Quickest, most concise way to convince someone who bought the false narrative?

[NittanyChris]

Need some help. I have a friend who is quite intelligent and level-headed. Unfortunately, due to the media's reprehensible coverage of the Sandusky mess, he bought into the whole false narrative.
Of course, I'd like to convince him otherwise. The challenge is that I have to start with some points that have IMMEDIATE impact, because he has already said he tires of this debate and he believes I have an inherent bias because I'm an alumnus and JoePa fan.
I realize people have posted cogent summaries of the scandal here previously. I guess my question is what are the FIVE most eye opening, impactful facts to share with someone who has the potential to be reached? They cannot be too speculative, nor involve vast conspiracies. Simple, concise and impactful.
Some I am considering:
1. Sandusky was acquitted of the charge involving the incident with the boy that McQueary witnessed.
2. Erickson and others granted Sandusky use of PSU facilities as part of his retirement package. A package that JoePa opposed.
3. Sandusky was fully investigated after prior reports and cleared. No charges were pursued by the DA.
4. The prosecuting attorney in the Sandusky case, Frank Fina, adamantly stated that he found no evidence that JoePa was involved in any cover up. He did not believe that was the case.
5. Freeh was fed lines of inquiry and possible conclusion by the NCAA and PSU BOT members.

All help is appreciated. Thanks!

 

[psuguy04]

If someone is dumb enough to buy the media's portrayal of anything, they aren't worth the time and energy. There's almost certainly nothing you can do to convince him otherwise.

 

[NittanyChris]

If someone is dumb enough to buy the media's portrayal of anything, they aren't worth the time and energy. There's almost certainly nothing you can do to convince him otherwise.

But here's the thing, as I noted previously, this person is intelligent and level-headed. He would respond to facts and logic. However, he was fed a line of BS by the media and his interest level in the whole scandal, does not approach ours as PSU fans. There are people like this out there who can be reached.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

There was a statement Sue Paterno used that struck me. I've used it in situtions like above and no one can counter it. Sue once asked why she and Joe would have let their kids and grandkids be in Jerry's house or play with him in the pool at picnics/etc if they knew he was a pedophile?

Jay has mentioned this too in some of his interviews

 

[simons96]

might also want to mention the Costas interview on Jay Leno. both felt the media narrative was wrong.

 

[Western PA]

Sandusky founded and met his victims through the state-sanctioned Second Mile. State agencies approved his work with foster kids and even several adoptions by Sandusky. Numerous political figures supported Second Mile and the state even directed grants to TSM. It was as his victim farm and yet nobody from TSM (Including many state-licensed child care professionals) or Second Mile itself have been charged in connection with Sandusky. Why do you think that is?
Blame the dead guy is a commonly used Deflection strategy.

 

[bjf1984]

Need some help. I have a friend who is quite intelligent and level-headed. Unfortunately, due to the media's reprehensible coverage of the Sandusky mess, he bought into the whole false narrative.
Of course, I'd like to convince him otherwise. The challenge is that I have to start with some points that have IMMEDIATE impact, because he has already said he tires of this debate and he believes I have an inherent bias because I'm an alumnus and JoePa fan.
I realize people have posted cogent summaries of the scandal here previously. I guess my question is what are the FIVE most eye opening, impactful facts to share with someone who has the potential to be reached? They cannot be too speculative, nor involve vast conspiracies. Simple, concise and impactful.
Some I am considering:
1. Sandusky was acquitted of the charge involving the incident with the boy that McQueary witnessed.
2. Erickson and others granted Sandusky use of PSU facilities as part of his retirement package. A package that JoePa opposed.
3. Sandusky was fully investigated after prior reports and cleared. No charges were pursued by the DA.
4. The prosecuting attorney in the Sandusky case, John Fina, adamantly stated that he found no evidence that JoePa was involved in any cover up. He did not believe that was the case.
5. Freeh was fed lines of inquiry and possible conclusion by the NCAA and PSU BOT members.

All help is appreciated. Thanks!

