Sally Jenkins is at it again

[rmb297]

Here is Sally Jenkins email to me from the summer of 2012. No doubt, she was taken in by Freeh's theatrics at his press conference. You can read the Freeh Report cover to cover 1 million times and you won't find any evidence of Paterno following the 1998 investigation....but Jenkins believes he knew because the Freeh Report said Curley was Joe's "errand boy."

It also obvious she had no clue about the trial verdicts (i.e., Jerry raped children in the Penn State locker room). Again, taken in by Freeh's press conference theatrics.

She's a lying Piece of ...Work because she wrote about how she read the Freeh Report and reviewed the emails to draw her conclusions about Paterno. That's BS. She probably just got the sound bites from the press conference, like the rest of the lazy tool bags in the media.

• Sally Jenkins <jenkinss@washpost.com>
  
• 07/13/12 at 5:41 PM

To

• Ray Blehar

Message body
Hi, thanks for reading the Post, but the emails contained in the report are absolute slam dunks to me and only someone trying very, very hard to find an inch of legal room for Paterno could interpret them any other way than as what they are: proof that Paterno was fully briefed on a police investigation he followed anxiously in 1998. And which he certainly would have remembered. Furthermore Tim Curley was his personal protege and handpicked athletic director and the idea that he kept anything from Paterno strains credulity. What's more, its obvious that all of the PSU officials carefully avoided knowing so much as the name of a child, much less making any inquiries about them. And yet they were concerned about being "humane" towards "Jerry." Your argument gets knocked back on its ass by one solid fact: Jerry Sandusky raped children in the Penn State locker room. I did my best to be fair and open minded to Paterno for many many months, and still intend to be, but those emails are not just smoking guns, there are flames leaping from them. Best, Sally

 

[simons96]

Here is Sally Jenkins email to me from the summer of 2012. No doubt, she was taken in by Freeh's theatrics at his press conference. You can read the Freeh Report cover to cover 1 million times and you won't find any evidence of Paterno following the 1998 investigation....but Jenkins believes he knew because the Freeh Report said Curley was Joe's "errand boy."

It also obvious she had no clue about the trial verdicts (i.e., Jerry raped children in the Penn State locker room). Again, taken in by Freeh's press conference theatrics.

She's a lying Piece of ...Work because she wrote about how she read the Freeh Report and reviewed the emails to draw her conclusions about Paterno. That's BS. She probably just got the sound bites from the press conference, like the rest of the lazy tool bags in the media.

• Sally Jenkins <jenkinss@washpost.com>
  
• 07/13/12 at 5:41 PM

To

• Ray Blehar

Message body
Hi, thanks for reading the Post, but the emails contained in the report are absolute slam dunks to me and only someone trying very, very hard to find an inch of legal room for Paterno could interpret them any other way than as what they are: proof that Paterno was fully briefed on a police investigation he followed anxiously in 1998. And which he certainly would have remembered. Furthermore Tim Curley was his personal protege and handpicked athletic director and the idea that he kept anything from Paterno strains credulity. What's more, its obvious that all of the PSU officials carefully avoided knowing so much as the name of a child, much less making any inquiries about them. And yet they were concerned about being "humane" towards "Jerry." Your argument gets knocked back on its ass by one solid fact: Jerry Sandusky raped children in the Penn State locker room. I did my best to be fair and open minded to Paterno for many many months, and still intend to be, but those emails are not just smoking guns, there are flames leaping from them. Best, Sally

did she read different emails?

 

[Black Elmo 2]

You have to admit, the 'I spoke with Joe' email doesn't help.

 

[bkmtnittany1]

Can someone point out to me any emails where JVP actually said something to anyone? Last time I checked there are no emails anywhere where someone quoted JVP....I believe the Curley email to Shultz or Spanier said something on the line of "After talking it over with Joe(or coach), I am not comfortable etc....." Nowhere in that email does it say what Coach or Joe said. Joe or Coach could have said( and I am inclined to believe this is what happened), "You guys stop bothering me with this garbage, fry his ass if you want. He isnt on my staff and he doesnt work here anymore, leave me out of this..." Sally Jenkins is a tool...much like cr66

 

[simons96]

Can someone point out to me any emails where JVP actually said something to anyone? Last time I checked there are no emails anywhere where someone quoted JVP....I believe the Curley email to Shultz or Spanier said something on the line of "After talking it over with Joe(or coach), I am not comfortable etc....." Nowhere in that email does it say what Coach or Joe said. Joe or Coach could have said( and I am inclined to believe this is what happened), "You guys stop bothering me with this garbage, fry his ass if you want. He isnt on my staff and he doesnt work here anymore, leave me out of this..." Sally Jenkins is a tool...much like cr66

on a similar note, I was talking to someone this weekend about Triponey. And he says, "Didn't Joe send Spanier to fire her?"

I had to pause a minute and work back that this "allegation" was TRIPONEY telling a reporter something she claims SPANIER claimed that JOE said to SPANIER (about backing out of raising money if Triponey didn't back off)

Like the scene in Deadpool where he breaks the fourth wall WHILE breaking the fourth wall . . . I had to marvel at secondhand secondhand SECONHAND utterances people take as Gospel . . .

 

[bkmtnittany1]

And didn't Louie the Liar coin the phrase, "One can reasonably assume or conclude" and say that assuming is actually indisputable proof? Of course our GED educated media bought it hook line and sinker.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

And didn't Louie the Liar coin the phrase, "One can reasonably assume or conclude" and say that assuming is actually indisputable proof? Of course our GED educated media bought it hook line and sinker.

I hit "Like" because of your "GED educated media" phrase but, unfortunately, these c0@ksu@kers have degrees from legitimate universities including Northwestern and Syracuse! Such is the state of our education system and, especially, journalism programs.

 

[bkmtnittany1]

ziggy...what's amazing is that they investigate and write as if they barely were able to get a GED!

 

[rmb297]

You have to admit, the 'I spoke with Joe' email doesn't help.

That phrase is meaningless. Spoke to Joe about what? For how long?

And there's a very good chance that phrase was inserted into the email...in other words, the email was altered.

Have a nice day.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

If the email was altered, the burden would be on C/S/S/P to prove it. So far, that hasn't been suggested by anyone with any legitimate connection to the pending cases.

Curley could be lying. Maybe he didn't speak to Paterno. Maybe Paterno did not influence his decision despite what Curley said in the email. Of course, that would mean Curley had the foresight to craft a phony statement implicating Paterno about 9 or 10 years before any investigation. Is he that clever? Is he that disloyal?

Maybe he was talking about Joe Namath, or Joe Frazier, or Joe Pesci.

Or maybe none of the above and the email has to be taken at face value. Maybe not a smoking gun with flames leaping from it, but it certainly isn't helpful.

 

[rmb297]

If the email was altered, the burden would be on C/S/S/P to prove it. So far, that hasn't been suggested by anyone with any legitimate connection to the pending cases.

Curley could be lying. Maybe he didn't speak to Paterno. Maybe Paterno did not influence his decision despite what Curley said in the email. Of course, that would mean Curley had the foresight to craft a phony statement implicating Paterno about 9 or 10 years before any investigation. Is he that clever? Is he that disloyal?

Maybe he was talking about Joe Namath, or Joe Frazier, or Joe Pesci.

Or maybe none of the above and the email has to be taken at face value. Maybe not a smoking gun with flames leaping from it, but it certainly isn't helpful.

Prosecutorial misconduct is part of the defense strategy of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier and authenticity of the emails is in question.

I consulted with four experts, all of whom concluded that the email was of questionable origin. One expert, who testified as an expert witness in over 200 IT related cases, recognized it as altered on sight.

