Your handle was created in 2012 (your profile is locked) and you only have 5 total posts and they all seem to be in this thread.....that's....interesting...Nice shill account you have there! Who gave you the bat signal to dust off this old ass shill account and get into this thread? Do you get paid per post or how does that work with your employer?
It wouldn't surprise me. His account reeks of being a shill/disinfo agent. The shills LOVE to point to that dumbass interview Joe did with Sassano 10 freaking years after the event and new info etc. could have clouded his judgement. He was also dealing with cancer at the time of that interview.
FWIW the police report doesn’t say that. It’s interesting the way it played out…it’s pretty clear the prosecution took advantage of joes old age imho …
Here is what I found:
Both Curley and Schultz served time in jail. I think Curley got three months. I've seen their mug shots.
True but Spanier served about two months right?
Do you have a cite where the juror said that?
Did the juror say that? Cite?
The people at TSM (who laughed Tim out of their office) were child welfare officials since the state contracted foster care, etc. services out to TSM. The PSU admins weren't even considered mandatory reporters but the people running TSM where. Again why were TSM losers like Raykovitz treated with kid gloves while school admins had the book thrown at them?
That's irrelevant. It would impact his cognitive ability whether he knew he had cancer at the time or not. Just go away you loser shill. Way to ignore my post with all the testimony/judicial fuuckery and also ignore the fact that I called you out for being an obvious SHILL. Or did you just randomly create an account 10+ years ago, not post a single time, then stumble across this thread today?
We agree the BOT handled it poorly--the "never would have happened" part doesn't matter because it did and that's what the public remembers. And that's all they care about and all they will ever care about.
Did you just basically say he can't use Joe's words to say what Joe knew?
I never said Joe wasn't made aware of 2001. The details in the Sassano interview are inherently unreliable though.
But wasn't that about what sex acts were told to him? Did he ever back off that the incident was sexual, with a child? He was pretty clear on that when he spoke to Sassano it seems.
Didn't you say that Joe was not involved once he reported? Here is what Freeh said "As detailed in my report, the e-mails and contemporary documents from 2001 show that, despite Mr. Paterno's knowledge and McQueary's observations, four of the most powerful officials at Penn State agreed not to report Sandusky's activity to public officials. As made clear in the attachments to our report, on February 25, 2001, Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz agreed to report Sandusky's abuse to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. On February 27, 2001, these men agreed that reporting to DPW was not required, reasoning in the words of Graham Spanier that "[t]he only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it." The only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 and the agreement not to report on February 27, 2001, was Mr. Paterno's February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley regarding what to do about Sandusky. Again, this conversation was memorialized in the contemporary email, where Mr. Curley said "[a]fter giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday -- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps."
Why do you think he even mentioned Joe? Was it name dropping to get the other two to go along with his plan?
Because of his power within the institution and his image of being a great man as well as a coach?
What about the report in 1998 that said Sandusky was a likely pedophile?
Freeh said they showed a stunning lack of remorse for the victims.
Wouldn't the best course then would have been to call the police and have it properly investigated? Wouldn't that be better prevention?
Who created this narrative and what is their motive? Just to ruin PSU?
The police report was a summary and not a transcript. Can't be sure of what they asked Joe.
Well one would think the alleged most important part of what Joe said would have been documented. And Guess who Joe met with after that police interview and just before he testified before the grand jury…
It is you making an excuse. Paterno wasn't prepped for the interview? Are you being serious?
Please stop trying to say Sandusky is innocent. My God--we all know better and it makes us look insane.
The prosecutors. I haven’t looked at this stuff for years but I have it somewhere…
Freeh said?? Bhahahaaa!! No one gives AF what corrupt asshole freeh had to say about anything.
WTF are you talking about? All I said was relying on someone's ten year old recollection about an inappropriate shower is inherently unreliable, to me it's completely worthless. People that cling onto that Sassano interview as if its some huge indictment against Joe/admins are morons who aren't being intellectually honest.
Mug shots are taken at time of arrest, not incarceration. If you don’t know the fundamentals, there is no longer a need to discuss this with you.
See you say it's worthless because you then said it's an indictment against Joe. It isn't and that's the argument you should be making not that what he's saying is inaccurate. We know he knew of an incident and he followed the correct procedure.
It's possible that the police told him they would drop the other issues if he agreed to lower the boom on JS. It's also possible that they said they would drop the issue of MM failing to do more to stop what he saw. I haven't heard evidence of this but it's possible.
I worked for multiple companies much smaller than PSU that had clearly defined whistleblower policies back then.
So is there any proof that the Police threatened MM in order to get testimony from him? Did they even suspect gambling? Was gambling ever proven except allegations from old roommates who were mad at him for the scandal? Are those type pictures illegal between consenting adults? Why would the police care about such?
I never said that. What I said was that the govt dropped all the major charges to get them to plead to a minor misdemeanor. I recall Curley didn’t testify the way they wanted so went for a bigger sentence (in other worlds that is called blackmail)
You do accept that's a standard tactic used to get a conviction and save money, right? It doesn't mean other crimes didn't occur
The standard tactic is to overcharge (can't prove the charges with evidence but they use it to leverage out a lesser conviction/plea).
Talk about not understanding the legal system...sigh. The scariest part is you don't even comprehend how delisional you are about this.
Everyone convicted feels they got a raw deal. This is honestly the most ridiculous thread here in a long time.
Ok good.