Chris - FWIW. Is stay away from anything directly related to Sandusky (people get too emotionally involved) or anything directly related to football (people will write you off as a JoeBot). Focus on the blatant overt actions of PSU leadership post 11/11..,,,, paying out huge $$$ to protect 2nd Mile, numerous actions to block access (even among the BOT) to relevant documents), changing the BOT charter to maintain majority control among the unelected cabal, the ongoing action of having a con-man and ex-con in charge of $1 billion of University Funds, etc. lay the groundwork for how f&cked up the governance of the University is..... And then, if this person is intelligent and at all open - minded ... It will open him to reconsidering the entire scenario

 

[bdgan]

Need some help. I have a friend who is quite intelligent and level-headed. Unfortunately, due to the media's reprehensible coverage of the Sandusky mess, he bought into the whole false narrative.
Of course, I'd like to convince him otherwise. The challenge is that I have to start with some points that have IMMEDIATE impact, because he has already said he tires of this debate and he believes I have an inherent bias because I'm an alumnus and JoePa fan.
I realize people have posted cogent summaries of the scandal here previously. I guess my question is what are the FIVE most eye opening, impactful facts to share with someone who has the potential to be reached? They cannot be too speculative, nor involve vast conspiracies. Simple, concise and impactful.
Some I am considering:
1. Sandusky was acquitted of the charge involving the incident with the boy that McQueary witnessed.
2. Erickson and others granted Sandusky use of PSU facilities as part of his retirement package. A package that JoePa opposed.
3. Sandusky was fully investigated after prior reports and cleared. No charges were pursued by the DA.
4. The prosecuting attorney in the Sandusky case, John Fina, adamantly stated that he found no evidence that JoePa was involved in any cover up. He did not believe that was the case.
5. Freeh was fed lines of inquiry and possible conclusion by the NCAA and PSU BOT members.

All help is appreciated. Thanks!

I say it over and over. John McQueary, Dranov, Paterno, Curley, & Shultz all testified that MM didn't tell them about rape or anything exceedingly sexual. Furthermore, MM testified that he gave a soft story to Paterno. So ask your friends why we should believe MM's dad & Dranov but not believe the PSU administrators.

 

[NittanyChris]

I think that the illegitimacy of the Freeh report is key. This is yet another area where the mainstream media has failed miserably. The fact that a first year law student could shred it's unsupported assumptions and conclusions is never noted publicly.
However, if I talk about this then I risk being labeled as biased.

 

[NittPicker]

But here's the thing, as I noted previously, this person is intelligent and level-headed. He would respond to facts and logic. However, he was fed a line of BS by the media and his interest level in the whole scandal, does not approach ours as PSU fans. There are people like this out there who can be reached.

If he is responsive to facts and logic, ask him to review the Freeh piece with a critical eye. Then have him review the NCAA sanctions in which the only person prominently mentioned was Joe Paterno. Then have him consider the fact, as already mentioned, that the prosecutor is on record as saying Joe Paterno did nothing wrong. Then ask him why Joe was fired? At first the BoT said it was for a nebulous "lack of leadership". Then it was revealed our buddy Masser testified Joe really wasn't fired for anything. If your friend is truly convinced by facts and logic, he can't have already drawn a conclusion since the initial reports were lacking both.

 

[NittanyChris]

The average person with no dog in this fight is not going to take the time to review the Freeh report. That's why this is so challenging. We have to have brief, impactful facts to convince somebody.

 

[bjf1984]

The average person with no dog in this fight is not going to take the time to review the Freeh report. That's why this is so challenging. We have to have brief, impactful facts to convince somebody.

WRT something that may be both "quick" and "impactful".......

Let him know about Penn State's BOT Majority writing out multi-million dollar checks to "victims" of Sandusky (although there was no vetting of the legitimacy of the claims of liability against Penn State) under the requirement that the "victims" forfeit their rights to pursue action against the agencies involved with Sandusky (2nd Mile, etc). What "interest" would PSU have in protecting these outside agencies?

If someone can be faced with those facts, and NOT want to know/discuss more.....then they are hopeless, and best to just write them off.
If that be the case, you can just let them know that an individual has the right to remain blissfully ignorant, or has the right to express their opinion......but they don't have the right to both.

