The BOT Gift That Keeps on Giving…

[RaymondReddington]

Do you want to meet face to face or is that some type of threat?

It’s an illustration of why gutless turds like you carry out your attacks from the cover of the internet. You’re usually not nearly so brave when you have to do it in person.

Let us all know when you’ve grown a set of testicles.

 

[WHCANole]

No, you're the one who is wrong on multiple points, both factually and morally.

>"I have explained why the DA neglected to file charges in 1998"
Unless you actually spoke to Ray Gricar, you don't know why he declined to prosecute in 1998. You didn't explain anything; all you did was speculate.

True, but it is reasonable.

>"She did indeed call the Hotline"
Again, you don't have a record of her alleged call to DPW. What is publicly known is Chambers' self-serving claim that she called DPW. If you have a record from DPW documenting her report, let's see it. If I recall correctly, her psychological evaluation of Sandusky's interaction with V6 that she provided to Shreffler said no such thing.

Can you produce any record where DPW said she did not call them? Her calling DPW has been widely reported. Who, other than you says she did not? Aren't those calls anonymous? If she were claiming she called them and it was not true, wouldn't DPW say so?

>"and that brought in Jerry Lauro"
Lauro and DPW were brought in because Centre County CYS had multiple contacts with Second Mile and ADA Karen Arnold wanted CYS to keep its distance in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

After Alicia Chambers called the hotline.

>"What was clear was that Penn State was told by a licensed Psychologist that Jerry Sandusky was a likely pedophile in 1998"
And what was equally clear was that the two child welfare agencies charged with investigating child abuse came to opposite conclusions. Your refusal to acknowledge those facts speaks quite poorly of your critical thinking skills.

You ignore the report and that speaks to your lack of honesty.

>"Curley met with Raykovitz in 2001 not 1998."
I didn't say that Curley met with Raykovitz in 1998. That's a nice attempt at a straw man, but it gets you nowhere. Raykovitz testified at Spainer's trial that Second Mile would be an appropriate place to bring any information regarding anything looking like child abuse. The fact is that Chambers, despite knowing that an active pedophile in the community had access to hundreds of vulnerable children, never contacted Second Mile in 1998, in 2001, or any time in between or any time after. That is a rank moral failure on her part, period. End. Of. Story.

False. She gave the report to the police at Penn State and it was their responsibility to handle that. Since they were the law enforcement agency contacted. You.Are.Wrong

>"Second Mile had no knowledge of 1998 until the indictment of Sandusky"
Well, actually, you don't know that.

Do you have evidence they did? They deny it. You have nothing. No one has produced evidence to show they did.

Raykovitz testified at Spanier's trial that he wasn't aware of the 1998 incident, but he also testified on cross examination that Curley told him in 2001 that there had been an investigation:
Q. Okay. You have testified that Tim Curley told you that there was an investigation conducted and the conclusion was that there had been no inappropriate behavior; correct?
A. Correct
If the 2001 assault was not "investigated" at the time Curley spoke to Raykovitz, what was Raykovitz talking about? Was he speaking about his knowledge of the 1998 investigation? Who, besides Raykovitz, really knows? Raykovitz has every reason in the world to lie and no one to contradict him but Tim Curley.

Total speculation on your part. And Tim didn't contradict him. Tim actually exonerated Raykovitz at Spanier's trial as he had to maintain his fiction. He couldn't tell Spanier it was nothing and tell Raykovitz it was something. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

Raykovitz also contradicted himself on direct examination and cross on whether Curley told him that Sandusky and the boy were both naked in the shower in 2001:
Direct examination:
Q. Did he tell you if they were naked in the shower?
A. He did not.
Cross:
Q. Okay. And when you heard from Tim Curley that--you did hear that a concern had been raised by someone--
A. Yes.
Q.-- that Jerry Sandusky had been in a shower naked with a young boy; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you did not, with your training as a psychologist, educational psychologist among other things, correct, and as the head of The Second Mile, with the background and experience that we've just discussed, you did not infer from that that this was something of a sexual nature; correct?
A. Correct.

More from Raykovitz:
Q. What did you tell him?
A. I told him that even though the -- as Tim said to me, and as Jerry reassured me that nothing inappropriate had occurred, that in the context, which was 2001, it would be more appropriate if he was going to shower with someone after a workout that he wear swim trunks. And I said that because in that context, that was the time when there was a lot of stuff coming out about Boy Scouts and church and things of that nature.

Note that even though he wasn't asked he took pains to say 2001 out loud, which he had every reason to repeat to the jury to exonerate himself and his reputation. The Catholic Church abuse story wasn't broken nationwide by the Boston Globe until 2002. Not exactly a steel trap memory on display there, with the exception of potentially exculpatory "facts" that make him look good. He remembered those with exquisite clarity.

Also note the swim trunks remark. Again, if he wasn't told Sandusky was nude with a child and if he was told there was nothing inappropriate about Sandusky's behavior, why would he say that to Sandusky?

Raykovitz also contradicted himself on whether the 2001 victim was a "young boy" or a teenager, but for sake of space I won't reproduce the transcript testimony here.

So, I need to give you a news flash. People showering are almost always naked. Your little diatribe above shows nothing. TSM did not know about 1998. They were told nothing of import in 2001. When Sandusky was accused of CSA in 2008 AND THEY WERE TOLD THAT they acted immediately and removed him from all contact with minors. So, if they are covering for Jerry why not do it in 2008. Your "logic" is faulty for sure.

Feel free to believe whatever nonsensical, self-serving, he-said-he-said statements you want, but Raykovitz is simply not credible on what exactly Curley told him and when he knew about the 1998 investigation, and his self-contradictions under oath preclude much of his testimony from being accepted as fact.

I am going by what Curley said and that was he told Raykovitz nothing.

>"I'm not familiar with the case you mention"
That's odd. Prof. Feiock's borderline criminal behavior was widely reported in Tallahassee media and in outlets associated directly with FSU. You follow FSU news enough to post on the Rivals FSU board.
Hmmm . . . Well, here, let me help you with that:

Longtime FSU prof resigned: ‘There is a huge sense of disgust over the allegations’ • Florida Phoenix

A longtime distinguished professor at Florida State University’s Askew School of Public Administration and Policy was allowed to quietly resign last year amid a sexual misconduct investigation sparked by the disclosure of a series of sexually explicit emails, photos and text messages exchanged...

floridaphoenix.com

Longtime FSU professor resigns amid sexual misconduct investigation, sparking outcry

These allegations aren’t isolated incidents, as reports indicate he has faced previous complaints before in 1991 and 2005, respectively.

www.fsunews.com

I don't follow other than sports. Did Bobby Bowden know about it and cover it up? Did the President of the University go to jail for it? You can find dirt on any school (and even more on PSU) but so what? Is there a group of loonies defending Prof Feiock? If so, I'll join you in condemning them assuming he was guilty. Was he charged? Weak Sauce here.

>"but to my knowledge no FSU administrators went to jail for covering it up."
Probably a result of the difference in age between Sandusky's victims and Feiock's.

>"Secondly, I am not defending this guy and trying to pretend it didn't happen either so I am not a hypocrite."
You're clearly trying to minimize his conduct with your "no administrators went to jail" remark yet celebrating Spainer's conviction. Not suprised you don't see or won't admit the disconnect.

Because there is no disconnect. I'm not minimizing anything! I didn't know about the case but that doesn't mean I'm defending him. You're desperately looking for things to throw against the wall but none of it sticks because it all deflection and nonsense. Why do you defend people who do bad things?

