Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"

[francofan]

The podcast linked above is definitely worth a listen for the interview with Gladwell. I'm actually surprised he mentions V2 by name in his book. Unlike most JZ interviews, JZ is actually very measured and under control.

Here are some of the key quotes that Gladwell said in the interview:

• “There is no way Joe Paterno even belongs in this conversation. Everyone should agree he was treated shamefully and that his good name needs to be restored.”
• “I am ashamed to be part of a society which tried to put Graham Spanier in prison.”
• “We were way, way, way, way too quick to come to judgement about the Penn State leadership and on Joe Paterno, and way too quick to think that Mike McQueary’s account is cut and dry when, in fact, it’s not.”
• “Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz were the victims of a moral panic. It was crazy.”
• “The prosecution behaved egregiously in this case and continues to behave egregiously.”
• “The Freeh Report (conducted on the case on behalf of Penn State by former FBI Director Louis Freeh) is a whole other pile of crap.”
• The prosecution’s current date (their second official stab at it after originally incorrectly claiming it was March 1, 2002) for the McQueary episode, February 9, 2001, is “bullshit.”
• The news media’s total lack of curiosity in the real story of the “boy in the shower,” whom Gladwell correctly identifies in his book as then 13-year old Allan Myers, is “bizarre.”
• As for Sandusky’s guilt, Gladwell cautiously says, “I don’t know. The public should know that this is murky… This case is shrouded in doubt.” He adds that in reality it is, “the polar opposite of the Larry Nassar case,” when it has been portrayed by the media as very similar.
• In the news media, “There is kind of a group mentality that takes place in these cases, at least in the beginning.”
• “My hat is off to you John. I admire what you have done and I encourage others to look at it and reach their own conclusions… I think you are going to live to see at least some measure of vindication.”

Here is a link to Ziegler's column in Mediate where he discusses the interview.

https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/ma...1_lngHXPFygvDKb52gFHsOEBoZhC6jyGPTo7ATma5stcE

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[francofan]

It is very interesting that @defendachild links to Ziegler's podcast, He seems certain of Sandusky's guilt and has stated many times he believes that Ziegler is a stalker.

If he buys into Gladwell findings, then he buys into the v2 incident happening on Dec. 29, 2000, that AM is v2, that the Penn State administrators did nothing wrong and are totally innocent, and the prosecution has behaved egreciously and continues to behave egreciously. While Gladwell says he has no clue whether or not Sandusky is innocent, his findings support that the prosecution of Sandusky was fatally flawed and at a minimum he absolutely deserves a new trial.

 

[Diego Badman]

The interview was certainly compelling. I think John's research is excellent. JZ was really trying to sell Gladwell on Sandusky being innocent when, as Gladwell remarks, he doesn't know. I knew JZ couldn't leave that alone because, if he got some kind of begrudging agreement on that matter from Gladwell, he would have run with it, promoted it, and, by doing so, minimized Gladwell's effectiveness. It's been 8 years. Maybe Gladwell's "baby steps" might lead to other revelations.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

The interview was certainly compelling. I think John's research is excellent. JZ was really trying to sell Gladwell on Sandusky being innocent when, as Gladwell remarks, he doesn't know. I knew JZ couldn't leave that along because, if he got some kind of begrudging agreement on that matter from Gladwell, he would have run with it, promoted it, and, by doing so, minimized Gladwell's effectiveness. It's been 8 years. Maybe Gladwell's "baby steps" might lead to other revelations.

JZ's research might be good, I will admit that.

His presentation is a disaster.

In speaking, he just ends up screaming at people, he has no idea how to persuade.

His website makes him look like a madman. Anytime he encourages people to look there for the whole story, it's cringeworthy. If someone actually had an open mind and clicked open that site, they'd instantly conclude JZ is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

 

[Diego Badman]

JZ's research might be good, I will admit that.

His presentation is a disaster.

In speaking, he just ends up screaming at people, he has no idea how to persuade.