 

[aalion]

I wouldnt get into the BOT or even Freeh. Noone outside of PSU even knows that the BOT played any role in this mess. And most of the world had already tried and convicted PSU long before Freeh. I would stick to the basics... 6 (2 outside the Iniversity) people all made the exact same mistake with regard to what MM saw (MM himself, Dad, Dr. D, JoePa, Curley, Schultz), giving JS the benefit of the doubt for what was later called by Spanier "humane reasons". Noone was ever told to be quiet, and in fact more than just those 6 were told (Spanier, Dr. R., Courtney, maybe others). And even if you believe that they all should have been more suspicious, there is no evidence, anywhere, even in the Freeh report, that their (in)actions were motivated to protect PSU/PSU football. There is flat out no evidence of any motivation along those lines.

I have posted on message boards, comment sections of articles, FB, etc. the point below probably 100 times. It has yet to be contradicted:

Every single action by every single person involved in the scandal is 100% consistent with thinking "Jerry is a wierd guy with boundary issues". And there are literally dozens of actions/evidence inconsistent with "Jerry is a pedophile but we need to cover it up to protect PSU".

 

[Keyser Soze 16801]

Would the NCAA have restored JVP's wins if they had any inkling of a belief that he protected a pedophile? No, of course not. Ergo....

 

[PSU-Knocker]

I think you let it ride till the Paterno suit and the trials of C/S/S are complete (if they ever happen). Then you will have a much easier time of convincing any other person. After those trials and/or dropped charges, you will only have to ask him (and other like believers) questions. His (their) logic will lead them to the obvious conclusion.

It'll make your job much easier.

 

[JeannieNeedsAShooter]

This is incredibly succinct and hard to argue with. I would tell them, there was no cover up because there was nothing to cover up.
http://framingpaterno.com/sites/default/files/Ziegler_Landing_Page_pdf.pdf

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Need some help. I have a friend who is quite intelligent and level-headed. Unfortunately, due to the media's reprehensible coverage of the Sandusky mess, he bought into the whole false narrative.
Of course, I'd like to convince him otherwise. The challenge is that I have to start with some points that have IMMEDIATE impact, because he has already said he tires of this debate and he believes I have an inherent bias because I'm an alumnus and JoePa fan.
I realize people have posted cogent summaries of the scandal here previously. I guess my question is what are the FIVE most eye opening, impactful facts to share with someone who has the potential to be reached? They cannot be too speculative, nor involve vast conspiracies. Simple, concise and impactful.
Some I am considering:
1. Sandusky was acquitted of the charge involving the incident with the boy that McQueary witnessed. Jerry was convicted of 4 of the 5 counts he was charged with for victim 2 (the one McQueary witnessed). Indecent assault, unlawful contact with minors, corruption of minors, and endangering the welfare of children.

2. Erickson and others granted Sandusky use of PSU facilities as part of his retirement package. A package that JoePa opposed. There is no evidence that JVP had input into the decision to grant Jerry emeritus status nor say in any other aspect of the package. Negotiation of Jerry's package was handled by Tim Curley in conjunction with the Asst VP of human resources, VP Finance Gary Shultz, and Graham Spanier who promised and granted Jerry his emeritus status.

3. Sandusky was fully investigated after prior reports and cleared. No charges were pursued by the DA. Despite no charges being filed, high level PSU administrators were aware of the '98 investigation which should have raised red flags when Mike came forward with what he saw. From Shultz's notes of May 5, 1998 . " Is this opening Pandora's box? Other children?"

4. The prosecuting attorney in the Sandusky case, John Fina, adamantly stated that he found no evidence that JoePa was involved in any cover up. He did not believe that was the case.
Fina's opinion is just that, opinion. Freeh has a differing one based on circumstantial evidence.

5. Freeh was fed lines of inquiry and possible conclusion by the NCAA and PSU BOT members.
In their depositions FSS investigators acknowledged interactions with the NCAA They also acknowledge these interactions played no role in how they conducted their investigation or the conclusions they reached.