>"it fascinates me how some tie their lives to a football program, coach and school to the extent that they will ignore wrongdoing by said folk."
You mean the way that the Florida State University chief of police, the Tallahassee police department, and the FSU dean of students covered up rape accusations against star quarterback Jameis Winston just 2 months before the Seminoles played in the national championship game?

At Florida State, Football Clouds Justice (Published 2014)

Police and court records and interviews with witnesses show that the Tallahassee police on numerous occasions have soft-pedaled allegations of wrongdoing by Seminoles football players.

www.nytimes.com

Jameis Winston and Woman Who Accused Him of Rape Settle Lawsuits (Published 2016)

The woman, who said Winston raped her in late 2012 when they were Florida State students, had sued him in the spring of 2015, and he had countersued.

www.nytimes.com

How Florida State Covered Up Two Rape Reports Against Jameis Winston

There must be a thorough outside investigation into how Perry and other FSU officials-including Jimbo Fisher, the FSU head football coach, and Monk Bonasorte, the Associate Director of athletics-colluded to protect Winston.

www.huffpost.com

I followed that scandal pretty well. Was Jameis charged? Was the Chief of Police charged? Did anyone go to jail? Hmmm, Spanier, Curley and Schultz went to jail. Paterno was fired and the statue removed. Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts. The newspapers can say this or that happened but a court says your guys did it and were punished for it. Nothing was ever proven to be a coverup with Winston. But continue to deflect. I think Jameis was a dirtbag personally and there have been several on Penn State's team as well. How does that justify turning a blind eye to pederasty?

Yep, your fascination is really coming through, as is your rank hypocrisy.

>"I hold Penn State's leadership accountable for the cover up of Sandusky's crimes as I think it important for the higher up for once to be held to account."
After you've done a deep dive on Winston, the two women who said he raped them, and how chief of police David Perry, the dean of students responsible for investigating Title IX violations, associate athletic director Monk Bonasorte, and others colluded to kill the criminal investigation of Winston, and on the FSU administrators who ignored Feiock's abuse, let us know what you've done to hold FSU's leadership accountable for covering up crimes committed by football players and faculty members.

Again you continue to coverup for a disgraced football coach and a criminal group of admins even after the justice system convicted them. All you can say is "Well allegedly FSU is bad too". Yes, I agree that bad things happen at FSU and all schools but you and the truthers say nothing happened even AFTER the bad guys are CONVICTED. Your attempt to yell hypocrisy is lame and false. Deflection will not help your case.

No doubt it will be fascinating.

I look forward to your admission of what the courts have found.

 

[WHCANole]

It’s an illustration of why gutless turds like you carry out your attacks from the cover of the internet. You’re usually not nearly so brave when you have to do it in person.

Let us all know when you’ve grown a set of testicles.

I think you are using a fake internet name also? Or are you really Raymond Reddington? (lousy show BTW)

 

[RaymondReddington]

Individuals with oversight responsibility don’t actually perform the jobs of those which they oversee. For example, Congress has oversight responsibility for the Executive Branch, but they don’t act as a part of the executive branch.
Correct. They are not the executive branch ergo Schultz was not the police

Paterno’s responsibility was not to arrest Sandusky or to make sure that Sandusky was arrested. His responsibility was to make the police aware of what he had been told. Paterno didn’t directly witness anything. Everything he told Schultz was hearsay. He reported what he was told to the university official responsible for overseeing the police. Your argument requires that because Schultz wasn’t a University Police officer, he wasn’t capable of passing that information through the chain of command. Whatever you choose to believe Schultz’s responsibilities included, Paterno followed protocol by telling him. Schultz admitted that Paterno told him, and Paterno’s responsibility in the matter ended at that point, because Sandusky was no longer one of Paterno’s subordinates. Paterno had no direct responsibility for him. You’re attempting to make a moral judgement that is irrelevant to this debate. Facts are all that matter, and the facts support what Paterno did. Saying that he should have done more is a separate debate from what he was obligated to do by university policy.

 

[RaymondReddington]

I think you are using a fake internet name also? Or are you really Raymond Reddington? (lousy show BTW)

I’m not making allegations, you are.
Show some balls and do it like a man.

 

[WHCANole]

Paterno’s responsibility was not to arrest Sandusky or to make sure that Sandusky was arrested. His responsibility was to make the police aware of what he had been told. Paterno didn’t directly witness anything. Everything he told Schultz was hearsay. He reported what he was told to the university official responsible for overseeing the police. Your argument requires that because Schultz wasn’t a University Police officer, he wasn’t capable of passing that information through the chain of command. Whatever you choose to believe Schultz’s responsibilities included, Paterno followed protocol by telling him. Schultz admitted that Paterno told him, and Paterno’s responsibility in the matter ended at that point, because Sandusky was no longer one of Paterno’s subordinates. Paterno had no direct responsibility for him. You’re attempting to make a moral judgement that is irrelevant to this debate. Facts are all that matter, and the facts support what Paterno did. Saying that he should have done more is a separate debate from what he was obligated to do by university policy.

Paterno's failure here is not one of law, but of morals and ethics, and given his stature as the face of Penn State, his culpability is indeed quite serious. Scandals like this one demonstrates the outsized role Paterno always felt he had at Penn State. It illustrates his willingness to protect the football program and his legacy even in the face of policies made by people at the university with ostensibly more authority—people who bent to his will when he wished to exert it (e.g. the firing of Vicky Triponey). Paterno was not just some adjunct English professor who's supposed to tell his department chair about an unruly student. And, sorry, every Penn Stater I know wore that "we're not like other big programs because we don't get into trouble" bit as a badge of honor. But the ones with half a brain now see this for what it is—for the abject moral failure on the part of pretty much everybody at Penn State, Paterno included.

Bottom line: The insular culture Paterno created—even as he sold the rest of the world on the notion that Penn State always did the right thing—is precisely why his moral complicity here matters. Whether Paterno deliberately looked the other way or did so out of indifference is not the issue. The fact that he knew about Jerry Sandusky and did not see he was stopped from preying on additional victims is. And, yes, it's enough to soil his legacy forever.

 

[WHCANole]

I’m not making allegations, you are.
Show some balls and do it like a man.

No you are making insults while hiding behind an anonymous internet handle. Why don't YOU "do it like a man"? Well, you could be a woman I guess.

 

[pandaczar12]

I think this is why the BOT cancelled that presser Joe had scheduled that fateful week. Previously the year before Joe had popped off (as us old curmudgeons do ) after the Alabama game and the press would have eaten him alive with questions about Sandusky and Joe would have popped off bad and then it would have been worse. His retirement announcement was his telling the BOT I'll tell YOU when I am ready to go. I think advanced age caused that.

It's amazing how you always assume the worst possible interpretation of everything. Joe's fate was already determined many months prior, the BOT was aware that Joe was going to retire. He simply was giving them an out publicly to not worry about him, and focus on more important things.

I think you are confusing criticism with disgrace. Your senior admins are convicted criminals who served time in jail. Your coach was fired for cause. This is what I mean by disgrace. Has Freeh spent time in jail? Was his statue taken down? He did not talk to Curley and Schultz because they refused. MM was because the OAG asked him not to. Most folks who have read the document (I have) that Freeh produced find it reasonable and supported by the evidence.