His website makes him look like a madman. Anytime he encourages people to look there for the whole story, it's cringeworthy. If someone actually had an open mind and clicked open that site, they'd instantly conclude JZ is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

He gets very defensive and confrontational when you don't agree with him 100%. I really think he knows this, but he cannot help himself. I think he is conditioned to be on the defensive since his narrative doesn't align with those who have a bigger platform.

And, truthfully, if you distill it even further, the Gladwell interview was less about Gladwell's Jerry Sandusky chapter and more about validation of JZ's research by a respected author.

I like John's research. I just wish there wasn't so much hyperbole and bombast associated with it.

 

[indynittany]

IMO, Gladwell should talk up his belief that Joe and C/S/S have been wronged. The reason this became such a media orgy is because of JVP. I think Gladwell would sell more books. I also think it would pave the way to revisit Sandusky's case in a civil, sober, honest way.

Ziegler, IMO, missed the opportunity to gain national respect and prominence by focusing on Jerry instead of Penn State. Restoring Joe's reputation is low hanging fruit. I believe he would then have validation and a platform to address the legitimate questions regarding Sandusky.

 

[francofan]

Former Penn State coach Sandusky may not be guilty, according to Malcolm Gladwell's new book

Malcolm Gladwell's new book, "Talking to Strangers," devotes a chapter to the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.

The Canadian author writes that he believes the Penn State brass, including coach Joe Paterno and then-president Graham Spanier, are innocent -- and that he's also not sure of Sandusky's guilt, as reported by John Ziegler at mediaite.com.

Gladwell interviewed Ziegler, a longtime defender of Paterno, Spanier and former Penn State officials Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, for his book.

Ziegler talked to Gladwell about the scandal and wrote about it here at mediaite.com, where there is also a link to the conversation between Gladwell and Ziegler.

https://lancasteronline.com/sports/...cle_bf864a06-d3dc-11e9-a27c-37247ab3c075.html

 

[wbcincy]

Again, I respect the research JZ has done, but he's just impossible to listen to (though I listened to the entire thing). It's a shame, because he has compelling evidence, he's just so difficult to listen to and abrasive that he won't change narrative himself at all. It'll take someone like Gladwell using his research to talk about it intellectually to have any chance. JZ's rantings won't be what does it, though I'm thankful for the work he's done.

 

[JeannieNeedsAShooter]

But you can’t have one without the other. JZ is about the whole truth. Too bad most PSU supporters aren’t and weren’t.

IMO, Gladwell should talk up his belief that Joe and C/S/S have been wronged. The reason this became such a media orgy is because of JVP. I think Gladwell would sell more books. I also think it would pave the way to revisit Sandusky's case in a civil, sober, honest way.

Ziegler, IMO, missed the opportunity to gain national respect and prominence by focusing on Jerry instead of Penn State. Restoring Joe's reputation is low hanging fruit. I believe he would then have validation and a platform to address the legitimate questions regarding Sandusky.

 

[JeannieNeedsAShooter]

I guess I’m in the minority here, but I think John’s delivery is powerful and matches the outrage I still feel. I’m not sure how someone could deliver the message of what a complete fraud this whole case is in a calm manner. I also find him extremely articulate which is probably one main reason no one from the other side will debate him.

Again, I respect the research JZ has done, but he's just impossible to listen to (though I listened to the entire thing). It's a shame, because he has compelling evidence, he's just so difficult to listen to and abrasive that he won't change narrative himself at all. It'll take someone like Gladwell using his research to talk about it intellectually to have any chance. JZ's rantings won't be what does it, though I'm thankful for the work he's done.

 

[wbcincy]

I guess I’m in the minority here, but I think John’s delivery is powerful and matches the outrage I still feel. I’m not sure how someone could deliver the message of what a complete fraud this whole case is in a calm manner. I also find him extremely articulate which is probably one main reason no one from the other side will debate him.

Yeah, folks can certainly disagree on what type of speaking moves them. I would say his outrage and anger works fine for preaching to the choir, but when you're looking to convince others, it makes you look rather nuts.

