ADVERTISEMENT

Spanier targeting Lubert

Well - that's not how Ira put it. Joe "had to go" because whatever IT was happened on his watch.
I'd be inclined to agree with that argument in Spanier's case. Now I am not saying I think Spanier is guilty. At all. Hope he wins his suit. But it was on his watch. There is some responsibility there--and President of a University is far more akin to a CEO.
 
For those who can't read the images from the book, I've typed out the text for your convenience. Is it me, or does something seem a little off about Martin's role as a "character witness" for the defense? McGettigan is suspiciously cocky.

Following the lunch recess at 12:50 pm, forty-five-year-old Dr. James S. Martin -- a very handsome man who looked more like a thirty-something -- took the stand. His easy smile and engaging demeanor made him instantly likeable. He had a marked leaning toward everything intellectual.

Martin testified that he had attended Penn State University as an undergraduate and then Hershey Medical for his medical degree. Martin completed his orthopedic residency at the University of Iowa, followed by a one-year fellowship in Birmingham, Alabama.

Martin was more important as a character witness than most in the courtroom may have realized, although his prominence may not have been lost on the jury. He is a partner of the prestigious Martin & Suhey Orthopedics in State College and is chief of surgery at Mount Nittany Medical Center. Martin is a Healthgrades Recognized Doctor, which identifies him as a leading board certified doctor in his area of specialty. Martin enjoys an excellent reputation statewide with approximately 80 percent of his patients highly approving of his expertise.

While completing his degree at the University Park campus, Martin was a dominant sports and academic figure: he was honored as top senior male athlete at Penn State and won NCAA Wrestling All American status for four years and GTE Academic All American honors every year.

... fast forward to questions about Jerry ...


"I think that was a very well generally accepted feeling," Martin assented. He smiled in a comfortable way.
"What was his reputation for those characteristics?"
"I think he was an honest, caring--"
Amendola interrupted, "Truthful, law abiding?"
"Truth, law abiding," agreed Martin.
"Peaceful?"
Martin nodded his head up and down.
"Thank you," stated Amendola. "That's all I have."

McGettigan rose and smiled at this man who was, indeed, a hero himself.
"You said that that was his reputation. Has his reputation changed?" he jumped right in.
Martin lingered for several moments, appearing to choose his words carefully. Sandusky looked on carefully, waiting to hear how the good doctor would respond.
"I think everybody..." he started but then stopped. "There's a lot of speculation about his reputation at this point because of what has transpired," he finished.
Martin was clearly trying to be as discreet as possible, to sidestep anything specific.
McGettigan was not going to let a character witness of this caliber off so easily.
"So it's fair to say that among those people that you know who know the defendant, there are some who would believe he has a bad reputation for those characteristics that defense counsel pointed out. Is that so?"
Martin paused cautiously before responding, "I think a lot of people just don't know right now."
It seemed as if the witness's equivocation took everyone slightly by surprise. A moment ago, he gave a ringing endorsement. That seemed to weaken a little. Pleased with this progress, McGettigan moved to Martin's familial background: he grew up in a stable family with a resident father, mother, and three siblings -- probably an indication as to why Sandusky did not target him. He usually operated within circles of disadvantaged and broken families. Besides, Martin was already seventeen or eighteen years old as a freshman in college when he met Sandusky, well beyond the age of predatory value to the coach. However, McGettigan established to some degree of success that it was Sandusky who had introduced himself to the teenager and vigorously pursued their relationship.

With a mischievous grin, McGettigan asked Martin if he had ever showered with Sandusky.
"I have not, no. I did not."
"Did you know him to shower with other boys?"
"You know, I recall one instance when I was -- I believe it was that time when I stayed at his house that him and another boy during the middle of the day on the weekend that I went to work out and they were finishing their homework at the football complex when they were going to go and shower. I was going to work out. That's my only recollection of ever knowing of him showering with any boy."

