Ray Blehar....MM caught in lie?
- Thread starter marshall23
- Start date
You are just playing with words. This is like the old "with the benefit of hindsight" canard.
Paterno was told and there is no way to spin that no matter how much you try.
I guess you are bad at language too. Words are very important.
"With the benefit of hindsight" isn't a "canard"; it is an important qualifier.
I put "canard" in quotes because you are using that word wrong. Canard means unfounded rumor or belief. Paterno said those words in that order, therefore it is not a canard.
hmmm, that's an interesting perspective to take.
If you believe GMJ you are sane but if you don't you are not ?????
Wow
How about another perspective, it doesn't matter. Joe doesn't matter. He was not and still should not be a focus in this situation even one iota (whatever an iota is) - he did what he should have. For those of you who cannot get it thru your head that is an undeniable FACT right now - he did the right thing so forget about him and focus on what really went wrong!
Why a small group of you focus on him is kind of creepy. I'm not sure why you would focus all of your efforts on the guy who did the right thing and actually helped convict JS - and further, somehow try and make him out to be a bad guy - that is just beyond me.
Tell me the difference between "I should have gone to grad school." and "With the benefit
of hindsight, I should have gone to grad school.". And thinking "With the benefit of hindsight"
changes the meaning of Paterno's statement is an unfounded belief.
You are part of the small cult that constantly starts threads about Paterno. I simply try to
add some sanity to the conversation.
I agree; you should have gone to graduate school and beefed up your language skills ;-)
Here is the difference (and why it absolutely does change the meaning):
"With the benefit of hindsight, I should have gone to graduate school" means: knowing what I know now (e.g. I can't get the job I want/I'm in the wrong field/I love learning/chicks dig PhDs), I should have gone to graduate school.
"I should have gone to graduate school" could mean the same thing (stated in a more ambiguous way), or it could mean that I knew at the time that I should have gone to graduate school, but I did not because I was too lazy/lacked focus/followed my girlfriend to Paris/couldn't afford it, etc.
Between you and jive, there is some serious need for remedial language skills.
This thread wasn't even about Paterno until you and your cronies made it about Paterno.
This thread started about how the OAG is corrupt and MM's story may have changed even more times than we thought. That is only tangentially related to Paterno.
hind·sight
ˈhīn(d)ˌsīt/
noun
noun: hindsight
- understanding of a situation or event only after it has happened or developed.
"with hindsight, I should never have gone"
You are showing your hindsight bias here.
If a co-worker came up to you and said, "Osprey Lion, I saw this guy that used to work with you the other night, and he was screaming at this little kid. I think he even slapped him in the face!", what would you do? My guess is that you'd probably do nothing. It's not wrong. Neither would I.
Now, if you heard this account, then later heard that the guy in question was accused of beating the ever loving shit out of dozens of kids, even hospitalizing some, would that surprise you? Do you think you should get in trouble for hearing about your co-worker's account, and doing nothing? Or would you have known the guy was a hard core child abuser once you heard the account from your co-worker?
I think it's clear that in using HINDSIGHT, you should have done something with the report of what your co-worker witnessed. His report to you did not sound off alarms that the person in question was a hard core child abuser, but in HINDSIGHT, it could/should have.
Last edited:
Now I’m a “cult” member ?
Hmmm- I don’t recall starting any threads about Joe
I only offer expertise based on my 30 year career including 24 in the non profit sector and having been responsible for HR and Compliance as well as writing CPSL procedures to educate folks on what is truly important - and guess what - it ain’t Joe Paterno
All you care about is hanging this on Paterno and keeping this discussion from evolving to what's really behind this farce.
In what bizarro world does that prove your point???
That completely disproves your point (that adding that phrase doesn't change the meaning of the sentence).
I'm at a loss at to whether you are being purposefully dim to troll us or if you are really this obtuse. I guess I hope it is the former (?)
un·der·stand·ing
ˌəndərˈstandiNG/
noun
noun: understanding
1.
the ability to understand something; comprehension.
Paterno was told a soft version of McQueary's already soft story. Even Dranov testified that MM didn't say anything worthy of calling the police. Regardless, Paterno followed university and now NCAA policy and reported it to the athletic director and the person who oversaw university police.
There's no way to spin that no matter how much you try.
Last edited:
Except, of course, Joe said "wish" not "should". There's a large meaning in difference there.
Thanks but my question related to the protocol for the teacher.
A reasonable response; thank you.
You ask "So again I'll ask - was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?"
Not in my mind. I think one has to perform analytical gymnastics to reach "a confusion" narrative. To me the administration reports to the appropriate state agencies what MM reported to them; it's pretty cut and dried.
A second report of the same behavior after being told not to do it wouldn't have been ignored.
Don't let the desire to defend Paterno lead you to terrible arguments. You only weaken your legitimate points of contention.
As my response to another poster said, I'm questioning the protocol (if any) where a report of alleged sexual assault ends up in File 13.
You obviously don't understand the point of a procedure. You follow it verbatim, and if you discover a step that you can not follow and it needs to be changed, you stop work and get the appropriate people to make the change. That certainly wasn't Joe's responsibility
Well one reason they went after C/S/S was they lied about 98. For all of the complaining about the OAG it's a fact they invited it by not being completely honest.
Now you can certainly question why the OAG was compelled to prosecute it when offering a chance to amend their testimony was more appropriate. Perjury is a very hard thing to prosecute and it they seemed to be out for blood.
TSM should have gotten the scorched earth treatment. Instead they were protected and that's something more people should be focused on.
You are an idiot to think a phone call would have spurred any action. No victim, no complaint,no action.
Only a toadie or a paid stooge would keep trying to sell this bullshit. Hell, even after all adverse publicity, child protective services does not even follow up on a quarter of their complaints. Go pedal your shit to the Pennlies fools.
Wrong again. You lie just like MM. There no was a report of alleged sexual assault. Not to daddy, not to the doctor, not to anyone. You just sucked that from the OAG tittie.
I get that. HOWEVER--and this is part of the Commonwealth's own rules for CSA--unless there is a prosecution, you'd never know and never be allowed to know where that report ends up. If a report were found to be unfounded by the authorities (not PSU but state), then it gets purged. Also, one of the rules about any criminal investigation is that the police do not talk about it. At all. If it is still an ongoing investigation. Unless they are asking for info. As a civic association and block watch leader, I've run into that a few times.
Since a teacher is a mandatory reporter, my question was ill-phrased.
Let me try again; if a report of sexual assault is reported by an individual who is not a mandated reporter, are you aware of any protocols which preclude that individual from contacting the police if the report ended up in File 13?
How would you know if it ended up there??
I do know, in the case of other investigations when I've worked with police (not CSA) in our block watch that the standard answer is "no comment" or "we cannot talk about an investigation".
This would only apply to the Admins, there's no need to defend Paterno as he did the right thing.
I understand what you are saying, but your position assumes an investigation. Where there is no investigation as to the alleged abuse, it would seem that individuals with knowledge of the reported abuse are free to contact the authorities; either law enforcement or CYS.
Am I wrong?
Again, how would you know if there is/was an investigation or not?
If the individual who saw the alleged abuse was never contacted by any authorities it is logical to conclude the report resides in File 13.
It doesn't matter if the police answered "no comment" or whatever, you made the effort to inquire. My questions have related to any protocols which would have prevented your inquiry, and it appears there are none.
Thanks Ray. Personally I'm of the opinion that the County CYS and State DPW may not have been working on the same playing field. IOW I suspect the County agency was trying to protect Jerry, and withheld info and/or misrepresented info to the State. I could be wrong and should further info ever come to light I'm more than happy to change that opinion but I've believed for a long time that certain people at the County agency were not on the level. I know it's your belief it was more on the State.
I don't know if I understand your question. Who did he/she report it to initially? When in doubt, you follow the best practice procedures and protocols given to you and then get out of the way. I don't know how you would know if it ended up in your File 13. If I was this person, I would assume that is was investigated. If I later found out it wasn't, I would not be at fault but my trust would be gone. The problem here is even if telling TSM ended up being your File 13, TSM is not File 13 in the eyes of the state. That is what is so perplexing here.
First of all, nobody knows the context in which Jerry was told not to shower alone with TSM kids.
Was it an admonishment?: "What you're doing is wrong. We'll be keeping an eye on you. Don't do it again!"
Or was it a warning?: "Mr. Sandusky, sir, it would be in your best interest if you refrained from putting yourself in situations like this going forward. If that boy had accused you of some form of sexual abuse, you would have no way to prove your innocence. You're taking a huge risk! BTW, can you get a couple of tickets for my wife and me to the game this Saturday?"
A second report of the same behavior was not going to raise any eyebrows, since there was no accusation of CSA in the first report. To whit, Jack Raykovitz thought that by having Jerry wear swim trunks in the shower, the problem would be solved.
In a case where:
- we know the OAG lied in the presentment (and have known it for five years),
- the witness, whose closet is full of skeletons, is known to have been coerced by the prosecution,
- the matter was reported through proper channels to the executive director of TSM,
- the so called victim is on record saying he was never abused that night or ever,....
....how is it possible that Penn State not only chose not to defend itself and to stand by its leaders, it materially contributed to the ruination of the university's reputation and the reputations of those men?
Similar threads