For me it's shocking that anyone would find him anything but outrageously loud and abrasive. He's talk to Gladwell, who is brilliant, and has to interrupt and shout at him constantly. And rather than ask a brilliant man open-ended questions, he spends the entire interview giving 5 minute dissertations of his own and then simply asking Malcolm whether he agrees. So I found him once again to be both completely unpersuasive with his tone, but also a terrible interviewer.

 

[RussianEagle]

But you can’t have one without the other. JZ is about the whole truth. Too bad most PSU supporters aren’t and weren’t.

I agree. JZ tried playing the angle of Joe is innocent but Jerry’s still a pedo back in 2013, but was still ridiculed by the media.

He really had no choice when the credibility of Aaron Fisher started to crumble in 2014. Doing some research, it becomes very clear the OAG used Fisher’s story to get every other accuser (who were all friends with Jerry as heterosexual adults) and Mike McQueary (who had never previously objected to JS still being around and even played in his charity golf tournaments) to flip on Jerry.

 

[JeannieNeedsAShooter]

Gladwell may be brilliant, but on this topic he’s nowhere near as well informed as Ziegler. I don’t recall Ziegler shouting at Gladwell. Instead he gave him lots of room to answer. Gladwell wouldn’t have given Ziegler an hour interview if he found him so off putting.

Yeah, folks can certainly disagree on what type of speaking moves them. I would say his outrage and anger works fine for preaching to the choir, but when you're looking to convince others, it makes you look rather nuts.

For me it's shocking that anyone would find him anything but outrageously loud and abrasive. He's talk to Gladwell, who is brilliant, and has to interrupt and shout at him constantly. And rather than ask a brilliant man open-ended questions, he spends the entire interview giving 5 minute dissertations of his own and then simply asking Malcolm whether he agrees. So I found him once again to be both completely unpersuasive with his tone, but also a terrible interviewer.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I agree. JZ tried playing the angle of Joe is innocent but Jerry’s still a pedo back in 2013, but was still ridiculed by the media.

He really had no choice when the credibility of Aaron Fisher started to crumble in 2014. Doing some research, it becomes very clear the OAG used Fisher’s story to get every other accuser (who were all friends with Jerry as heterosexual adults) and Mike McQueary (who had never previously objected to JS still being around and even played in his charity golf tournaments) to flip on Jerry.

This may well be true. But remember that the OAG didn’t put Jerry in showers with boys, the OAG didn’t put Jerry in an otherwise deserted gym behind wrestling mats with a boy, the OAG didn’t make Jerry agree to not shower alone with boys again before he did, the OAG did not force Jerry to admit to blowing raspberries on the bellies of unrelated boys, the OAG did not make Jerry hold boys up to a shower head to rinse off.

 

[indynittany]

But you can’t have one without the other. JZ is about the whole truth. Too bad most PSU supporters aren’t and weren’t.

We disagree on this. I believe the evidence clearly shows that C/S/S and JVP are innocent of any and all wrong doing regardless of Jerry's guilt or innocence.

JZ has done some amazing work but he tends to antagonize those who should be his natural allies. He's convinced me that Sandusky's case needs to be revisited with a fresh, objective set of eyes. I hope this gets to a federal court. The PA judicial system is also on trial here, which is why Jerry hasn't had a prayer to this point.

I agree that too many PSU supporters have bought into the narrative. Some, sadly, epitomize Emmert's characterization of a "football culture". But I believe there are many who quietly believe a great injustice has been done to the reputation of their university and to the men associated with it. They just need a nudge to get behind a movement to set the record straight regarding PSU. However, to get on a bandwagon in support of Jerry's innocence, they're going to need more than that. They're going to need a great big push! They're completely different stories.

I say, first thing first. There was no reason to throw JVP under the bus. His name should not have been tarnished one iota because of this. Frank Noonan should have never made the comments he made. Tom Corbett should not have been bragging to people how he got Paterno fired. Louis Freeh, based on the information contained in his report, could have easily concluded that Joe did nothing wrong. C/S/S too, for that matter! PSU was deliberately made to take the fall here when Occam's Razor tells us that The Second Mile was where all the answers pertaining to Jerry Sandusky were hiding.

The university could rewrite this narrative any time it wants.

 

[indynittany]

This may well be true. But remember that the OAG didn’t put Jerry in showers with boys, the OAG didn’t put Jerry in an otherwise deserted gym with a boy, the OAG didn’t make Jerry agree to not shower alone with boys again before he did, the OAG did not force Jerry to admit to blowing raspberries on the bellies of unrelated boys, the OAG did not make Jerry hold boys up to a shower head to rinse off.

But the OAG did investigate Jerry in 1998 and failed to indicate him. They could have done that without bringing charges and Jerry's access to boys would have been restricted. His guest privileges in the PSU facilities would not have been written into his retirement agreement and none of this would have ever happened.

 

[Connorpozlee]

But the OAG did investigate Jerry in 1998 and failed to indicate him. They could have done that without bringing charges and Jerry's access to boys would have been restricted. His guest privileges in the PSU facilities would not have been written into his retirement agreement and none of this would have ever happened.

I’m not getting into it all again. I’m just pointing out that Jerry put himself in several situations that a pedophile would dream of being in.

 

[indynittany]

I’m not getting into it all again. I’m just pointing out that Jerry put himself in several situations that a pedophile would dream of being in.

I'm not commenting on who or what Jerry is. I'm simply pointing out that had the OAG done that one thing in 1998....indicated him......, Urban Meyer would likely have been our next coach.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I'm not commenting on who or what Jerry is. I'm simply pointing out that had the OAG done that one thing in 1998....indicated him......, Urban Meyer would likely have been our next coach.

Doubtful. If Jerry was indicated in 1998, that would become public knowledge.

It would have been a different and earlier mess, but still a mess worthy of media attention.

Even then Joe would have possibly been burned by BoT.

 

[UncleLar]

I keep posing these four questions to anyone who thinks McQueary has any credibility as a witness. No one ever answers.

1. The night before McQueary met with Joe Paterno, February 9, 2001, was a typical Friday Night during the school year at PSU. In addition to the hoards of drunk college students walking around everywhere, there was a Barenaked Ladies concert at the BJC and a home club hockey game starting at a building attached to Lasch. Why then, did McQueary originally believe the incident happened the Friday before Spring Break, a time when campus would be practically empty?

I have an issue with Ziegler's "evidence" in this regard. The Barenaked Ladies concert started at 8 pm. I've driven by the BJC an hour after a concert's start multiple times and, other than the building being lit up, it's hard to tell that anything is going on on the inside. There's not even much traffic right outside the BJC much less at Lasch not quite a half mile away down the hill from the Jordan Center. The "hockey game" going on isn't much evidence either. While Ziegler does say that it was a "club" hockey game, what he doesn't mention is that it wasn't an Icers game. The Icers, Penn State's national club championship team, was playing in Ohio that night. The game that was played was by a true club hockey team, the Ice Lions. The Icers would draw 1000+ fans to Greenberg but the Ice Lions would only have a handful of friends and family. It wouldn't have been anywhere near a "madhouse" as Gladwell calls it in his book. There might have been a couple of concert goers and hockey fans around but I doubt there would be enough for McQueary to remember a decade later.

 

[PearlSUJam]

I have an issue with Ziegler's "evidence" in this regard. The Barenaked Ladies concert started at 8 pm. I've driven by the BJC an hour after a concert's start multiple times and, other than the building being lit up, it's hard to tell that anything is going on on the inside. There's not even much traffic right outside the BJC much less at Lasch not quite a half mile away down the hill from the Jordan Center. The "hockey game" going on isn't much evidence either. While Ziegler does say that it was a "club" hockey game, what he doesn't mention is that it wasn't an Icers game. The Icers, Penn State's national club championship team, was playing in Ohio that night. The game that was played was by a true club hockey team, the Ice Lions. The Icers would draw 1000+ fans to Greenberg but the Ice Lions would only have a handful of friends and family. It wouldn't have been anywhere near a "madhouse" as Gladwell calls it in his book. There might have been a couple of concert goers and hockey fans around but I doubt there would be enough for McQueary to remember a decade later.

Again, why can't the lawyers go back and check phone records of calls out of that building at that time of night if it was unusual for anyone being there to set the record straight? I know for a fact in another case they figured out where someone was by pinging cell towers in 2005. Are you telling me they couldn't do that in 2001/2002 with land lines to figure out the date? Phone records don't lie.

 

[RussianEagle]

I have an issue with Ziegler's "evidence" in this regard. The Barenaked Ladies concert started at 8 pm. I've driven by the BJC an hour after a concert's start multiple times and, other than the building being lit up, it's hard to tell that anything is going on on the inside. There's not even much traffic right outside the BJC much less at Lasch not quite a half mile away down the hill from the Jordan Center. The "hockey game" going on isn't much evidence either. While Ziegler does say that it was a "club" hockey game, what he doesn't mention is that it wasn't an Icers game. The Icers, Penn State's national club championship team, was playing in Ohio that night. The game that was played was by a true club hockey team, the Ice Lions. The Icers would draw 1000+ fans to Greenberg but the Ice Lions would only have a handful of friends and family. It wouldn't have been anywhere near a "madhouse" as Gladwell calls it in his book. There might have been a couple of concert goers and hockey fans around but I doubt there would be enough for McQueary to remember a decade later.

That still doesn’t explain why McQueary believed the incident occurred the Friday before Spring break.

Also, Jerry Sandusky has been claiming for years that February 9, 2001 was not the real date. Podcasts of Ziegler’s from 2015 and 2016 reveal this. A Centre Daily Times acknowledges that Sandusky was actually the first person to object to the original 2002 date. If the 2001 date was correct, it seems he would be bragging that he got the date correct, not further stating it’s wrong.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I have an issue with Ziegler's "evidence" in this regard. The Barenaked Ladies concert started at 8 pm. I've driven by the BJC an hour after a concert's start multiple times and, other than the building being lit up, it's hard to tell that anything is going on on the inside. There's not even much traffic right outside the BJC much less at Lasch not quite a half mile away down the hill from the Jordan Center. The "hockey game" going on isn't much evidence either. While Ziegler does say that it was a "club" hockey game, what he doesn't mention is that it wasn't an Icers game. The Icers, Penn State's national club championship team, was playing in Ohio that night. The game that was played was by a true club hockey team, the Ice Lions. The Icers would draw 1000+ fans to Greenberg but the Ice Lions would only have a handful of friends and family. It wouldn't have been anywhere near a "madhouse" as Gladwell calls it in his book. There might have been a couple of concert goers and hockey fans around but I doubt there would be enough for McQueary to remember a decade later.

Regardless of the actual date, we know MmQ saw/heard something going on in the shower & reported to Joe.

What motivated him to report?

Might have been the WR coach position. But maybe not.

Maybe it was all the press around C#ntfest and open and frank discussions on campus about consent and abuse.

 

[pandaczar12]

Maybe it was all the press around C#ntfest and open and frank discussions on campus about consent and abuse.

The fact that you keep trying to tie it to the Sandusky scandal shows that you obviously didn’t live through it.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

The fact that you keep trying to tie it to the Sandusky scandal shows that you obviously didn’t live through it.

The fact that MMQ went to Joe the day after sex faire is certainly a coincidence.

I did live through that, it was probably the biggest shitstorm to hit Penn State in its history through that time. It definitely consumed a lot of Spaniers time, as the state was threatening to pull funding. It formulated the beginning of Corbett vs Spanier.

The person who hasn't lived through that is Ziegler. He's an outsider and is missing that context.