LOL, Joe was fired "for cause"? Why do you feel the need to keep commenting on topics you don't understand? "The decision to remove Coach Paterno had nothing to do with what he had known, what he hadn't done. It was based upon the distraction of having him on the sidelines would have caused the university and the current football team harm. It had nothing to do with what Coach Paterno had done, or hadn't done."

So you don't want to stand up for Freeh's record? You don't want to talk about Waco? Or Richard Jewell? Or map out where the conclusions are supported in his PSU report? Or discuss how his own team didn't think the conclusions were supported?

You don't apparently understand Occam's Razor. If there was nothing to tell then why did Curley go to Raycovitz? Why did MM report it? Why did Paterno report it? Why did CSS meet and exchange emails? Why did Schultz ask Courtney about it? Horseplay? Nothing? I wish you could see how foolish that makes you look. The jury didn't buy it. But then you listen to John Ziegler so I guess that goes over your head. MM went to Paterno for top cover and had he gone alone to the cops the institution would have crushed him and cast him out. Just like the truthers are doing today. If you believe CSS and Paterno took those actions on account of nothing or horseplay then man you are in real denial. You see there was a coverup and the truthers are still trying to cover it up but the public ain't buying it. That's flat earth, but what continues to fascinate me is how invested your lives are in the lies. I guess that is what zealotry is at it's core. PSU covered up for the same reason the Roman Catholic Church did, the Boy Scouts did and US Army has before. Penn State was no different. Freeh just articulated what the evidence showed. I also find it funny how Truthers now like to act like Sandusky was just nothing before this scandal. I knew lots of fans and they loved him. He was part of the PSU family and Joe told him he could coach there as long as Joe was coach. He didn't like Sandusky so much he wouldn't turn him into the police when he had clear cause to do this. Crazy but entertaining.

Apparently it is you that doesn't understand Occam's Razor. There you go projecting again!

MM wanted face time with Joe. JVP reported it because he followed the rules. (which is why he was praised by the AG and the NCAA modeled their guidelines after his actions) Curley went to Raykovitz because they thought Sandusky had boundary issues, and likely as a CYA move. CSS exchanged an email or two, because it's their job, but never met on the topic. I guess you've never worked in a large organization? Simple and supported by the facts. Unlike your conspiracy theory that MM saw a crime, then didn't tell his dad and Dr. Dranov. But did tell Paterno, Shultz, and Curley, but they somehow decided to tell someone outside the university but dumb it down for some reason. I wish you could see how foolish you look. You continue to talk about the other organizations but ignore what was different about them. Sandusky didn't work for PSU, the teen in the shower who is on the record saying he was not being abused was not a PSU student. PSU had nothing to cover up, and didn't. So I guess you are a cover up truther despite a cover up never making any sense, there being no evidence of one, and no one being convicted of one? That's some flat earth sh*t there! It continues to fascinate me is how invested your lives are in the lies. Crazy but entertaining.

Joe Paterno 'Despised' Sandusky Long Before Sex Scandal, New Book Claims

In the weeks before he died, Joe Paterno faced "dark moments," as the members of Penn State University's community questioned his role in the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal.

abcnews.go.com

 

[GTACSA]

You’re right - if MM thought he saw a crime then he should have gone directly to the police 👮‍♂️!! You don’t report a Crime to your supervisor weeks later than it happened.

The real “moral” call was at MM’s level - not Joe’s - that is one of the major points that really gets missed in all of this

Once MM made that initial decision and presented a watered down version of what he thinks he saw, you cannot than pass that assumed “morality”, when it’s a crrime, onto the next person

So I agree with you - if it was a crime then MM definitely had a moral obligation to go to the police 👮‍♂️

You fail to address the hypothetical I presented to you and continue to bring up Joe.

If someone in your department comes to you and tells you they saw Mr. X, who used to work for you, brutally rape a woman in your building, would you report it "up the line" and then be done with it and get out of the way?

Let's be direct; would you under those facts report it up the line and then get out of the way, even if you subsequently saw Mr. X continue to visit your business? Would you view it as NMP and do nothing? Would you feel precluded from going further by some "statute or rule" (which you have not cited) that would prevent you from doing anything?

That's a pretty simple question and there is no right or wrong answer legally.

Since you work for a Non Profit, which indicates to me that you care for people's welfare, my intuition says that you would not turn a blind eye. But then I could be wrong.

 

[ouirpsu]

But the ones with half a brain now see this for what it is—for the abject moral failure on the part of pretty much everybody at Penn State, Paterno included.

Ohhh, I’m sorry. So close. The correct answer isn’t “abject moral failure on the part of pretty much everybody at Penn State.” You were actually doing pretty well up to this point. For a troll, I mean.

You think Joe had a moral obligation to do more. We get it. I wish he had done “more.” Everyone on the board (and the McAndrew board) wishes he had done “more.” Hell, even Joe wished he had done “more” with the benefit of hindsight before he passed. But what, exactly should he have done based on what he was told?

Which leads me to ask for like the hundredth time - exactly what did MM tell Joe? Do you honestly believe MM told Joe that he saw Sandusky anally raping a young child in the shower, and Joe tried to cover it up?

What’s your endgame here?

 

[WHCANole]

It's amazing how you always assume the worst possible interpretation of everything. Joe's fate was already determined many months prior, the BOT was aware that Joe was going to retire. He simply was giving them an out publicly to not worry about him, and focus on more important things.

Not amazing just unbiased. The BOT and many others including me read Joe's statement as "I'll tell you when I shall leave so just shut up and move on". This was typical of the arrogance Joe had in his latter years. Posnanski talks about the famous meeting in 2004 and it was clear that Joe felt like the football program belonged only to him and no one else. The BOT corrected him in 2011.

LOL, Joe was fired "for cause"? Why do you feel the need to keep commenting on topics you don't understand? "The decision to remove Coach Paterno had nothing to do with what he had known, what he hadn't done. It was based upon the distraction of having him on the sidelines would have caused the university and the current football team harm. It had nothing to do with what Coach Paterno had done, or hadn't done."

"We determined that his decision to do his minimum legal duty and not to do more to follow up constituted a failure of leadership by Coach Paterno,"

So you don't want to stand up for Freeh's record? You don't want to talk about Waco? Or Richard Jewell? Or map out where the conclusions are supported in his PSU report? Or discuss how his own team didn't think the conclusions were supported?

We can talk about those those cases but it doesn't change the evidence Freeh found or the reasonable conclusions he reached. Who on Freeh's team did not support his conclusions? I need a name.

Apparently it is you that doesn't understand Occam's Razor. There you go projecting again!

MM wanted face time with Joe. JVP reported it because he followed the rules. (which is why he was praised by the AG and the NCAA modeled their guidelines after his actions)

The NCAA guidelines were not modeled after Joe's inaction and which PSU did not follow. That is just silly. MM wanted top cover from institutional retaliation for which he later collected 12 million.

Curley went to Raykovitz because they thought Sandusky had boundary issues, and likely as a CYA move.

I agree with the CYA move. However, Curley knew more than he told Raykovitz and in the end exonerated him.

CSS exchanged an email or two, because it's their job, but never met on the topic.

They met at Spanier's house remember?

I guess you've never worked in a large organization?

Much bigger than PSU

Simple and supported by the facts. Unlike your conspiracy theory that MM saw a crime, then didn't tell his dad and Dr. Dranov. But did tell Paterno, Shultz, and Curley, but they somehow decided to tell someone outside the university but dumb it down for some reason.

