The narrative constructed by Louis Freeh was that PSU FB

[TJD88]

Re: ugh ...

Tom, why can't you play the part of the "investigative journalist" as you mention? This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be a smart ass. Perhaps there is a very valid reason why you can't be the "journalist" in this situation. Again, I don't mean anything negative with this question. I'm just genuinely confused by your comment. Thank you in advance.

 

[Doc-M]

Demlion wrote:

They have driven a number of us away. If this cannot be fixed with dramatic change in how the AA and BoT operate, then I am likely done with PSU altogether.

Never never surrender, fight is just starting. A lot of progress has been made with consent degree out of the window and newly elected trustees.

For me Penn State stands for quality of education for her students. I will always support Penn State with $ earmarked for students.

 

[alphadog7]

Dragging the AA into this the way they have may end up being a huge error on the part of the BOT.

And I for one, will never give up. Pressure. Time for the biggest Rally for Resignations they have ever seen at Homecoming. At some point the criminals will move on to somewhere where they don't have to work so hard.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

a few things ...


1st, I'm not an investigative journalist.

2nd, many of the things I know, which were mentioned in an earlier post, are things that were told to me in 2011, or later, on the condition that I did not repeat them. I gave my word, and even if I were to try to be an amateur investigative journalist, I wouldn't suddenly be released from the condition under which I was told the info.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

Tom

 

[TJD88]

Re: a few things ...

Thank you Tom.

Clarifies? I guess, and I mean no disrespect, but given how important this is I just find it a bit weak. And, why can't the person who told you these things grow a pair and come clean?

 

[indynittany]

Re: Will the Paterno case ever go to trial?

Originally posted by bdgan:
That might be the best chance to "correct" some of Freeh's assumptions.

The C/S/S trails could help a little if they ever go to trial. I'm sure Curley would explain his "after speaking to Joe" e-mail. Curley surely won't say that Joe convinced him not to report to the agencies because that would incriminate him. He'll probably say that MM only told him about horseplay and that he thought it would be fair to JS to talk to him face to face about how that could be seen as inappropriate. The haters won't believe him but any words supporting Joe's innocence could help modify the opinions of those on the fence.

Tim doesn't have to explain anything. The emails are perfectly clear. Here's what he wrote:


I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday - I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. [/B] I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate that we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative, we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?

The only change in plans proposed by Tim is in bold. He simply told Spanier and Schultz that he was uncomfortable going behind Sandusky's back and felt the right thing to do was to speak with Jerry, along with TSM and, if necessary, DPW. Had Tim said '...anyone, but....' the Freeh narrative would make sense. That would mean that he only wanted to talk with Sandusky and no one else. However, "...everyone, but..." means the opposite. It means he was still planning on telling TSM, but that he didn't like the idea of blindsiding Jerry. IOW, Tim proposed to include Jerry, but at no time is he excluding anyone.

Spanier's response confirms what I'm saying:


This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is if our message is not "heard" and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.

The bolded part says it all. That "step further" refers to Tim's proposal to also speak with Jerry. Addressing such a personal issue and rescinding Jerry's guest privileges surely would have been a difficult conversation.

The person who needs to do the explaining is Louis Freeh. He got this all wrong and he had to have known it was wrong from day one!

This post was edited on 4/17 9:48 AM by indynittany

This post was edited on 4/17 9:49 AM by indynittany

 

[tgar]

Re: Will the Paterno case ever go to trial?

" not heard" could also mean TSM and DPW not hearing the message.

 

[indynittany]

Re: Will the Paterno case ever go to trial?

Originally posted by tgar:
" not heard" could also mean TSM and DPW not hearing the message.

I don't think so. Jerry was to whom they were sending the message.

However, Spanier's reply speaks volumes. First of all, he's suggesting that the only set of circumstances that could leave them vulnerable was contingent upon Jerry being involved in a subsequent incident. It's an if/then scenario. Something else would have to happen. By definition, that precludes any concern that the boy in the shower, or his family, might go to the authorities and report CSA. If MM had reported CSA, why wouldn't that obvious "downside" have been the elephant in the room? Why would another incident have had to occur in order to trigger their perceived vulnerability?

It makes no sense that Curley and Schultz were told of CSA and were oblivious to the inherent and open ended risk associated with the boy or his family reporting the incident. Ten years after the fact, Mike had to have embellished what he reported. That's the only logical explanation.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

expand your thinking a bit ...

Clarifies? I guess, and I mean no disrespect, but given how important this is I just find it a bit weak.

Weak? What part of "I'm not an investigative reporter" did you not comprehend? I'm actually related to one, so I know a good bit about what they do, etc. I'm no more qualified to be an investigative reporter than I am to be a heart surgeon, even though I'm seen quite a few MD shows on TV, and even several documentaries on specific heart surgery procedures.

And, why can't the person who told you these things grow a pair and come clean?

Quite a few assumptions there. You seem to assume that it is one person. You also seem to assume that they are afraid to come forward. On the first assumption, you're incorrect. On the second assumption, it's rather complicated. In 2011/2012, the OAG was throwing subpoenas at all kinds of people. Then Freeh's team was requesting interviews with PSU employees and others. At some point the Feds reportedly started an investigation. It was a combination of reasons that many that knew certain things were not going public with such info. Ray Blehar has done a nice job of getting some folks to talk with him, though quite a few of his sources have insisted on not being identified. Beyond that, you still have the C/S/S charges which have yet to go to trial. There are attorneys that would prefer to not try to win their cases in the court of public opinion, but to actually save some of their info for the courtroom.

Tom

 

[nits74]

Re: expand your thinking a bit ...

Tom, that was an excellent and informative reply to the poster's questions. And it is as encouraging a post as I've seen. Thanks.

 

[The Spin Meister]

From the world's greatest philospher; Joesy Wales

Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna
make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if
you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's
just the way it is.

 

[NittPicker]

Re: expand your thinking a bit ...

The reported federal investigation is still an enigma.

1) If it's happening it's been going on for a long time and if it's been going on for a long time there must be a lot of information to sift through.

2) If it happened and is finished then the feds must not have found anything they could pursue unless for some reason they're waiting.

3) Maybe it never happened at all.

 

[nits74]

Re: expand your thinking a bit ...

I question the existence of a Fed investigation myself. On the other hand, I wonder if it is happening if it is the real reason for the delay in the C/S/S trial.

 

[PSU Proud]

WTF? I could barely follow this thread, except for my recognition of some of the posters' history.

Why are you yelling at Tom McAndrew? It you are unhappy about how long it is taking then actually do something about it or are some of you just lazy a holes? If there is a U. S. Postal Service investigation of The Second Mile it would have been reported on by some publication. So, lazy asses, do some homework and tell us your results.

My opinion has always been that the powers that be, the BoT, bidness, yea, businessmen and a politician found out that Joe Paterno was dying, and whomever had something to lose when everyone found out about Sandusky threw JoePa under the bus. Shut him down from speaking under threat of his pension. Now, this happens all the time to smaller people; and I guess Tom Corbitt, John Surma and others thought that Joe would go quietly into the night, but it didn't work out that way, and it isn't going away. All that is required is for all of us to remember and bear witness to Joe Paterno.

So. Here we are. Sandusky in jail, the others at TSM not yet. The NCAA has given back almost everything. And we are left with three trials, how many law suits? And the unprinted facts. Who can argue that the BoT, NCAA, Louie Freeh unknown as yet others, aren't in fact....Steaming piles of manure! Everything that happens just yells "Weasel" louder.

How dumb are these people? shielded from reality by money?


" There is only one, singular, immutable, definitive, quantifiable REALITY and it is whatever you think it is"




"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so".[/I] Mark Twain

 

[lionlurker]

Does anybody know how long Fed investigations usually take?

It seems like an awfully long time for something that is probably not all that complicated. We're not talking Swiss banks here.

I don't buy the whole Fed thing anymore.