It most certainly was at least part of MMQs motivation to see Joe when he did, especially if the new date is correct and distances the event from the report so drastically in time.

 

[pandaczar12]

The fact that MMQ went to Joe the day after sex faire is certainly a coincidence.

I did live through that, it was probably the biggest shitstorm to hit Penn State in its history through that time. It definitely consumed a lot of Spaniers time, as the state was threatening to pull funding. It formulated the beginning of Corbett vs Spanier.

The person who hasn't lived through that is Ziegler. He's an outsider and is missing that context.

It most certainly was at least part of MMQs motivation to see Joe when he did, especially if the new date is correct and distances the event from the report so drastically in time.

You way overestimate what it was. You are making connections that aren’t really there.

How do you know what day MMQ went to Paterno?

 

[BobPSU92]

Welcome back, Bushwood!

Exactly.

 

[Chris92]

I have an issue with Ziegler's "evidence" in this regard. The Barenaked Ladies concert started at 8 pm. I've driven by the BJC an hour after a concert's start multiple times and, other than the building being lit up, it's hard to tell that anything is going on on the inside. There's not even much traffic right outside the BJC much less at Lasch not quite a half mile away down the hill from the Jordan Center. The "hockey game" going on isn't much evidence either. While Ziegler does say that it was a "club" hockey game, what he doesn't mention is that it wasn't an Icers game. The Icers, Penn State's national club championship team, was playing in Ohio that night. The game that was played was by a true club hockey team, the Ice Lions. The Icers would draw 1000+ fans to Greenberg but the Ice Lions would only have a handful of friends and family. It wouldn't have been anywhere near a "madhouse" as Gladwell calls it in his book. There might have been a couple of concert goers and hockey fans around but I doubt there would be enough for McQueary to remember a decade later.

But, there's certainly cars in the parking lots outside the BJC and all over campus. If it was a "deserted campus," that means the cars would be gone as well with the students on break.

 

[wlawn]

John Ziegler is not impressed with Jay Paterno's opinion on Malcolm Gladwell's new book.

View embedded media

View embedded media

This picture alone should destroy any credibility Mike had.

 

[RussianEagle]

But, there's certainly cars in the parking lots outside the BJC and all over campus. If it was a "deserted campus," that means the cars would be gone as well with the students on break.

Also if it was a typical Friday night at 9:00, there would be hundreds, if not thousands of
Freshman making the trek from East Halls downtown to party. McQueary would have certainly noticed them as he was driving to Lasch, especially considering many of them would be already drunk from “pre-gaming” in the dorms.

In addition, the weather history report reveals that February 9, 2001 in State College was an unusually warm evening (50-60F). There would certainly be scantily clad coeds walking around, and Mike seems like a guy who would definitely remember that!

Finally, even if Mike did simply forget whether people were on campus the night he witnessed Sandusky in the shower, how did the idea it happened the Friday before Spring Break get in his head. We can all agree that is not true. It’s certainly possible that OAG planted that idea in Mike’s head since they figured that Sandusky would choose to rape a boy on a night where he had little worry of someone walking in, but doesn’t that just further support the theory that Mike was vulnerable to manipulation by the OAG and that the story was reversed engineered?

 

[RussianEagle]

The fact that MMQ went to Joe the day after sex faire is certainly a coincidence.

I did live through that, it was probably the biggest shitstorm to hit Penn State in its history through that time. It definitely consumed a lot of Spaniers time, as the state was threatening to pull funding. It formulated the beginning of Corbett vs Spanier.

The person who hasn't lived through that is Ziegler. He's an outsider and is missing that context.

It most certainly was at least part of MMQs motivation to see Joe when he did, especially if the new date is correct and distances the event from the report so drastically in time.

I don’t get what you’re saying. I lived through that too. I was a freshman at PSU that year and was completely shocked and bewildered by C*untFest and the Sex Faire as I came from a very conservative small town.

Are you saying Mike’s motivation was to report Sandusky so the administration could deal with Sandusky before his acts became public knowledge and henceforth made the university look even worse during a time when the public already had a negative view? If that’s the case, I’m not sure why McQueary would tell Joe first, as Joe did not see eye to eye with Spanier politically.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I don’t get what you’re saying. I lived through that too. I was a freshman at PSU that year and was completely shocked and bewildered by C*untFest and the Sex Faire as I came from a very conservative small town.

Are you saying Mike’s motivation was to report Sandusky so the administration could deal with Sandusky before his acts became public knowledge and henceforth made the university look even worse during a time when the public already had a negative view? If that’s the case, I’m not sure why McQueary would tell Joe first, as Joe did not see eye to eye with Spanier politically.

He went to Joe, by all accounts, to ask for advice, what to do. He trusted him. (Also he had likely asked his Dad and Dr for advice at some point between the incident and telling Joe- their advice was to tell Joe).

Joe said he'd take care of it, and cracked open policy manuals, and found the closest thing to the situation he heard, and followed that.

 

[NittPicker]

He went to Joe, by all accounts, to ask for advice, what to do. He trusted him. (Also he had likely asked his Dad and Dr for advice at some point between the incident and telling Joe- their advice was to tell Joe).

Joe said he'd take care of it, and cracked open policy manuals, and found the closest thing to the situation he heard, and followed that.

If Dad and Dr. thought they were hearing of a crime then they should have told Mike to go to the police. They didn't, so they didn't.

If the current NCAA policy was in place in 2001 (or whatever year McQ thought he saw something), Joe would have been required to act exactly as he had.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

If Dad and Dr. thought they were hearing of a crime then they should have told Mike to go to the police. They didn't, so they didn't.

If the current NCAA policy was in place in 2001 (or whatever year McQ thought he saw something), Joe would have been required to act exactly as he had.

Agreed

 

[indynittany]

...Joe said he'd take care of it, and cracked open policy manuals, and found the closest thing to the situation he heard, and followed that.

Does anybody think the AOG and the BOT didn't know that?

The statute of limitations for 'failure to report' is ten years. Does anybody think it's a coincidence that the date in the McQueary incident was over a year off?

Joe was a witness for the prosecution. He was not a target of the grand jury. Under what pretext and under whose authority did Frank Noonan publicly call into question whether JVP had met his moral obligation? That was incredibly unprofessional and inappropriate! Tom Corbett should have fired him or disciplined him immediately at the very least. How did Noonan come to have that platform? How did he avoid scrutiny?

What was the OAG's motivation for embellishing Mike's GJ testimony. Did they include the "anal intercourse" accusation to strengthen their case against Jerry? Did they do it because they wanted Jerry's case tried in the court of public opinion and wanted to sensationalize it? Was it to implicate PSU as the epicenter of Jerry's activities to deflect attention away from TSM? Or all of the above?

An objective reading of the emails and notes from 2001, that are included in the Freeh report, completely exonerate JVP and blows up the notion of a cover up. Does anybody think Freeh didn't know that when he wrote his conclusions?

Is there a plausible explanation for the BOT's refusal to take a public position on the Freeh report?

Does anybody think the BOT didn't want the NCAA sanctions? Weren't the sanctions meant to forever connect the harm befalling PSU to Joe Paterno?

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Does anybody think the AOG and the BOT didn't know that?

The statute of limitations for 'failure to report' is ten years. Does anybody think it's a coincidence that the date in the McQueary incident was over a year off?

Joe was a witness for the prosecution. He was not a target of the grand jury. Under what pretext and under whose authority did Frank Noonan publicly call into question whether JVP had met his moral obligation? That was incredibly unprofessional and inappropriate! Tom Corbett should have fired him or disciplined him immediately at the very least. How did Noonan come to have that platform? How did he avoid scrutiny?

What was the OAG's motivation for embellishing Mike's GJ testimony. Did they include the "anal intercourse" accusation to strengthen their case against Jerry? Did they do it because they wanted Jerry's case tried in the court of public opinion and wanted to sensationalize it? Was it to implicate PSU as the epicenter of Jerry's activities to deflect attention away from TSM? Or all of the above?

