatedly.
Question is, would Marimow go along with it?
How Penn State decided to pay $93 million to Sandusky victims
How did Pennsylvania State University decide to hand out nearly $93 million to more than 30 of Jerry Sandusky's accusers?
The process spanned many months, involved lawyers and mediators and hinged on much more than the merits of the claims, said Kenneth Feinberg, a lawyer who mediated the settlements on Penn State's behalf, along with his law partner, Michael Rozen.
"This was a very intense and difficult mediation," said Feinberg, the prominent mediator who also managed the 9/11 victims-compensation fund and the settlements with those affected by the 2010 BP Gulf oil spill.
His comments came in an interview arranged last week by Penn State as a Philadelphia judge prepared to release settlement records sought by media outlets. Those filings became public early Tuesday.
Feinberg declined to comment on individual cases, sticking largely to discussing the process. But he did say all of the accusers with whom Penn State settled had some kind of evidence backing up their claims.
The victims either produced records of reporting the abuse to officials or to a doctor or were witnesses in the former assistant football coach's trial and deemed credible by the attorney general, he said.
Feinberg said more than the merits of an allegation was considered in determining a case's settlement value.
One factor was: "Will Penn State be able to defend the case in court?" Another was the quality of the accuser's lawyer and the court where the case was to be heard, he said.
Rozen, Feinberg's law partner, has previously cited the severity of the abuse, location, time, and the accuser's credibility also as factors. He described three areas of claims: those from before 1998, when the first report of abuse by Sandusky was investigated and dismissed; those between 1998 and the 2001 incident in which former graduate assistant Michael McQueary said he reported seeing Sandusky assault a boy in the shower; and those after McQueary alerted Penn State.
Assaults before 1998 were assigned the lowest value because of little if any evidence that Penn State should have known at that time, Rozen said.
The mediators hardly ever met with the actual victims, Feinberg said. He and Rozen met with their lawyers, then met with Penn State lawyers to update them on progress.
"This mediation process was done almost entirely between lawyers," Feinberg said.Penn State's board of trustees gave members on its legal subcommittee authority to oversee the process and apprise the rest of the board.Feinberg said he met with the subcommittee in Philadelphia and gave them details on individual cases. He said settlement values of individual cases were discussed, as well as demands.
It took months to resolve some cases. The point of contention, he said, typically was the amount - not whether abuse had occurred.
About a half-dozen cases were not settled either because the claims appeared to be "fraudulent" or an amount could not be agreed upon, Feinberg said. One case is still pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
The first multimillion-dollar settlement was announced in August 2013, that of a 25-year-old man who said that he was a child when Sandusky abused him in a campus shower. Two months later, Penn State said it would pay nearly $60 million to resolve claims with him and 25 other Sandusky accusers. In April 2015, the university approved more settlements, with one trustee calling the payout "an extraordinary" sum.
ssnyder@phillynews.com
215-854-4693 @ssnyderinq
www.philly.com/campusinq
Published: July 12, 2016 — 8:23 AM EDT | Updated: July 12, 2016 — 8:24 AM EDT
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Susan is probably the most well versed on all the moving parts. I would love to see the Inquirer actually do an investigative piece here - which includes a certain Philadelphia element to dig into - and I've told her so repeatedly.
Question is, would Marimow go along with it?
How Penn State decided to pay $93 million to Sandusky victims
How did Pennsylvania State University decide to hand out nearly $93 million to more than 30 of Jerry Sandusky's accusers?
The process spanned many months, involved lawyers and mediators and hinged on much more than the merits of the claims, said Kenneth Feinberg, a lawyer who mediated the settlements on Penn State's behalf, along with his law partner, Michael Rozen.
"This was a very intense and difficult mediation," said Feinberg, the prominent mediator who also managed the 9/11 victims-compensation fund and the settlements with those affected by the 2010 BP Gulf oil spill.
His comments came in an interview arranged last week by Penn State as a Philadelphia judge prepared to release settlement records sought by media outlets. Those filings became public early Tuesday.
Feinberg declined to comment on individual cases, sticking largely to discussing the process. But he did say all of the accusers with whom Penn State settled had some kind of evidence backing up their claims.
The victims either produced records of reporting the abuse to officials or to a doctor or were witnesses in the former assistant football coach's trial and deemed credible by the attorney general, he said.
Feinberg said more than the merits of an allegation was considered in determining a case's settlement value.
One factor was: "Will Penn State be able to defend the case in court?" Another was the quality of the accuser's lawyer and the court where the case was to be heard, he said.
Rozen, Feinberg's law partner, has previously cited the severity of the abuse, location, time, and the accuser's credibility also as factors. He described three areas of claims: those from before 1998, when the first report of abuse by Sandusky was investigated and dismissed; those between 1998 and the 2001 incident in which former graduate assistant Michael McQueary said he reported seeing Sandusky assault a boy in the shower; and those after McQueary alerted Penn State.
Assaults before 1998 were assigned the lowest value because of little if any evidence that Penn State should have known at that time, Rozen said.