Nope. MM saw a crime and Joe corroborated it. He did not say much to Dranov and Dad because he was in shock but later when composed told it fully to CSS. Curley, as you stated, wanted to CYA so he told TSM but made sure it was nothing they would act on. Curley didn't want it reported to the proper authorities but just wanted to CYA. Didn't work and to jail he went. These are all facts testified to in court.

I wish you could see how foolish you look.

That's why you guys are called JoeBots. Now who's projecting?

You continue to talk about the other organizations but ignore what was different about them. Sandusky didn't work for PSU, the teen in the shower who is on the record saying he was not being abused was not a PSU student.

The crime occurred on PSU. It is not definitive who the kid was even today. Plus the one you claim it is got money from PSU for....you guessed it! CSA

PSU had nothing to cover up, and didn't.

Yeah they did and that is why four of them; Sandusky and CSS when to jail.

So I guess you are a cover up truther despite a cover up never making any sense, there being no evidence of one, and no one being convicted of one?

Four went to jail

That's some flat earth sh*t there! It continues to fascinate me is how invested your lives are in the lies. Crazy but entertaining.

ROFL Glad to help. When is Sandusky getting out? What's next for the truther squad now that it's all over?

Joe Paterno 'Despised' Sandusky Long Before Sex Scandal, New Book Claims

In the weeks before he died, Joe Paterno faced "dark moments," as the members of Penn State University's community questioned his role in the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal.

abcnews.go.com

 

[WHCANole]

Ohhh, I’m sorry. So close. The correct answer isn’t “abject moral failure on the part of pretty much everybody involved in the coverup at Penn State.” You were actually doing pretty well up to this point. For a troll, I mean.

Sorry, I fixed it.

You think Joe had a moral obligation to do more. We get it. I wish he had done “more.” Everyone on the board (and the McAndrew board) wishes he had done “more.” Hell, even Joe wished he had done “more” with the benefit of hindsight before he passed. But what, exactly should he have done based on what he was told?

Well, call the cops or make sure they were called? Check back with MM and make sure the child welfare people talked to him. Anything sexual between an adult and a child demands such.

Which leads me to ask for like the hundredth time - exactly what did MM tell Joe?

"that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on"

Do you honestly believe MM told Joe that he saw Sandusky anally raping a young child in the shower, and Joe tried to cover it up?

No, he told him "that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on"

What’s your endgame here?

Opposing the truther lying narrative and not allowing them to talk unopposed in their silo. Otherwise, more of these will happen. The good news is the vast majority of folks out there don't believe it and now we are catching more of these creeps.

 

[RaymondReddington]

Paterno's failure here is not one of law, but of morals and ethics, and given his stature as the face of Penn State, his culpability is indeed quite serious. Scandals like this one demonstrates the outsized role Paterno always felt he had at Penn State. It illustrates his willingness to protect the football program and his legacy even in the face of policies made by people at the university with ostensibly more authority—people who bent to his will when he wished to exert it (e.g. the firing of Vicky Triponey). Paterno was not just some adjunct English professor who's supposed to tell his department chair about an unruly student. And, sorry, every Penn Stater I know wore that "we're not like other big programs because we don't get into trouble" bit as a badge of honor. But the ones with half a brain now see this for what it is—for the abject moral failure on the part of pretty much everybody at Penn State, Paterno included.

Bottom line: The insular culture Paterno created—even as he sold the rest of the world on the notion that Penn State always did the right thing—is precisely why his moral complicity here matters. Whether Paterno deliberately looked the other way or did so out of indifference is not the issue. The fact that he knew about Jerry Sandusky and did not see he was stopped from preying on additional victims is. And, yes, it's enough to soil his legacy forever.

Congratulations, you’ve finally admitted that he fulfilled his responsibility per university policy.

Any alleged moral shortcomings are strictly subjective. Such as, I consider you to be a cowardly piece of feces, but others may not agree.

 

[RaymondReddington]

No you are making insults while hiding behind an anonymous internet handle. Why don't YOU "do it like a man"? Well, you could be a woman I guess.

I’ve already displayed my willingness to confront you in person. Put up or shut up.

 

[WHCANole]

Congratulations, you’ve finally admitted that he fulfilled his responsibility per university policy.

Any alleged moral shortcomings are strictly subjective. Such as, I consider you to be a cowardly piece of feces, but others may not agree.

No he failed in his moral responsibility that he preached to others but failed himself to follow. He lied about 1998 too but that it just more of the same. You keep calling me a coward but you hide behind an fake internet name so do you not see the hypocrisy there? BTW, just to let you know. I have had these conversations with PSU fans face to face. They disagreed and didn't like it but they didn't do anything like what you are implying. And of course neither would you.

 

[RaymondReddington]

No he failed in his moral responsibility that he preached to others but failed himself to follow. He lied about 1998 too but that it just more of the same. You keep calling me a coward but you hide behind an fake internet name so do you not see the hypocrisy there? BTW, just to let you know. I have had these conversations with PSU fans face to face. They disagreed and didn't like it but they didn't do anything like what you are implying. And of course neither would you.

Not taking me up on my offer? I didn’t think so. Your ilk never do.

heeeeeere kitty kitty.

 

[WHCANole]

Not taking me up on my offer? I didn’t think so. Your ilk never do.

heeeeeere kitty kitty.

Okay. What is your name and where do you wish to meet?

 

[RaymondReddington]

Okay. What is your name and where do you wish to meet?

You first, kitty.

 

[WHCANole]

You first, kitty.

No ma'am. You proposed it, so after you. I won't hold my breath.

 

[RaymondReddington]

No ma'am. You proposed it, so after you. I won't hold my breath.

Beaver Stadium, this Saturday.

 

[WHCANole]

Beaver Stadium, this Saturday.

I'll be there. How will I find you?

 

[RaymondReddington]

I'll be there. How will I find you?

Wear your F$U gear in front of the All-Sports museum.
I'll find you.

 

[WHCANole]

Wear your F$U gear in front of the All-Sports museum.
I'll find you.

I don't have any. Send me your picture and I'll be on the lookout.

 

[RaymondReddington]

I don't have any. Send me your picture and I'll be on the lookout.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Of course you don’t. Just as I suspected.
You’ll forever be known as PussyNole, and youll be identifiable by the streaks in your panties.
Congratulations on being the first person on my ignore list. Marshall hasn’t even made it yet, so you’re truly elite.

Youve wasted enough of my time.
Buh-bye, kitty.

 

[Petch]

Joe did not do enough. Only the more zealots of his believe otherwise. The media is right in this instance. That's why your group can't change it.

Well…you and the media are both lazy and wrong….but whatever makes you feel better.

 

[colt21]

You fail to address the hypothetical I presented to you and continue to bring up Joe.

If someone in your department comes to you and tells you they saw Mr. X, who used to work for you, brutally rape a woman in your building, would you report it "up the line" and then be done with it and get out of the way?

Let's be direct; would you under those facts report it up the line and then get out of the way, even if you subsequently saw Mr. X continue to visit your business? Would you view it as NMP and do nothing? Would you feel precluded from going further by some "statute or rule" (which you have not cited) that would prevent you from doing anything?

That's a pretty simple question and there is no right or wrong answer legally.

Since you work for a Non Profit, which indicates to me that you care for people's welfare, my intuition says that you would not turn a blind eye. But then I could be wrong.

sorry had to leave yesterday

forstbofd I

You fail to address the hypothetical I presented to you and continue to bring up Joe.