An objective reading of the emails and notes from 2001, that are included in the Freeh report, completely exonerate JVP and blows up the notion of a cover up. Does anybody think Freeh didn't know that when he wrote his conclusions?

Is there a plausible explanation for the BOT's refusal to take a public position on the Freeh report?

Does anybody think the BOT didn't want the NCAA sanctions? Weren't the sanctions meant to forever connect the harm befalling PSU to Joe Paterno?

It's crazy how little people remember about this.

Nobody who is sane and/or knowledgeable thinks the BoT wanted NCAA sanctions. There was no cover up.

When the Freeh report was first announced, people on this board and similar forums FREAKED that it wouldn't be independent. The BoT ultimately agreed that they would allow Freeh to release his report without BoT review. This was a BIG MISTAKE. (By both the community and the BoT)

When it was released, it was BAD. The BoT did NOT accept it as a whole, but did accept the recommendations sections - which were not entirely unreasonable, and have been implemented by other Universities as prudent measures.

The NCAA had asked PSU several questions about this whole situation. PSU (Erickson) chose not to respond. They said that the Freeh Report would stand as the response. This was arguably the BIGGEST mistake. (Except for the snap decision to fire Joe).

 

[RussianEagle]

Does anybody think the AOG and the BOT didn't know that?

The statute of limitations for 'failure to report' is ten years. Does anybody think it's a coincidence that the date in the McQueary incident was over a year off?

Joe was a witness for the prosecution. He was not a target of the grand jury. Under what pretext and under whose authority did Frank Noonan publicly call into question whether JVP had met his moral obligation? That was incredibly unprofessional and inappropriate! Tom Corbett should have fired him or disciplined him immediately at the very least. How did Noonan come to have that platform? How did he avoid scrutiny?

What was the OAG's motivation for embellishing Mike's GJ testimony. Did they include the "anal intercourse" accusation to strengthen their case against Jerry? Did they do it because they wanted Jerry's case tried in the court of public opinion and wanted to sensationalize it? Was it to implicate PSU as the epicenter of Jerry's activities to deflect attention away from TSM? Or all of the above?

An objective reading of the emails and notes from 2001, that are included in the Freeh report, completely exonerate JVP and blows up the notion of a cover up. Does anybody think Freeh didn't know that when he wrote his conclusions?

Is there a plausible explanation for the BOT's refusal to take a public position on the Freeh report?

Does anybody think the BOT didn't want the NCAA sanctions? Weren't the sanctions meant to forever connect the harm befalling PSU to Joe Paterno?

My guess is the OAG embellished MM testimony is order to take the focus off the credibility actual accusers. They knew those stories were flimsy. However, they figured people would believe a young up-and-coming assistant coach who was close to JoePa.

I think Corbett and the OAG were caught completely off guard by the media tarring of Joe Paterno. Remember the OAG praises Joe at first and one if Sara Ganim’s first stories after the arrest noted it.

https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2011/11/paterno_praised_for_acting_app.html

 

[indynittany]

.....Nobody who is sane and/or knowledgeable thinks the BoT wanted NCAA sanctions......

I think there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I think the BOT wanted some sanctions to confine the blame on Joe, who had died, and the administrators, who had been removed from their positions. It was part of their public strategy to make this go away. This was about optics.

I also think Freeh and the NCAA saw an opportunity to grab power and double crossed the BOT.

 

[indynittany]

My guess is the OAG embellished MM testimony is order to take the focus off the credibility actual accusers. They knew those stories were flimsy. However, they figured people would believe a young up-and-coming assistant coach who was close to JoePa.

I think Corbett and the OAG were caught completely off guard by the media tarring of Joe Paterno. Remember the OAG praises Joe at first and one if Sara Ganim’s first stories after the arrest noted it.

https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2011/11/paterno_praised_for_acting_app.html

Explain Frank Noonan's remarks!