Also, Freeh Exhibit 2B was such a butcher job that the Commonwealth wouldn't recognize it as evidence. And two of the experts actually laughed out loud when they looked at that one.

BTW, McQueary also made a filing that requested PSU to authenticate the emails. PSU stalled in response, saying the emails spoke for themselves. Eventually, PSU convinced McQueary's legal team to drop the issue, likely because the emails weren't germane to his whistleblower suit.

 

[EPC FAN]

Joe was a leader in many things besides football. That's his name on the library, isn't it?

If you asked him about books, he could tell you a lot. In matters of pedophilia, not so much. Are you just being obtuse?

 

[EPC FAN]

You have to admit, the 'I spoke with Joe' email doesn't help.

Nobody knows what Joe said, but lets ASSuME the worst.

 

[PSU_Chicago]

If she is so wrong, are you saying that you think Joe DID enable child molestation? Because Sally Jenkins was quite clear in her position that he DID NOT, and it was unfair to suggest he did.

Or does she have "journalistic integrity" when she agrees with you, but is a hack when she disagrees?

Seriously? At best this is too little too late. She already piled on with the rest of the jackals and ruined a man's reputation, earned over 80+ years, where no evidence of the allegations existed. And that statement that he did not was presented as a tag line in another story. It should be presented in a much different fashion.

 

[Aoshiro]

If the email was altered, the burden would be on C/S/S/P to prove it. So far, that hasn't been suggested by anyone with any legitimate connection to the pending cases.
.

That's where you are wrong.
If this case ever makes it to trial (ha ha ha), the prosecution is going to have the burden of 1) proving the authenticity of the emails and 2) making the case that the email proves some kind of wrongdoing.

With respect to the first, there do seem to be some serious questions about the provenance of the email messages, especially concerning how they were "discovered." With respect the the second, the messages don't show any wrongdoing at all. There is no mention of any child being molested and there is no discussion of how to "cover up" anything. The principles have always acknowledged that Mike made some kind of report to them (so it's hardly surprising that they were discussing what to do with that report) and the only part of the plan that was changed was that Curley would tell Sandusky about the report (the original plan was to go to the 2nd Mile without telling Sandusky).

Without the crazy, conspiratorial inferences drawn by Freeh and Fina, those emails don't prove anything at all.

PS. Has anyone else noticed that CR66 disappeared and Black Elmo became more vocal after that list of golf club members was posted? Weird, huh?

 

[simons96]

That's where you are wrong.
If this case ever makes it to trial (ha ha ha), the prosecution is going to have the burden of 1) proving the authenticity of the emails and 2) making the case that the email proves some kind of wrongdoing.

With respect to the first, there do seem to be some serious questions about the provenance of the email messages, especially concerning how they were "discovered." With respect the the second, the messages don't show any wrongdoing at all. There is no mention of any child being molested and there is no discussion of how to "cover up" anything. The principles have always acknowledged that Mike made some kind of report to them (so it's hardly surprising that they were discussing what to do with that report) and the only part of the plan that was changed was that Curley would tell Sandusky about the report (the original plan was to go to the 2nd Mile without telling Sandusky).

Without the crazy, conspiratorial inferences drawn by Freeh and Fina, those emails don't prove anything at all.

PS. Has anyone else noticed that CR66 disappeared and Black Elmo became more vocal after that list of golf club members was posted? Weird, huh?

any idiot with a ruler can see some of those emails were altered.

heck, I even used a ruler to see some of those emails were altered!!!

uhm . . . shoot, what was I saying?

and thanks for pointing out, once again, that when dealing with the horrific crime of child molestation, and covering up on of the most heinous acts imaginable, C/S/S use only the most mundane and measured language in their emails. and never use the word "molestation" or "cover up". or "sweet Jesus we better not get caught or we're gonna fry!". or "make sure that McQuaid kid is on a 3-1/2 year fast track to an assistant coaching job, or he might squeal!!"