If someone in your department comes to you and tells you they saw Mr. X, who used to work for you, brutally rape a woman in your building, would you report it "up the line" and then be done with it and get out of the way?

Let's be direct; would you under those facts report it up the line and then get out of the way, even if you subsequently saw Mr. X continue to visit your business? Would you view it as NMP and do nothing? Would you feel precluded from going further by some "statute or rule" (which you have not cited) that would prevent you from doing anything?

That's a pretty simple question and there is no right or wrong answer legally.

Since you work for a Non Profit, which indicates to me that you care for people's welfare, my intuition says that you would not turn a blind eye. But then I could be wrong.

First off, I purposely 'bring up Joe' because one of the other great tragedies here is how people draw conclusions on unrelated issues.....each piece of the puzzle needs to be taken separately and my goal is to help you understand that, in this case, Joe did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, he did 'more right' than most people did in the overall debacle.

Now onto your other stuff:

You fail to address the hypothetical I presented to you and continue to bring up Joe.

If someone in your department comes to you and tells you they saw Mr. X, who used to work for you, brutally rape a woman in your building, would you report it "up the line" and then be done with it and get out of the way?

I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING OUT HERE AND WHY WOULD YOU EVEN ASK SUCH A "DUMB" QUESTION (I REALLY DON'T LIKE NAME CALLING OR EVEN "STATEMENT NAME-CALLING" BUT THAT IS JUST LUDICROUS. IT'S NOT EVEN REMOTELY TIED TO THIS SITUATION.

JUST TO APPEASE YOU I WILL TELL YOU THIS - IF SOMEONE WOULD EVER COME TO ME AND SAY SUCH A THING I WOULD HAVE TOLD THEM WHY DIDN'T YOU SPEAK TO THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY - AND FURTHER, I WOULD TELL THEM YOU SHOULD HAVE REPORTED THIS IMMEDIATELY WHEN IT HAPPENED, NOT WEEKS LATER.

Let's be direct; would you under those facts report it up the line and then get out of the way, even if you subsequently saw Mr. X continue to visit your business? Would you view it as NMP and do nothing? Would you feel precluded from going further by some "statute or rule" (which you have not cited) that would prevent you from doing anything?

That's a pretty simple question and there is no right or wrong answer legally.

Since you work for a Non Profit, which indicates to me that you care for people's welfare, my intuition says that you would not turn a blind eye. But then I could be wrong.

I REALLY HOPE YOU AREN'T COMPARING THE BRUTAL RAPE OF A WOMAN TO THIS SITUATION BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE SADDER THAN SAD.


NOW LET ME LET YOU IN ON A LITTLE SECRET. IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME UP TO ME AND REPORT AN 'INCIDENT' AND LET'S HYPOTHETICALLY SAY THEY MENTIONED CSA (WHICH AGAIN, IS NOT THE CASE HERE) - HERE IS WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE

1. THEN: AS THE PERSON TAKING THE REPORT I WOULD SAY "I WILL TAKE IT FROM HERE". FURTHER, I WOULD SAY, "STAY OUT OF IT NOW AS IF YOU STICK YOUR NOSE IN IT FURTHER, YOU COULD GET IN TROUBLE". (I WOULDN'T SAY IT THAT EXACT WAY OF COURSE).
* HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO TAKE FROM MY LITTLE EXCERCISE HERE - THAT WOULD NOT BE JOE'S ROLE WITH MM - IT WOULD BE THE PERSON WHO WOULD BE TELLING THAT TO JOE

2. NOW: AND LET ME BE CLEAR ON THIS
A. MM WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GO DIRECTLY TO CHILDLINE - NO TALKING TO HIS DAD, OR DD AND NO TALKING TO JOE P (OR BE SUBJECT POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL PENALTIES)
B. THEN, ONLY AFTER REPORTING TO CHILDLINE WOULD HE GO TO JOE - AND THEN THAT REPORT WOULD ONLY BE A NOTIFICATION THAT HE CALLED CHILDLINE.


SO IN CONCLUSION - HERE'S THE DANGER IN WHAT YOU ARE STATING (REMEMBER MY FULCRUM EXAMPLE)

IF IT WAS A 'BRUTAL RAPE' AS YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE, THEN THERE IS NO WAY IN HECK IT SHOULD EVER MAKE IT TO JOE P - MM SHOULD HAVE GONE DIRECLTY TO THE POLICE, NO TALKING TO ANYONE, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $12M

IF IT WAS A REPORT OF AN INCIDENT, IN WHICH HE DIDN'T NOT MENTION CSA WITH JOE, THEN YES JOE WAS CORRECT IN REPORTING IT UP THE LINE

PROBLEM WITH DISCUSSING WITH YOU FOLKS IS THAT YOU HAVE A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME YOU WANT TO HEAR AND THAT LEAVES YOUR EYES AND EARS OPEN TO ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY, IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN ACTUALLY "HELP THE CHILDREN"

PS - ALL CAPS FOR DIFFERENTIATION, I'M NOT MAD !

 

[GTACSA]

sorry had to leave yesterday

forstbofd I



First off, I purposely 'bring up Joe' because one of the other great tragedies here is how people draw conclusions on unrelated issues.....each piece of the puzzle needs to be taken separately and my goal is to help you understand that, in this case, Joe did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, he did 'more right' than most people did in the overall debacle.

Now onto your other stuff:



I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING OUT HERE AND WHY WOULD YOU EVEN ASK SUCH A "DUMB" QUESTION (I REALLY DON'T LIKE NAME CALLING OR EVEN "STATEMENT NAME-CALLING" BUT THAT IS JUST LUDICROUS. IT'S NOT EVEN REMOTELY TIED TO THIS SITUATION.

JUST TO APPEASE YOU I WILL TELL YOU THIS - IF SOMEONE WOULD EVER COME TO ME AND SAY SUCH A THING I WOULD HAVE TOLD THEM WHY DIDN'T YOU SPEAK TO THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY - AND FURTHER, I WOULD TELL THEM YOU SHOULD HAVE REPORTED THIS IMMEDIATELY WHEN IT HAPPENED, NOT WEEKS LATER.



I REALLY HOPE YOU AREN'T COMPARING THE BRUTAL RAPE OF A WOMAN TO THIS SITUATION BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE SADDER THAN SAD.


NOW LET ME LET YOU IN ON A LITTLE SECRET. IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME UP TO ME AND REPORT AN 'INCIDENT' AND LET'S HYPOTHETICALLY SAY THEY MENTIONED CSA (WHICH AGAIN, IS NOT THE CASE HERE) - HERE IS WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE

1. THEN: AS THE PERSON TAKING THE REPORT I WOULD SAY "I WILL TAKE IT FROM HERE". FURTHER, I WOULD SAY, "STAY OUT OF IT NOW AS IF YOU STICK YOUR NOSE IN IT FURTHER, YOU COULD GET IN TROUBLE". (I WOULDN'T SAY IT THAT EXACT WAY OF COURSE).
* HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO TAKE FROM MY LITTLE EXCERCISE HERE - THAT WOULD NOT BE JOE'S ROLE WITH MM - IT WOULD BE THE PERSON WHO WOULD BE TELLING THAT TO JOE

2. NOW: AND LET ME BE CLEAR ON THIS
A. MM WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GO DIRECTLY TO CHILDLINE - NO TALKING TO HIS DAD, OR DD AND NO TALKING TO JOE P (OR BE SUBJECT POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL PENALTIES)
B. THEN, ONLY AFTER REPORTING TO CHILDLINE WOULD HE GO TO JOE - AND THEN THAT REPORT WOULD ONLY BE A NOTIFICATION THAT HE CALLED CHILDLINE.