All help is appreciated. Thanks!

 

[colt21]

Simple. With a 25 year career in non-profits working in on and for boards of all sizes and shapes including creating several...working in finance, human resources, quality assurance and compliance....as well as currently working with DHS (formerly DPW) with both foster care and adoption programs I can tell you with 100% certainty, as an expert, that Joe did exactly what he should have then and now.

We know for sure that the state agencies failed and TSM failed....we do not yet know (and may never know) if CSS failed or to what extent.

Here's one other nugget--if Joe was not MMs SUPERVISOR, he would NOT (I repeat NOT) even have been involved with this at all!!!! Most people just don't (or don't want to) understand that Joe was only a bit player in this and that was only because he was MMs SUPERVISOR!

 

[Westcoast24]

Need some help. I have a friend who is quite intelligent and level-headed. Unfortunately, due to the media's reprehensible coverage of the Sandusky mess, he bought into the whole false narrative.
Of course, I'd like to convince him otherwise. The challenge is that I have to start with some points that have IMMEDIATE impact, because he has already said he tires of this debate and he believes I have an inherent bias because I'm an alumnus and JoePa fan.
I realize people have posted cogent summaries of the scandal here previously. I guess my question is what are the FIVE most eye opening, impactful facts to share with someone who has the potential to be reached? They cannot be too speculative, nor involve vast conspiracies. Simple, concise and impactful.
Some I am considering:
1. Sandusky was acquitted of the charge involving the incident with the boy that McQueary witnessed.
2. Erickson and others granted Sandusky use of PSU facilities as part of his retirement package. A package that JoePa opposed.
3. Sandusky was fully investigated after prior reports and cleared. No charges were pursued by the DA.
4. The prosecuting attorney in the Sandusky case, John Fina, adamantly stated that he found no evidence that JoePa was involved in any cover up. He did not believe that was the case.
5. Freeh was fed lines of inquiry and possible conclusion by the NCAA and PSU BOT members.

All help is appreciated. Thanks!

Don't quote or reference @JohnZiegler in any point you are trying to get across.

 

[Aoshiro]

Need some help. I have a friend who is quite intelligent and level-headed. Unfortunately, due to the media's reprehensible coverage of the Sandusky mess, he bought into the whole false narrative.
Of course, I'd like to convince him otherwise. The challenge is that I have to start with some points that have IMMEDIATE impact, because he has already said he tires of this debate and he believes I have an inherent bias because I'm an alumnus and JoePa fan.
I realize people have posted cogent summaries of the scandal here previously. I guess my question is what are the FIVE most eye opening, impactful facts to share with someone who has the potential to be reached? They cannot be too speculative, nor involve vast conspiracies. Simple, concise and impactful.
Some I am considering:
1. Sandusky was acquitted of the charge involving the incident with the boy that McQueary witnessed.
2. Erickson and others granted Sandusky use of PSU facilities as part of his retirement package. A package that JoePa opposed.
3. Sandusky was fully investigated after prior reports and cleared. No charges were pursued by the DA.
4. The prosecuting attorney in the Sandusky case, John Fina, adamantly stated that he found no evidence that JoePa was involved in any cover up. He did not believe that was the case.
5. Freeh was fed lines of inquiry and possible conclusion by the NCAA and PSU BOT members.

All help is appreciated. Thanks!

"Would Joe and Sue Paterno have allowed their kids to play in the pool with Jerry Sandusky if they had any inkling that he was a pedophile?"

 

[doctornick]

Every single action by every single person involved in the scandal is 100% consistent with thinking "Jerry is a wierd guy with boundary issues". And there are literally dozens of actions/evidence inconsistent with "Jerry is a pedophile but we need to cover it up to protect PSU".

This. I think you basically want to summarize the Clemente Report -- most pedophiles "get away" with it because they ingrain themselves into their community and people trust them. When anything suspicious is seen, people give them the benefit of the doubt and explain it away/rationalize it. Jerry Sandusky, a pillar of the community who founded an organization to help disadvantaged youths, fooled everyone including JoePa and C/S/S.

As a support for this phenomena, cite the earlier point about how Sue and Jay have stated repeatedly that they let their grandkids/kids play in the pool and hang around with Jerry. Would they have done that if they even slightly suspected he was a child molester?

If they are willing to spend any time on the issue online, you can refer them to the Malcolm Gladwell article on the topic where he provides other situations very similar to Sandusky.

 

[bamasota]

Don't quote or reference @JohnZiegler in any point you are trying to get across.

This is absolutely the best advice offered so far. Referencing anything associated with JZ will significantly damage whatever credibility you might have.

 

[Keyser Soze 16801]

This. I think you basically want to summarize the Clemente Report -- most pedophiles "get away" with it because they ingrain themselves into their community and people trust them. When anything suspicious is seen, people give them the benefit of the doubt and explain it away/rationalize it. .

John Wayne Gacy is an excellent example of this problem. The Secret Service was even fooled into giving him a security clearance for a parade that featured the then-president's wife (R. Carter). Everyone thought he was a pillar of the community.

 

[mbahses]

This is absolutely the best advice offered so far. Referencing anything associated with JZ will significantly damage whatever credibility you might have.

But you can't refute what he says.

 

[WeR0206]

Reiterate the facts that both 1998 and 2001 were reported OUTSIDE of PSU and that JS acess to PSU facilities didnt enable the abuse, his access to kids did and you can thank TSM/CC CYS/PA DPW/CC DA/CC Judges/PA OAG for that.

 

[PSUriseANDfire]

Just give him a copy of the Clemente Report and say "read it...or you are FoS."

 

[Westcoast24]

But you can't refute what he says.

Ok pnnylion

 

[mbahses]

Ok pnnylion

Nor can you.

 

[pandaczar12]

It's Frank Fina, not John

 

[pandaczar12]

The best way to learn about this case is to read CR66's posts, and believe the opposite. If there was any question of his bias, this idiotic post surely shows it:

3. Sandusky was fully investigated after prior reports and cleared. No charges were pursued by the DA. Despite no charges being filed, high level PSU administrators were aware of the '98 investigation which should have raised red flags when Mike came forward with what he saw.

Being aware of the '98 investigation and the outcome would logically only make anyone think it was another false alarm.

 

[tototootsi]

This. I think you basically want to summarize the Clemente Report -- most pedophiles "get away" with it because they ingrain themselves into their community and people trust them. When anything suspicious is seen, people give them the benefit of the doubt and explain it away/rationalize it. Jerry Sandusky, a pillar of the community who founded an organization to help disadvantaged youths, fooled everyone including JoePa and C/S/S.

As a support for this phenomena, cite the earlier point about how Sue and Jay have stated repeatedly that they let their grandkids/kids play in the pool and hang around with Jerry. Would they have done that if they even slightly suspected he was a child molester?

If they are willing to spend any time on the issue online, you can refer them to the Malcolm Gladwell article on the topic where he provides other situations very similar to Sandusky.

Good point. Everybody thought Ted Bundy was a pillar of the community.... serial killer caught in Florida for the young'uns out there.

 

[indynittany]

Would the NCAA have restored JVP's wins if they had any inkling of a belief that he protected a pedophile? No, of course not. Ergo....

Or any inkling that C/S/S might be found guilty of the charges against them.

 

[demlion]

Need some help. I have a friend who is quite intelligent and level-headed. Unfortunately, due to the media's reprehensible coverage of the Sandusky mess, he bought into the whole false narrative.
Of course, I'd like to convince him otherwise. The challenge is that I have to start with some points that have IMMEDIATE impact, because he has already said he tires of this debate and he believes I have an inherent bias because I'm an alumnus and JoePa fan.
I realize people have posted cogent summaries of the scandal here previously. I guess my question is what are the FIVE most eye opening, impactful facts to share with someone who has the potential to be reached? They cannot be too speculative, nor involve vast conspiracies. Simple, concise and impactful.
Some I am considering:
1. Sandusky was acquitted of the charge involving the incident with the boy that McQueary witnessed.
2. Erickson and others granted Sandusky use of PSU facilities as part of his retirement package. A package that JoePa opposed.
3. Sandusky was fully investigated after prior reports and cleared. No charges were pursued by the DA.
4. The prosecuting attorney in the Sandusky case, John Fina, adamantly stated that he found no evidence that JoePa was involved in any cover up. He did not believe that was the case.
5. Freeh was fed lines of inquiry and possible conclusion by the NCAA and PSU BOT members.

All help is appreciated. Thanks!

Show them this POS and tell them this is where CR-66 hangs out.

 

[ChandlerPearce]

I believe I would revisit why you think this guy is intelligent.

 

[doctornick]

Another way to approach such a talk is to ask the person what exactly they think happened and their proof for it. When they start listing "facts" that are unproven or downright false, then you can easily correct them. When they realize that they are basing their view on the matter of false pretenses, it makes it easier to reconsider their position.

Early on, I did this with one of my cousins and he was surprised at how much he took for granted as "fact" that the media was reporting that used to based an opinion on.

 

[roswelllion]

Need some help. I have a friend who is quite intelligent and level-headed. Unfortunately, due to the media's reprehensible coverage of the Sandusky mess, he bought into the whole false narrative.
Of course, I'd like to convince him otherwise. The challenge is that I have to start with some points that have IMMEDIATE impact, because he has already said he tires of this debate and he believes I have an inherent bias because I'm an alumnus and JoePa fan.
I realize people have posted cogent summaries of the scandal here previously. I guess my question is what are the FIVE most eye opening, impactful facts to share with someone who has the potential to be reached? They cannot be too speculative, nor involve vast conspiracies. Simple, concise and impactful.
Some I am considering:
1. Sandusky was acquitted of the charge involving the incident with the boy that McQueary witnessed.
2. Erickson and others granted Sandusky use of PSU facilities as part of his retirement package. A package that JoePa opposed.
3. Sandusky was fully investigated after prior reports and cleared. No charges were pursued by the DA.
4. The prosecuting attorney in the Sandusky case, John Fina, adamantly stated that he found no evidence that JoePa was involved in any cover up. He did not believe that was the case.
5. Freeh was fed lines of inquiry and possible conclusion by the NCAA and PSU BOT members.

All help is appreciated. Thanks!

In this order:
1. JS was completely investigated by Police and State agencies in 1998 and they did nothing and found no charges should be brought.[involvement of state authorities]
2. Joe and Sue never took action to keep JS from young Paterno family members.[no prior knowledge]
3. A seemingly similar incident occurs in 2001. Whatever MM told folks Dr. Dranov, Mr Mcqueary [also a medical professional] and Joe, no one was concerned when nothing was done for 10 more years AND there was no attempt to quiet anyone or coordinate stories.[no attempt at cover up and no apparent concern by those closest to situation]
4. MM continued to socialize with JS in charity events.[ see above]
4. Lead investigator Frank Fina stated publicly he found no evidence of Joe and a cover up.[lead investigator!!!]
5. Fina also stated he had no intention of prosecuting C/S.[see above]
6. NOT ONE PERSON OR GROUP has looked into the Freeh report and found it credible.[ if you have the inclination list the group of people who have found the report seriously lacking]

 

[91Joe95]

Before you know what to tell him you first have to know what he thinks happened. Ask him to explain that first, and pin him down. The corrections part is easy.

 

[bamasota]

In this order:

4. Lead investigator Frank Fina stated publicly he found no evidence of Joe and a cover up.[lead investigator!!!]

Just curious about Fina. I thought he was the prosecutor in the Sandusky trial. Why would he be looking for evidence concerning Joe and a cover up? When was he investigating this particular aspect?

 

[91Joe95]

Just curious about Fina. I thought he was the prosecutor in the Sandusky trial. Why would he be looking for evidence concerning Joe and a cover up? When was he investigating this particular aspect?

Is this a serious question or a joke?

 

[bamasota]

Is this a serious question or a joke?

Serious questions.

If Fina was the PA for the Sandusky trial, what would he be doing looking for evidence of JVP's role or lack thereof in a cover up? How would that affect his case against Sandusky?