Victims of Jerry Sandusky don't tell anyone, or they tell Joe Paterno?
Give me a break
Give me a break
So as I understand it
- Thread starter bobroars
- Start date
And they all had open access to Paterno whenever they wanted. The press didn't, other coaches didn't, boosters didn't, but any abused kid could just walk in and see him at random.
Does not matter. The shit hits the fan again. This 76 stuff all over the loacal TV and radio chs now.
We are fvcked.
Kind of like it has been orchestrated by somebody. No?
Not much more that they can do to us at this point.
That's what this BOT did. They simply said "if you've got a claim, we will pay out in full, even if you make it up. We double it if it contains two words; Joe Paterno".
One line of 'alleged' garbage from a court report accusation from a company that is trying to weasel out of paying out a ton of cash. And it reignites the flame for the pinheads of the world to jump around banging on their hate everything Paterno drums. Some will find any excuse.
Sorry...not buying it. Not for a second.
Sorry...not buying it. Not for a second.
Actually I disagree... If anything this has put the BOT in a corner... They now must come out swinging... They have to defend themselves and crazy as it it seems.,, must defend Joe as part of this particular lawsuit.
The failure of the Old Guard BOT in this entire sad affair is epic... Books will be written... Perhaps movies made of what a disaster the so called " leaders" of our beloved University helped create.
You have to hit rock bottom before crawling back up to recovery... And this is rock bottom and IMO their last desperate act... No where to turn now but getting to the truth.
Peetz , Frazier , Surma , Erickson and others.., you will go down as some of the worst villains of all time...
I'm not saying it happened but my guess is that access to a college football coach was much different in 1976 than it is today. Couple that with the possibility that if it was a Sandusky victim, and Sandusky was part of the program (and there is some evidence that Sandusky used the program to lure kids) than I could see why a victim might have more access to Coach Paterno than the average kid.
Now that same kid had access to lots of other adults as well. Did he only tell Coach Paterno? That seems a little far fetched but who knows. My question would be that if the kid was 6-12 in '76 he would be 46-52 now. You would have think this would have come out a few years back when the whole Sandusky saga was going on and every member of the media was poking into everything related to PSU.
Hawk, your post is reasonable. And I agree that the environment around a football program in terms of access in the mid 70s was far different than what we see today. But your two concerns are the biggest questions in my mind: 1) this kid, assuming he had access, told Paterno and no one else? and 2) where has this claim been when everyone and their brother was looking for something to support the narrative that Paterno was a pedophile enabler? How did this stay hidden?
This is pre-second mile and JS was a LB coach at the time so its very unlikely that JS had kids just running around the program
Allegedly a kid tells one guy something horrible, and that guy doesn't tell anyone about it. 30+ years later there's a Grand Jury investigation that goes on for years, gathering information and testimony from hundreds of witnesses and this is never mentioned. Yet, somehow, an insurance company knows about it...and we're all talking about it...40 years later?
*boggle*
*boggle*
Correct. If you're molested you tell Coach Joe and if you see JS molesting a kid you tell Coach Joe. Makes total sense.
As others may have mentioned another part of this 1976 story that makes no sense whatsoever is what incentive did Joe have to keep Jerry in the program after supposedly being told about this, why would he promote him to defense of coordinator one year later if he was told that JS was molesting some kid? If Joe was only concerned about protecting his football program wouldn't he want nothing to do with Jerry (who was only no name linebacker coach at the time) being on his staff after being told this? It makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever.
Correct. If you're molested you tell Coach Joe and if you see JS molesting a kid you tell Coach Joe. Makes total sense.
Exactly right - victims and witnesses don't tell their parents, teachers, friends, guidance counselors, camp counselors, sports team coaches, neighbors, police, etc. Instead, they ride their bike to campus and walk in the door of the football offices to tell Joe. That's how it works in State College. This is so freaking absurd.
you're assuming they want to win the lawsuit. This may just be an exercise of which they knew the outcome and have been able to place the blame on the dead guy ... again. Many have said they didn't have a prayer in this lawsuit. It's just a matter of who to blame now. And once again the finger goes back to poor Joe.