SO IN CONCLUSION - HERE'S THE DANGER IN WHAT YOU ARE STATING (REMEMBER MY FULCRUM EXAMPLE)

IF IT WAS A 'BRUTAL RAPE' AS YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE, THEN THERE IS NO WAY IN HECK IT SHOULD EVER MAKE IT TO JOE P - MM SHOULD HAVE GONE DIRECLTY TO THE POLICE, NO TALKING TO ANYONE, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $12M

IF IT WAS A REPORT OF AN INCIDENT, IN WHICH HE DIDN'T NOT MENTION CSA WITH JOE, THEN YES JOE WAS CORRECT IN REPORTING IT UP THE LINE

PROBLEM WITH DISCUSSING WITH YOU FOLKS IS THAT YOU HAVE A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME YOU WANT TO HEAR AND THAT LEAVES YOUR EYES AND EARS OPEN TO ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY, IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN ACTUALLY "HELP THE CHILDREN"

PS - ALL CAPS FOR DIFFERENTIATION, I'M NOT MAD !

Another post with no answer and I understand why. I'm still going to think the best of you and believe you would follow up if Mr. X was still walking the hallways of your business; unless of course you want to say no you would not.

 

[colt21]

Another post with no answer and I understand why. I'm still going to think the best of you and believe you would follow up if Mr. X was still walking the hallways of your business; unless of course you want to say no you would not.

i did answer - not sure what you're not getting.

If i was involved it would never get to the point of someone 'walking the halls' as it (your imaginary scenario) would have been taken care of the right way initially (ie: the eye witness going directly to the police)

Whether you 'think the best of me' is not my concern - as someone who is dedicated to helping people for my entire career I'm trying to 'teach you' but you seem to have no interest in learning anything.

I'll continue to think the best of you also.....

 

[ouirpsu]

Sorry, I fixed it.

Well, call the cops or make sure they were called? Check back with MM and make sure the child welfare people talked to him. Anything sexual between an adult and a child demands such.

"that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on"

No, he told him "that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on"

Opposing the truther lying narrative and not allowing them to talk unopposed in their silo. Otherwise, more of these will happen. The good news is the vast majority of folks out there don't believe it and now we are catching more of these creeps.

Boy, you have a lot of free time. Must be nice. But anyway, how do you know what MM told Joe? Have you spoken with MM? Is there a recording or transcript nobody else knows about?

How everyone acted after being told - this includes Joe, his dad, Dranov, and even MM himself - very strongly implies that not one of them thought anything sexual had taken place, regardless of what anyone claims 10 years after the fact. If you blame Joe for not doing more, or for covering something up, then you also must believe MM’s dad and Dranov are complicit, too. Is this your position?

 

[interrobang]

Pennlive still using the intentionally truncated quote by Paterno to make him look like the bad guy

Joe Paterno resigned, then was fired by Penn State 10 years ago today: ‘I wish I had done more’

Paterno was fired by the Board of Trustees on Nov. 9, 2011, after the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal.

www.pennlive.com

 

[creamery freak]

Boy, you have a lot of free time. Must be nice. But anyway, how do you know what MM told Joe? Have you spoken with MM? Is there a recording or transcript nobody else knows about?

How everyone acted after being told - this includes Joe, his dad, Dranov, and even MM himself - very strongly implies that not one of them thought anything sexual had taken place, regardless of what anyone claims 10 years after the fact. If you blame Joe for not doing more, or for covering something up, then you also must believe MM’s dad and Dranov are complicit, too. Is this your position?

Maybe the reason WHCAnole has so much free time is that he worked for or is a disbarred attorney from our PA OAG. That's one of the reasons why crime is rampant in PA, due to the fact that they have free time to share porn emails with other state entities. If only they did their job 20 years ago instead of scapegoating PSU employees.

 

[RaymondReddington]

Maybe the reason WHCAnole has so much free time is that he worked for or is a disbarred attorney from our PA OAG. That's one of the reasons why crime is rampant in PA, due to the fact that they have free time to share porn emails with other state entities. If only they did their job 20 years ago instead of scapegoating PSU employees.

That’s very possible.
The thing we know for sure is that he’s an internet troll who’s not willing to peddle his lies face to face.

 

[WHCANole]

Boy, you have a lot of free time. Must be nice. But anyway, how do you know what MM told Joe? Have you spoken with MM? Is there a recording or transcript nobody else knows about?

Actually I do and this scandal has fascinated me for a few. I know what MM told Joe based on what Joe told the GJ and OAG Investigator Sassano. There are two transcripts that exist.

How everyone acted after being told - this includes Joe, his dad, Dranov, and even MM himself - very strongly implies that not one of them thought anything sexual had taken place, regardless of what anyone claims 10 years after the fact. If you blame Joe for not doing more, or for covering something up, then you also must believe MM’s dad and Dranov are complicit, too. Is this your position?

I am not sure what MM told Dranov and his dad. Testimony from Dranov seems to say little. It is not dispositive IMHO.

 

[PSUMATT85]

In a couple of years no one will remember, right Karen??

At this time, I will once again recommend we name the potable restrooms outside the stadium as the “ Peetz Potties”

 

[pandaczar12]

No comment on the link about Paterno disliking Sandusky? The words you are looking for are "I was wrong and you were right."

Not amazing just unbiased. The BOT and many others including me read Joe's statement as "I'll tell you when I shall leave so just shut up and move on". This was typical of the arrogance Joe had in his latter years. Posnanski talks about the famous meeting in 2004 and it was clear that Joe felt like the football program belonged only to him and no one else. The BOT corrected him in 2011.

It's the definition of bias. After the exemplary life he lived, there is no other way to read it.

"We determined that his decision to do his minimum legal duty and not to do more to follow up constituted a failure of leadership by Coach Paterno,"

The quote I provided was under oath, yours wasn't.

We can talk about those those cases but it doesn't change the evidence Freeh found or the reasonable conclusions he reached. Who on Freeh's team did not support his conclusions? I need a name.

It just cements that he is not any good at what he does, BEFORE he wrote the PSU report. Which conclusions were reasonable, and which pages back them up. I need specifics.

The exact name isn't important. Someone on his team believed it:

Penn State alumni trustees attack Freeh investigation into Jerry Sandusky scandal

In many ways, it’s a summary of the claims that Penn State defenders have previously made in the years since the scandal broke, but this time with material from Freeh’s investigation that they say bolsters their view.

www.inquirer.com

The NCAA guidelines were not modeled after Joe's inaction and which PSU did not follow. That is just silly. MM wanted top cover from institutional retaliation for which he later collected 12 million.

Wrong. The policy, (I'm paraphrasing) that one should cooperate, but not interfere. Which is exactly what Joe did, report, cooperate, and not interfere. Feel free to pull the policy and prove me wrong, but like everything you post here, it will just be a waste of time.

I agree with the CYA move. However, Curley knew more than he told Raykovitz and in the end exonerated him.

Not true. Just biased wishful thinking from you.

They met at Spanier's house remember?

Who? When? Link?

Much bigger than PSU

Not likely

Nope. MM saw a crime and Joe corroborated it.

Not true, but if MM did witness a crime, MM should have reported it.

He did not say much to Dranov and Dad because he was in shock but later when composed told it fully to CSS.