The mediators hardly ever met with the actual victims, Feinberg said. He and Rozen met with their lawyers, then met with Penn State lawyers to update them on progress.
"This mediation process was done almost entirely between lawyers," Feinberg said.Penn State's board of trustees gave members on its legal subcommittee authority to oversee the process and apprise the rest of the board.Feinberg said he met with the subcommittee in Philadelphia and gave them details on individual cases. He said settlement values of individual cases were discussed, as well as demands.
It took months to resolve some cases. The point of contention, he said, typically was the amount - not whether abuse had occurred.
About a half-dozen cases were not settled either because the claims appeared to be "fraudulent" or an amount could not be agreed upon, Feinberg said. One case is still pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
The first multimillion-dollar settlement was announced in August 2013, that of a 25-year-old man who said that he was a child when Sandusky abused him in a campus shower. Two months later, Penn State said it would pay nearly $60 million to resolve claims with him and 25 other Sandusky accusers. In April 2015, the university approved more settlements, with one trustee calling the payout "an extraordinary" sum.
ssnyder@phillynews.com
215-854-4693 @ssnyderinq
www.philly.com/campusinq
Published: July 12, 2016 — 8:23 AM EDT | Updated: July 12, 2016 — 8:24 AM EDT
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Nate is either a troll or one of the dumbest human beings on the planet. The only ones stoopider are pnnylion and jersylion109 or whatever his name is.
Its amazing how many "too outrageous to have been made up" stories turn out to be, um, made up stories. Duke Lacrosse, the UVA rape case, on and on and on - so many examples of stories so chock full of holes that they turn out to be false, and were obviously false to begin with if one had only looked at the stories with a skeptical eye to begin with.
Yet...
No matter HOW MANY TIMES the media pushes a story, which eventually turns out to be complete and utter BS...
And...
No matter HOW MANY TIMES the media says "mea culpa" we screwed up, we'll learn from our mistakes and never do it again...
Still...
They go right back to pushing a story, which is chock full of holes, over-the-top sensational, click-bait central, but was obviously false in hindsight...over and over and over again.
As if...
They never learned a damn thing.
Actually - Dr. Jack Raykovitz F'ed this up from the start. He let his moron board members Heim & Poole do the talking. Any responsible child welfare professional from the Second Mile could have simply said, "We have practiced responsible oversight of ALL our adults that work with children, especially Jerry. In fact, we have meticulously kept records in our offices of ALL contact with minors so we could expressly maintain such vigilant oversight". It would be tough for anyone to dispute the claim. At that point Joe, or anyone accused, would have been covered if a kid from (the) 70's or the day after Joe was born told him. The only people we definitely know knew about the abuse were the claimants. It was up to them to go to the police.
Jay Paterno @JayPaterno 20m20 minutes ago
One claimant named one PSU assistant that he alleged saw him in 1988...that coach didn't get to PSU until 1991.
38 retweets40 likes
"The victims either produced records of reporting the abuse to officials or to a doctor or were witnesses in the former assistant football coach's trial and deemed credible by the attorney general, he said."
And where are these doctor's reports to Childline?
And where are these doctor's reports to Childline?
More BS fake "victims" If they are unsealing these records, their names should be made public! It is easy to LIE when nobody knows your name!!!
Link, please
Intense and difficult mediation. How much do you want?
The point of contention was the amount, not whether abuse had occurred? Great lawyering.
Intense and difficult mediation. How much do you want?
Yeah, Nate is also simultaneously posting garbage about Larry Bird, and getting ripped for it in the NBA Greatest 5 thread. Check it out if you care to.
I'm going with troll for him.
One claimant named one PSU assistant that he alleged saw him in 1988...that coach didn't get to PSU until 1991.
38 retweets40 likes
Hey, 2002, 2001. Why split hairs?
The trolls would rather believe that children were abused, no matter how ridiculous the allegations, than apply logic. Now that is sick.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Honest to God it wouldn't surprise me in the least if a certain few board members head of a subcommittee felt public perception was slipping away from Joe and towards the BOT and told someone to accuse Jerry of the most vile thing you can think of and that you told Joe and other coaches and we will make sure you get paid since we are in charge of handing out the $$$$... in other words we need to keep the narrative focused on Jerry and Joe...
I know the team would, I am surprised the asst coaches would as well. Different places different policies.
Next thing you know, someone is going to say Joe liked Mrs. Cefalo's gravy better than Mrs. Cappeletti's gravy, and that because he did, that makes Joe two faced liar.
Here's the article I saw on Comcast.com. this morning. Rumor presented as uncontroverted fact, yet again.
Sigh. I hope the Paternos kick some serious ass when their lawsuit (hopefully) gets to trial.
http://my.xfinity.com/video/sandusk...west?cid=featuredsports_sf_paterno&tab=sports
Sigh. I hope the Paternos kick some serious ass when their lawsuit (hopefully) gets to trial.
http://my.xfinity.com/video/sandusk...west?cid=featuredsports_sf_paterno&tab=sports
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Jay taking a beating on twitter. And 'The Superficial' is taking a break from posting pics of side boob and camel toe to chime in if anyone is that masochistic...
http://www.thesuperficial.com/joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky-court-documents-unsealed-1976-07-2016
New Documents: Joe Paterno Told About Sandusky In 1976, Did Nothing
Mike Redmond @theredmond | July 12, 2016 - 1:16 pm
Just to bring everyone up to speed, Penn State is currently in a legal battle with Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Co. after the university paid settlements to numerous Jerry Sandusky victims and basically expected the insurance company to pick up the tab to the tune of millions of dollar without poking around.
It poked around.
Which we already know because back in May, court documents revealed Joe Paterno was allegedly informed about Sandusky’s actions as far back as 1976. And now a new batch of unsealed documents has rained even more shit down upon Paterno’s legacy starting with the 2014 deposition given by Sandusky victim John Doe 150 in which he describes informing Paterno of said molestation in 1976. He was 14 at the time. The Washington Post reports:
The victim, who was identified in court records as John Doe 150, said that while he was attending a football camp at Penn State, Sandusky touched him as he showered. Sandusky’s finger penetrated the boy’s rectum, Doe testified in court in 2014, and the victim asked to speak with Paterno about it. Doe testified that he specifically told Paterno that Sandusky had sexually assaulted him, and Paterno ignored it.
“Is it accurate that Coach Paterno quickly said to you, ‘I don’t want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about?’” the man’s lawyer asked him in 2014.
“Specifically. Yes … I was shocked, disappointed, offended. I was insulted… I said, is that all you’re going to do? You’re not going to do anything else?”
Paterno, the man testified, just walked away.
Success with honor! On top of that, the new documents include a risk management expert’s report that claims Penn State had six chances to warn the insurance company about Sandusky and chose not to. And just so we’re clear, we’re not talking about a wobbly step in the stadium or not enough lights in the parking lot, we’re talking about child rape. Children were raped. And Penn State’s main concern was never telling anyone until it came time to get back all the money it paid to make sure no one told anyone, which is clearly going well for them. And the shitstorm is only brewing because a Mike McQueary depositionhas also been made public where he claims both former assistant coaches Tom Bradley and Greg Schiano knew about Sandusky for decades. Via Deadspin:
Q: Did [Bradley] tell you that he had had information concerning Gerald Sandusky and children?
A: He said he knew of some things.
Q: And did he tell you what he knew of?
A: Yeah.
Q: What did he tell you?
A: He said another assistant coach had come to him in the early ‘90s about a very similar situation to mine, and he said that he had—someone had come to him as far back as early as the ‘80s about seeing Jerry Sandusky doing something with a boy.
Q: Did he identify who the other coaches were that had given him this information?
A: The one in the early ‘90s, yes.
Q: And who was that?
A: Greg Schiano.
Q: Greg Schiano?
A: Yes.
Q: And did he give you any details about what Coach Schiano had reported to him?
A: No, only that he had—I can’t remember if it was one night or one morning, but that Greg had come into his office white as a ghost and said he just say Jerry doing something to a boy in the shower. And that’s it. That’s all he ever told me.
Q: Did he tell you what, if anything, he had done about that?
A: No, he didn’t share with me.
Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Paterno’s legacy.
Just my thoughts:
You can't go by these documents alone if you truly are trying to be objective. The depositions are discovery depositions and they are chopped in this setting for selective information to be presented. Attorneys do it all the time and the Court routinely asks for the complete copy of the transcript to be filed so it can get a total view of the situation. Proceed with caution on any judgment you may make as there is a reason you are only seeing certain things.
Keep in mind the plaintiffs have the burden of proving that PSU knew or at least should have known about Jerry; this is what makes PSU negligent. However, if the plaintiff prevailed on their claim there would be no insurance coverage for PSU. Plaintiffs never want to defeat coverage as they would likely get nothing at the end of the day. In this case, PSU is so huge that even without insurance a plaintiff could recover a judgment. Therefore the plaintiffs went after PSU without fear and the deponents were likely told to tie as much PSU knowledge as possible into their testimony. Some told the truth and stopped, others probably got creative with it and started throwing in coaches, players, and admins.
You can't go by these documents alone if you truly are trying to be objective. The depositions are discovery depositions and they are chopped in this setting for selective information to be presented. Attorneys do it all the time and the Court routinely asks for the complete copy of the transcript to be filed so it can get a total view of the situation. Proceed with caution on any judgment you may make as there is a reason you are only seeing certain things.
Keep in mind the plaintiffs have the burden of proving that PSU knew or at least should have known about Jerry; this is what makes PSU negligent. However, if the plaintiff prevailed on their claim there would be no insurance coverage for PSU. Plaintiffs never want to defeat coverage as they would likely get nothing at the end of the day. In this case, PSU is so huge that even without insurance a plaintiff could recover a judgment. Therefore the plaintiffs went after PSU without fear and the deponents were likely told to tie as much PSU knowledge as possible into their testimony. Some told the truth and stopped, others probably got creative with it and started throwing in coaches, players, and admins.