The very sad thing in all of this is that for Joe, there was no and continues to be no due process.
Remember that the narrative is that 'JOEPA' ran the football program, the university, the town, the surrounding community, heck the entire state. So even a child knows that there is no reason to go anywhere else, or to anyone else. Simply figure out where Joe Paterno will be after you come home from school, or perhaps it's on a weekend and you have more time to track Joe down and deliver the news in person. From there 'JOE KNOWS ALL' and you never have to bring it up again the rest of your life. Makes perfect sense and seems logical to seemingly any media source available fourty years later anyway.
What's more likely, one of your scenarios or that these "victims" don't really exist?
It's possible that the insurance company was able to conduct a more thorough investigation because it didn't have to navigate all the political red tape that could muck up a government agency led investigation. After all, I'm sure there are folks at every level that would prefer to turn the page as quickly as possible.
On the other hand, the Insurance company has 60 million reasons to turn over every stone prior to making a claim payment of that magnitude. They have re-insurers to answer to. Not to mention their insurance license is on the line.
On the other hand, the Insurance company has 60 million reasons to turn over every stone prior to making a claim payment of that magnitude. They have re-insurers to answer to. Not to mention their insurance license is on the line.
Everybody and their brother has investigated this for years and the only one that can turn this up is the insurance company? Hmm...
Yeah, if it looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit, and tastes like bullshit, you can rest assured it's most likely bullshit.
I won't give you any money, but I'll buy you a beer.I remember that like it was yesterday
by the way Marshall....
Perhaps the insurance company didn't need to find this person at all. PSU probably paid this person already (thus bringing it to the insurance company's attention) and the insurance company is simply propping this allegation up and the fact that PSU already paid/vetted him as an example of why they don't need to pay PSU back.
If PSU would have simply let the insurance company handle all settlement claims and make the people prove in court how PSU is liable then PSU wouldn't have to fight with PMA. Instead PSU embraced the freeh narrative that ASSUMED CSS/Joe were guilty and paid out any and all claims that involved Joe/PSU AD especially if they asked for freeh report source files in discovery! After that PMA would obviously point to certain clauses as to why they didn't need to pay PSU back.
This whole thing has been one big ruse to help cement the current false narrative. PSU has known all along that since they embraced freeh there was no chance in hell PMA would reimburse them.
Howie, I understand Woodford Reserve is a great companion to beer
and an empty stomachWeR: Appreciate the well thought out response.
I don't think PSU could simply let the Insurance company handle all the settlement payments directly; some sort of sustained Loss would likely be a precondition to filing a claim. In other words, it's more likely that PSU is required to first investigate each case and make the settlement payments directly. Only then would they be able to claim the out-of-pocket expense as the Loss.
Obviously I don't have a copy of the contract, so I don't know for sure, but that's how it works in my experience.
To your final point, if PSU had known there was no chance that PMA would reimburse them, why bother filing the claim considering the possible negative blowback..?
I don't think PSU could simply let the Insurance company handle all the settlement payments directly; some sort of sustained Loss would likely be a precondition to filing a claim. In other words, it's more likely that PSU is required to first investigate each case and make the settlement payments directly. Only then would they be able to claim the out-of-pocket expense as the Loss.
Obviously I don't have a copy of the contract, so I don't know for sure, but that's how it works in my experience.
To your final point, if PSU had known there was no chance that PMA would reimburse them, why bother filing the claim considering the possible negative blowback..?
Because they had to appease the alumni/tax payers who were worried about all the money PSU was handing out like candy. They said don't worry, insurance will cover it but they knew that was B.S. since they commissioned and embraced what freeh had to say and admitted that Joe/CSS/PSU AD were enablers of JS. Because of that they knew PMA would claim that there were clauses in the contract that state PSU is on the hook for child abuse claims that they knew about.
They can now, again, blame the dead guy Joe for why PMA isn't going to reimburse them, how convenient!