Although this may have seemed like an innocuous memory, I thought it was a bit profound. Just in the routine association with Sandusky, here was yet another person who saw him heading to shower with a young boy. How many people are out there like that?
When asked if he knew anything about Sandusky's relationship with boys, Martin offered that he did see him on many occasions with Second Mile kids and that children from that organization were "around him with a lot of things he did." It seemed to Martin that, yes, when he was present, "there were a lot of Second Mile kids around... young boys, age ten to fifteen."​

link to e-book starting with Rossman and Leiter getting caught about a lie captured on tape: https://books.google.com/books?id=4_BsBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT363&lpg=PT373&focus=viewport&dq="mcgettigan+rose+and+smiled"&output=html_text
 
Last edited:
I'd be inclined to agree with that argument in Spanier's case. Now I am not saying I think Spanier is guilty. At all. Hope he wins his suit. But it was on his watch. There is some responsibility there--and President of a University is far more akin to a CEO.
I think there is a decent possibility that Spanier never got the same story that Paterno and MM told C&S.
 
Nothing makes a Penn Live dick stand up more quickly, than the mention of Paterno.
1hwb38.jpg
 
I think there is a decent possibility that Spanier never got the same story that Paterno and MM told C&S.
It's a certainty that the story that was whispered down the lane was not the same to any person(s) who did not hear it together (i.e., C&S heard same story..., but their's was different then what Paterno heard, and Spanier, and Dranov, etc)
 
It's a certainty that the story that was whispered down the lane was not the same to any person(s) who did not hear it together (i.e., C&S heard same story..., but their's was different then what Paterno heard, and Spanier, and Dranov, etc)
Well, it's a little different in this case. The only whispering down the lane that occurred was C&S to Spanier. MM's father, Dr D., Paterno and C&S all heard the story straight from MM.
 
BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



GMJ is just one of that brand of idiot who ought to be kicked square in the nuts once an hour, on the hour

He's a eunuch, and it won't phase him any - but it's the proper exercise nevertheless
Do you think that I support anyone on the BOT or the Freeh report for that matter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stufftodo
I'm just going to have to disagree with you there. As BOT members, they are forced to tackle many issues. The only issues that you hear about publicly over the past 5 years involve Joe Paterno (directly or indirectly).


Jive: I cannot speak for the A9. I do believe each has his or her agendas, but please understand that until the Paterno issue is appropriately addressed by Penn State, the University cannot move on. It's been five years, and while many are weary and wary, the anger has not diminished among many.

It could be debated, but it was the Paterno issue that got Corbett voted out of office. This was at a time when Republicans were taking more governorships. So, it is a very real issue. Penn State continues to hope that if the matter is continually kicked down the road, it will eventually go away. It's not.

Joe was everybody's coach/mentor. I always found his opinions on a variety of subjects to be thoughtful and illuminating.
 
Interesting. So hypothetically if the review of the Freeh's work were to prove that the "findings" from his report differed demonstrably from the actual data sourced from the interviews, then, in your opinion, Frazier is the responsible party. Do I have that right?
Do you think that I feel Frazier did well?
 
Jive: I cannot speak for the A9. I do believe each has his or her agendas, but please understand that until the Paterno issue is appropriately addressed by Penn State, the University cannot move on. It's been five years, and while many are weary and wary, the anger has not diminished among many.

It could be debated, but it was the Paterno issue that got Corbett voted out of office. This was at a time when Republicans were taking more governorships. So, it is a very real issue. Penn State continues to hope that if the matter is continually kicked down the road, it will eventually go away. It's not.

Joe was everybody's coach/mentor. I always found his opinions on a variety of subjects to be thoughtful and illuminating.
I'll just have to disagree with you. I don't think the University has to do anything in regards to Paterno to be able to move on successfully. If the football program can move on without him, certainly the University as a whole can as well. Does that mean that all of his supporters will be okay with that? No. Unfortunately for them, a University's reputation and public perception are of the utmost importance. The public at large does not want to hear about Paterno being celebrated, fair or not. It is what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stufftodo
I'll just have to disagree with you. I don't think the University has to do anything in regards to Paterno to be able to move on successfully. If the football program can move on without him, certainly the University as a whole can as well. Does that mean that all of his supporters will be okay with that? No. Unfortunately for them, a University's reputation and public perception are of the utmost importance. The public at large does not want to hear about Paterno being celebrated, fair or not. It is what it is.

We all are entitled to our opinions. You have yours. I respect that. I have mine as well.
 