Now you are not even trying. Dranov asked him 3 times if he saw abuse, and 3 times he said no.

Curley, as you stated, wanted to CYA so he told TSM but made sure it was nothing they would act on. Curley didn't want it reported to the proper authorities but just wanted to CYA. Didn't work and to jail he went. These are all facts testified to in court.

So you are sticking with the "they were involved in a secret coverup for a guy they didn't like and didn't work for them, and they decided to let someone outside the university on on part of the coverup." theory? You don't really think these things through before you post, do you?

They went to jail because their lives were put on hold for years, and were promised no jail time if they plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

That's why you guys are called JoeBots. Now who's projecting?

You obviously don't understand what "projecting" is. But I do see you've devolved to name calling, first sign of defeat on the internet!

The crime occurred on PSU. It is not definitive who the kid was even today. Plus the one you claim it is got money from PSU for....you guessed it! CSA

No crime occurred "on PSU". It's part of the historical record. It's not "who I claim it is", it's who he claims he is. He did not get money from PSU for CSA, he got money to go away, he didn't testify at trial. PSU handed out lots of money for people making claims that they didn't vet. You would think that someone who has worked at such a large organization as you claim to would have seen someone make a claim and get paid to go away because it's cheaper than going to court.

So your conspiracy theory is that AM is not victim #2, and the real victim #2 just let him collect his money and also go on the record that no abuse occurred?

Yeah they did and that is why four of them; Sandusky and CSS when to jail.

Sandusky wasn't a PSU employee, I don't care about him. CSS did not go to jail for a coverup. Paterno was NEVER charged.

Four went to jail

Lot of people go to jail for lots of reasons. No one in this case went to jail for a coverup. I guess you think OJ didn't do it?

ROFL Glad to help. When is Sandusky getting out? What's next for the truther squad now that it's all over?

Sandusky wasn't a PSU employee, don't care. When is Bowden getting the all time wins record? We know why you are here being a coverup truther, spouting insane conspiracy theories. You obviously don't care that it makes you look like a lunatic. Hey... keep at it, its quite fun to watch!

Clearly, you are biased, and you don't have a good grasp of the facts of the situation. That much is clear to everyone. But what you don't understand is that your mere presence here works against you. Thou dost protest too much.

Clearly it wasn't the PSU admins that failed the alleged victims. We could learn from the failures of the state agencies that cleared Sandusky in 1998, and the many failures at TSM by "trained" individuals... and maybe prevent future abuse. But we can't because people like you insistent on blaming PSU. The fact that you do it in hopes that someday your team's coach will have a record is the saddest thing I have ever seen in my entire life.

 

[RaymondReddington]

No comment on the link about Paterno disliking Sandusky? The words you are looking for are "I was wrong and you were right."

It's the definition of bias. After the exemplary life he lived, there is no other way to read it.

The quote I provided was under oath, yours wasn't.

It just cements that he is not any good at what he does, BEFORE he wrote the PSU report. Which conclusions were reasonable, and which pages back them up. I need specifics.

The exact name isn't important. Someone on his team believed it:

Penn State alumni trustees attack Freeh investigation into Jerry Sandusky scandal

In many ways, it’s a summary of the claims that Penn State defenders have previously made in the years since the scandal broke, but this time with material from Freeh’s investigation that they say bolsters their view.

www.inquirer.com

Wrong. The policy, (I'm paraphrasing) that one should cooperate, but not interfere. Which is exactly what Joe did, report, cooperate, and not interfere. Feel free to pull the policy and prove me wrong, but like everything you post here, it will just be a waste of time.

Not true. Just biased wishful thinking from you.

Who? When? Link?


Not likely

Not true, but if MM did witness a crime, MM should have reported it.

Now you are not even trying. Dranov asked him 3 times if he saw abuse, and 3 times he said no.

So you are sticking with the "they were involved in a secret coverup for a guy they didn't like and didn't work for them, and they decided to let someone outside the university on on part of the coverup." theory? You don't really think these things through before you post, do you?

They went to jail because their lives were put on hold for years, and were promised no jail time if they plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

You obviously don't understand what "projecting" is. But I do see you've devolved to name calling, first sign of defeat on the internet!

No crime occurred "on PSU". It's part of the historical record. It's not "who I claim it is", it's who he claims he is. He did not get money from PSU for CSA, he got money to go away, he didn't testify at trial. PSU handed out lots of money for people making claims that they didn't vet. You would think that someone who has worked at such a large organization as you claim to would have seen someone make a claim and get paid to go away because it's cheaper than going to court.

So your conspiracy theory is that AM is not victim #2, and the real victim #2 just let him collect his money and also go on the record that no abuse occurred?

Sandusky wasn't a PSU employee, I don't care about him. CSS did not go to jail for a coverup. Paterno was NEVER charged.

Lot of people go to jail for lots of reasons. No one in this case went to jail for a coverup. I guess you think OJ didn't do it?

Sandusky wasn't a PSU employee, don't care. When is Bowden getting the all time wins record? We know why you are here being a coverup truther, spouting insane conspiracy theories. You obviously don't care that it makes you look like a lunatic. Hey... keep at it, its quite fun to watch!

Clearly, you are biased, and you don't have a good grasp of the facts of the situation. That much is clear to everyone. But what you don't understand is that your mere presence here works against you. Thou dost protest too much.

Clearly it wasn't the PSU admins that failed the alleged victims. We could learn from the failures of the state agencies that cleared Sandusky in 1998, and the many failures at TSM by "trained" individuals... and maybe prevent future abuse. But we can't because people like you insistent on blaming PSU. The fact that you do it in hopes that someday your team's coach will have a record is the saddest thing I have ever seen in my entire life.

God bless you for attempting to ply this a-hole with logic. You’re doing the Lord’s work, but he’ll never admit to being wrong because his only objective is to start a sh*t storm and keep it swirling.

I tried challenging his manhood, and fared no better.

 

[WHCANole]

No comment on the link about Paterno disliking Sandusky? The words you are looking for are "I was wrong and you were right."

I didn't comment because it is irrelevant as to what Joe should have done when receiving a report from MM on CSA. Also, if Joe hated Sandusky so much why did he tell him he could coach there as long as Joe was coaching? Why didn't he turn him in when he had the chance?

It's the definition of bias. After the exemplary life he lived, there is no other way to read it.

The quote I provided was under oath, yours wasn't.

Irrelevant. That was what your BOT said.

It just cements that he is not any good at what he does, BEFORE he wrote the PSU report. Which conclusions were reasonable, and which pages back them up. I need specifics.

I think you can read the report as well as I can.

The exact name isn't important. Someone on his team believed it:

If someone on his team said that which I doubt. The Trustee report was incredibly biased and that remark could have been one of them that wrote that note in there plus we would need context. I don't think you have anything.

Penn State alumni trustees attack Freeh investigation into Jerry Sandusky scandal

In many ways, it’s a summary of the claims that Penn State defenders have previously made in the years since the scandal broke, but this time with material from Freeh’s investigation that they say bolsters their view.

www.inquirer.com

Wrong. The policy, (I'm paraphrasing) that one should cooperate, but not interfere. Which is exactly what Joe did, report, cooperate, and not interfere. Feel free to pull the policy and prove me wrong, but like everything you post here, it will just be a waste of time.

The policy says Athletic Departments should not handle investigations of sexual assaults which was exactly what PSU did by having Curley do the inquires. Should have turned it over to police.

Not true. Just biased wishful thinking from you.

Who? When? Link?

February 12, 2001 according to this and the trial of Spanier "When Schultz and Curley met with Spanier on February 12, 2001, Schultz kept hand-written notes about the meeting. They indicate the 1998 report had been discussed." Meeting

Not likely

Not true, but if MM did witness a crime, MM should have reported it.

Yes I don't disagree (I have explained why I think he didn't) but he did report it to Paterno who could have and should have insured the police were informed. I was in an organization many time bigger than PSU.

Now you are not even trying. Dranov asked him 3 times if he saw abuse, and 3 times he said no.

That's not what Dranov testified to in Sandusky's trial.

So you are sticking with the "they were involved in a secret coverup for a guy they didn't like and didn't work for them, and they decided to let someone outside the university on on part of the coverup." theory? You don't really think these things through before you post, do you?

I agree with what one of Spanier's jurors said after his conviction. "It didn't feel like they were conspiring to endanger children," Navazio said. "They were conspiring to protect Penn State."

They went to jail because their lives were put on hold for years, and were promised no jail time if they plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

They went to jail because they admitted to their guilt or were convicted by a jury.

You obviously don't understand what "projecting" is. But I do see you've devolved to name calling, first sign of defeat on the internet!

No crime occurred "on PSU". It's part of the historical record. It's not "who I claim it is", it's who he claims he is. He did not get money from PSU for CSA, he got money to go away, he didn't testify at trial. PSU handed out lots of money for people making claims that they didn't vet. You would think that someone who has worked at such a large organization as you claim to would have seen someone make a claim and get paid to go away because it's cheaper than going to court.

I believe it was Victim 5 that testified at Spanier's trial that said he was assaulted at PSU after the MM incident and that was who Spanier was convicted of endangering.

So your conspiracy theory is that AM is not victim #2, and the real victim #2 just let him collect his money and also go on the record that no abuse occurred?

No, it is questionable that that person was Victim 2.

Sandusky wasn't a PSU employee, I don't care about him. CSS did not go to jail for a coverup. Paterno was NEVER charged.

The crime occurred on PSU campus so Sandusky not being a current employee has no merit. Plus Sandusky was in Emeritus status so he did still have an official connection to the university. Paterno died before all evidence collected by Freeh was produced. It is speculative as to whether Paterno would have been charged.

Lot of people go to jail for lots of reasons. No one in this case went to jail for a coverup. I guess you think OJ didn't do it?

Sandusky wasn't a PSU employee, don't care. When is Bowden getting the all time wins record? We know why you are here being a coverup truther, spouting insane conspiracy theories. You obviously don't care that it makes you look like a lunatic. Hey... keep at it, its quite fun to watch!

Clearly, you are biased, and you don't have a good grasp of the facts of the situation. That much is clear to everyone. But what you don't understand is that your mere presence here works against you. Thou dost protest too much.

Clearly it wasn't the PSU admins that failed the alleged victims. We could learn from the failures of the state agencies that cleared Sandusky in 1998, and the many failures at TSM by "trained" individuals... and maybe prevent future abuse. But we can't because people like you insistent on blaming PSU. The fact that you do it in hopes that someday your team's coach will have a record is the saddest thing I have ever seen in my entire life.

This has nothing to do with Bowden. The cautionary tale here is one of powerful popular institutions (like the Roman Catholic Church, Boy Scouts etc.) protecting themselves against outrageous scandals and that the leaders must be held accountable for their failures. PSU knew in 1998 (Chambers report) that Sandusky was a likely pedophile and didn't act. They paid for it but the victims they failed paid the greater price.

 

[Nostraduzzi]

Paterno's failure here is not one of law, but of morals and ethics, and given his stature as the face of Penn State, his culpability is indeed quite serious. Scandals like this one demonstrates the outsized role Paterno always felt he had at Penn State. It illustrates his willingness to protect the football program and his legacy even in the face of policies made by people at the university with ostensibly more authority—people who bent to his will when he wished to exert it (e.g. the firing of Vicky Triponey). Paterno was not just some adjunct English professor who's supposed to tell his department chair about an unruly student. And, sorry, every Penn Stater I know wore that "we're not like other big programs because we don't get into trouble" bit as a badge of honor. But the ones with half a brain now see this for what it is—for the abject moral failure on the part of pretty much everybody at Penn State, Paterno included.

Bottom line: The insular culture Paterno created—even as he sold the rest of the world on the notion that Penn State always did the right thing—is precisely why his moral complicity here matters. Whether Paterno deliberately looked the other way or did so out of indifference is not the issue. The fact that he knew about Jerry Sandusky and did not see he was stopped from preying on additional victims is. And, yes, it's enough to soil his legacy forever.

You sound just like a Pitter. You don’t give a damn about CSA. Paterno was several orders of magnitude more of a man than you are, or ever will be. This last post reveals your agenda here. Nobody is buying it. Take your shine box and GTFO!

 

[BeaverLion]

If you’re able to produce evidence that Schultz was not in charge of university police oversight, I’ll apologize. If you’re not, then you provide me with your name and address.

I’ll be waiting.

So Gary Schultz was a Law Enforcement officer? He had his Act 120 or PSP training?

 

[GTACSA]

I didn't comment because it is irrelevant as to what Joe should have done when receiving a report from MM on CSA. Also, if Joe hated Sandusky so much why did he tell him he could coach there as long as Joe was coaching? Why didn't he turn him in when he had the chance?

Irrelevant. That was what your BOT said.

I think you can read the report as well as I can.

If someone on his team said that which I doubt. The Trustee report was incredibly biased and that remark could have been one of them that wrote that note in there plus we would need context. I don't think you have anything.

The policy says Athletic Departments should not handle investigations of sexual assaults which was exactly what PSU did by having Curley do the inquires. Should have turned it over to police.

February 12, 2001 according to this and the trial of Spanier "When Schultz and Curley met with Spanier on February 12, 2001, Schultz kept hand-written notes about the meeting. They indicate the 1998 report had been discussed." Meeting

Yes I don't disagree (I have explained why I think he didn't) but he did report it to Paterno who could have and should have insured the police were informed. I was in an organization many time bigger than PSU.

That's not what Dranov testified to in Sandusky's trial.

I agree with what one of Spanier's jurors said after his conviction. "It didn't feel like they were conspiring to endanger children," Navazio said. "They were conspiring to protect Penn State."

They went to jail because they admitted to their guilt or were convicted by a jury.

I believe it was Victim 5 that testified at Spanier's trial that said he was assaulted at PSU after the MM incident and that was who Spanier was convicted of endangering.

No, it is questionable that that person was Victim 2.

The crime occurred on PSU campus so Sandusky not being a current employee has no merit. Plus Sandusky was in Emeritus status so he did still have an official connection to the university. Paterno died before all evidence collected by Freeh was produced. It is speculative as to whether Paterno would have been charged.

This has nothing to do with Bowden. The cautionary tale here is one of powerful popular institutions (like the Roman Catholic Church, Boy Scouts etc.) protecting themselves against outrageous scandals and that the leaders must be held accountable for their failures. PSU knew in 1998 (Chambers report) that Sandusky was a likely pedophile and didn't act. They paid for it but the victims they failed paid the greater price.

The policy says Athletic Departments should not handle investigations of sexual assaults which was exactly what PSU did by having Curley do the inquires. Should have turned it over to police.

Precisely and what makes it worse, is that Curley consulted the football coach for his input.