Nothing is coincidental with respect to Ira. He has made a career at flying below the radar. From his political giving to his knowledge of the Sandusky investigation.

Ira shares a suite at Beaver Stadium with Bob Poole and Galen Dreibelbis. Bob was the Chair of the Second Mile as well as a close friend and significant fundraiser for Sen Corman (as well as others).

For good reason some here took exception to my vote for Ira as Board Chair. To be clear, I made no deal with Ira in exchange for my vote. Frankly, I do not believe he expected me to vote for him.
AL ,
Excuse me if this has been reported but why then did you vote for him? I understand a 33-1 vote, or even a 25-9 wouldn't change anything. Conversely 34 -0 doesn't accomplish anything either. Have the A-9 felt more included in the non -scandal issues? Just seems like the 34-0 vote was the final capitulation in this issue.
Thanks by the way for all your effort, but I am one guy who is very very close to giving up hope.
 
AL ,
Excuse me if this has been reported but why then did you vote for him? I understand a 33-1 vote, or even a 25-9 wouldn't change anything. Conversely 34 -0 doesn't accomplish anything either. Have the A-9 felt more included in the non -scandal issues? Just seems like the 34-0 vote was the final capitulation in this issue.
Thanks by the way for all your effort, but I am one guy who is very very close to giving up hope.
Somewhere around post #105 on this thread.
 
I read the thread in chronological in order and replied when I got to his post. That happens often enough.

That said, I don't think he really answered the question either. I am surprised Lubrano is on here saying as much as he has directly about Lubert and his dealings. But, there is also a lot of information that he speaks around that he doesn't completely divulge (mystery packet).

My opinion is still that a 34-0 vote is/was idiotic. The result would not have changed if it were 33-1, or 33-0. But, it was 34-0. If you want reform, falling in line isn't the way to go achieve it.
Somewhere around post #105 on this thread.
 
AL ,
Excuse me if this has been reported but why then did you vote for him? I understand a 33-1 vote, or even a 25-9 wouldn't change anything. Conversely 34 -0 doesn't accomplish anything either. Have the A-9 felt more included in the non -scandal issues? Just seems like the 34-0 vote was the final capitulation in this issue.
Thanks by the way for all your effort, but I am one guy who is very very close to giving up hope.
The three Sacred Excuses of the A9:

1 - Our (your) votes don't matter

2 - You don't know what we know

3 - It is so hard being us

Oh......and lest we forget:
"The Freeh File Review.....Goddammit!!!! We are doing the Freeh File Review!!!!!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
Somewhere around post #105 on this thread.
RE pg 105
Really? What am I missing? Are you suggesting let Ira be king so when the OGBoT gets exposed he will be the man in charge and take the heat. Pardon me if I am missing something or are not inciteful enough to understand. I guess my point was Ira was going to be the chair whether the vote was 34-0, 33-1 or 25-9. If AL struck a deal so be it I may or may not agree but that is up to AL. If he made no deal why do it? AL is essentially saying Ira IS the right guy to lead our BoT.
 
What's coming?
You don't think faking Freeh's findings would constitute a fairly significant fiduciary breach?
And then there'll be the optics of having faked a report that cost the university hundreds of millions of dollars, ruined reputations and smeared all of us affiliated with PSU. What do you think something like that will do in the press?

Do you think he'll go down alone?
 
And then there'll be the optics of having faked a report that cost the university hundreds of millions of dollars, ruined reputations and smeared all of us affiliated with PSU. What do you think something like that will do in the press?

Do you think he'll go down alone?

Didn't Freeh say that PSU got what they paid for? It has been established that the boys and girls from Pepper Hamilton turned over very few boulders during their "independent investigation." They were very careful to stick to the script.......often given the little gems they needed by the OAG and consulted extensively with the NCAA to be certain that they could fit its agenda as well. Freeh was auditioning to be the exclusive hit man for all NCAA shenanigans. It probably gave Emmert a rise to anticipate the weight a former FBI chief could bring to future financial shakedowns.
Poor Louis the Liar, he is connected and pretty sharp.......but he got greedy and people caught on to his game. Then, there is that little matter of the tree that jumped out in front of him.....
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT