What should they have done?

[Obliviax]

The court reporter's machine has a built-in recording mechanism that records the testimony as it is being transcribed.

Regardless, Joe did as he was supposed to do (as it is written into policy and law then and now). He even follow up with MM when he asked several times if everything was all right (MM testified that he told Joe that it was).

On the court reporter's machine, who has access to that recording and how would they get it? There have been speculation that he was asking a clarifying question, "something sexual?" as opposed to "something sexual".

I don't know.

Still has nothing to do with the FACT that Joe did everything correctly.

 

[WeR0206]

The court reporter's machine has a built-in recording mechanism that records the testimony as it is being transcribed.

When testimony is read in to the record, all the lawyers and the judge have copies of the transcript and follow along. If something is read incorrectly there is plenty of opportunity to object.

Yes, and to this date NONE of us have heard the ORIGINAL recording of Joe's GJ testimony to see if it matches what Barker read. If Barker misread "was it" as "it was" I doubt anyone would have noticed it contemporaneously as it's a rather small mix up. However, there's a good reason why the Paterno family has requested the original GJ recording to see if it matches what Barker read into the record.

I haven't heard whether or not the Paternos were able to get access to this original recording but it wouldn't surprise me if the OAG "lost" it somewhere along the way...

 

[LundyPSU]

Yes, and to this date NONE of us have heard the ORIGINAL recording of Joe's GJ testimony to see if it matches what Barker read. If Barker misread "was it" as "it was" I doubt anyone would have noticed it contemporaneously as it's a rather small mix up. However, there's a good reason why the Paterno family has requested the original GJ recording to see if it matches what Barker read into the record.

I haven't heard whether or not the Paternos were able to get access to this original recording but it wouldn't surprise me if the OAG "lost" it somewhere along the way...

Scott and Locke were there....

 

[rmb297]

Scott and Locke were there....

Scott said he was going to request the tape. He didn't consider a transcription error. Schultz also filed that a transcription error occurred during his testimony (swapping 2003 for 1998)

 

[sluggo72]

And when you look at the follow up question, no mention of sexual nature.
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don't know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was.

I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told ? I didn't go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.

Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?

Mr. Paterno: In the shower.

so inappropriate is always sexual?? Inappropriate couldn't be it was late at night and no one else was there?? wouldn't that qualify as inappropriate?? What MM thinks is inappropriate, and what is criminal are two different things. JVP just said something, but he did not know what, wasn't right. So he had someone, other than him, investigate.

 

[mbahses]

And yet CDW will use the same arguement to claim Joe knew. Amazing!!!

As to the OP, if there had been a BoT in 2011 that was not compromised, they should have stood up to the governor and A g and demanded why they were shifting the focus from a pedophile to those that aided the investigation. They allowed the narrative to be shifted and then stood back as it went out of control to the point there was no voice demanding the legal process be given the chance to work.

CDW is a proven idiot.

 

[Aoshiro]

I'm no BOT apologist, but there is a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking ITT.
Hind sight is 20/20.

That isn't an accurate comment.

There were many, many alumni who were contacting the trustees as this was unfolding in November 2011 begging them not to do anything rash.

Quite a few of us saw that the board was driving the bus off a cliff. That's not "hindsight."

 

[Aoshiro]

Well...what if it showed Paterno wasn't the man you thought he was? I'm not saying he wasn't..but what if?

Louis Freeh blew through $8.5 million trying to come up with something and in the end he had to fabricate his ridiculous "reasonable conclusions" to placate his masters on the Board of Trustees and NCAA.

There is no evidence that Paterno did anything wrong.

 

[simons96]

Regardless, Joe did as he was supposed to do (as it is written into policy and law then and now). He even follow up with MM when he asked several times if everything was all right (MM testified that he told Joe that it was).

On the court reporter's machine, who has access to that recording and how would they get it? There have been speculation that he was asking a clarifying question, "something sexual?" as opposed to "something sexual".

I don't know.

Still has nothing to do with the FACT that Joe did everything correctly.

so to recap:

Joe did exactly as he was required by University policy, by law, was considered an honest and helpful witness to the OAG

Joe's use of the words "sexual nature" was never used in any prior statements, was couched in between THREE STATEMENTS of uncertainty, but was apparently enough for the OAG to charge Curley and Schultz in order to get McQueary on the witness stand

BUT . . . to the haters he was involved in a massive cover up of a serial pedophile

I really wish I could be that dumb to believe that. must be blissful!

 

[Maddog]

The first two members of the BOT to learn about the Sandusky investigation were Paul Suhey and Ira Lubert -- both in 2009. That knowledge brought about the selection of Frazier as a B&I trustee (and lawyer), then the hiring of Cynthia Baldwin. Baldwin stonewalled the case until March 2011....when Corbett and Surma agreed to go after Spanier and Paterno using Sandusky.

By November 2011, the course was set.

Had the University been acting on proper legal advice, it would have stated that he charges against PSU officials were groundless AND that there was NO EVIDENCE that any of Sandusky's crimes occurred on campus after THEY intervened in 2001. Furthermore, the University should have stated that they received a similar report of Sandusky showering with two boys in 1998 and that police and child protection agents did not find it to be a case of child abuse. That incident drove their decision making in 2001 to report the incident to The Second Mile and to ban Sandusky from using the workout facilities with children after the incident. All evidence indicates that he abided by that directive. PSU was not provided any information in 1998, 2001, or any time up until just prior to charges being filed in 2011 that Sandusky's behavior crossed the line into an abuse situation.

Any assertions otherwise have no basis in reality.

Thanks Ray. I think this might be the first time I saw the info that Suhey and Lubert were informed about the investigation in 2009. Is this from one of your reports? If so, can you link it here, please.

 

[bplionfan]

so inappropriate is always sexual?? Inappropriate couldn't be it was late at night and no one else was there?? wouldn't that qualify as inappropriate?? What MM thinks is inappropriate, and what is criminal are two different things. JVP just said something, but he did not know what, wasn't right. So he had someone, other than him, investigate.

Not sure where you are getting I implied that. I am in agreement that Joes testimony isn't implying sexual nature, furthered by showing that the follow up question to Joe didn't mention sexual nature only inappropriate which met what Joe was implying in the previous question.

 

[doctornick]

My evidence regarding Paterno is that he testified under oath that he "knew" that Mike McQueary thought that Sandusky had done something "inappropriate" with a young boy in the Lasch showers.

Fixed your post.

 

[doctornick]

To this day im still baffled/enraged when watching Surma during the press conference where they "relieved" Joe of his duties. In his comments surma actually says that they dont have all the facts yet, only the GJP (a one sided non factual prosecutorial document mind you) and media reports (based on GJP). I remember thinking at the time wtf...if you dont know the facts yet why are you having this late night press conference and why are you making decisions based on a freaking GJP?!? Apparently non of the lawyers on the BOT made surma aware of what a GJP actually is.

The ironic part about that is that the GJP indicated that Paterno acted appropriately and was cooperating with authorities and their case.

 

[Zenophile]

Well, there is a reason I asked that question. I was banned on this board when the scandal broke. The reason I was banned was this question..."Is it really such a stretch to believe Joe was human and possibly looked the other way to protect something he loved?" I found it amazing out of all the posts I've ever made here...that was the one that got me banned?

It's a ridiculously phrased question that poses a fairly absurd false choice. But it's addressable.

"Is it possible that Joe wasn't human?" Possible but improbable.

"Is it possible that Joe looked the other way?" It is well documented that Joe reported it, so it is impossible that he did not report it. This simply isn't the Schrodinger's Cat that Freeh and the media (and apparently you) are trying to make of it.

 

[Pitt is #1]

It's a ridiculously phrased question that poses a fairly absurd false choice. But it's addressable.

"Is it possible that Joe wasn't human?" Possible but improbable.

"Is it possible that Joe looked the other way?" It is well documented that Joe reported it, so it is impossible that he did not report it. This simply isn't the Schrodinger's Cat that Freeh and the media (and apparently you) are trying to make of it.

Not at all. Just following crumbs without evidence. Jerry had been very successful and left the program abruptly. It could be possible there is other evidence showing knowledge prior to the more famous shower indecent. All I'm saying is what if this is what further digging would uncover? Believe me, I am not attempting to stir the pot. However, many on here feel the BOT and Politicians are hiding some things. In my opinion, that would only mean there is something worse than what has already been revealed. I could not imagine a worse scenario for everyone involved than what I have put forth. That is why I would let sleeping dogs lie. If a scenario like this would come out...it would destroy a great University.

 

[WeR0206]

The ironic part about that is that the GJP indicated that Paterno acted appropriately and was cooperating with authorities and their case.

Exactly!! The OAG even made a remark after Joe was fired stating that he did the right thing/was cooperative with them and they didn't like the precedent set with PSU's actions towards a cooperating witness of the OAG's.....truly mind blowing.

How ironic is that when you consider PSU's new mission statement of "if you see something wrong make sure to report it".....unless you're Joe of course....if that's the case then you get summarily fired for following PSU policy (which the BOT dictates) and cooperating witht the OAG without even getting to tell your side of the story, sit down meeting, etc....smh

 

[simons96]

Not at all. Just following crumbs without evidence. Jerry had been very successful and left the program abruptly. It could be possible there is other evidence showing knowledge prior to the more famous shower indecent. All I'm saying is what if this is what further digging would uncover? Believe me, I am not attempting to stir the pot. However, many on here feel the BOT and Politicians are hiding some things. In my opinion, that would only mean there is something worse than what has already been revealed. I could not imagine a worse scenario for everyone involved than what I have put forth. That is why I would let sleeping dogs lie. If a scenario like this would come out...it would destroy a great University.

they are hiding things, but not about Joe. it is about them.

ironically, the only credible part of the Freeh report is that even he said there was no evidence Sandusky's retirement had anything to do with the 1998 investigation (well, in the actual report, he said something different in the summary, LOL)

but to believe Joe put winning football games above child molestation, but not above bad grades or getting a suit from an agent, is patently ludicrous.

 

[Aoshiro]

[QUOTE="Pitt is #1, post: 197925, member: 11612"All I'm saying is what if this is what further digging would uncover?[/QUOTE]

Louis Freeh spent EIGHT AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS trying to dig up dirt on Paterno.

What exactly do you think he missed?

 

[Pitt is #1]

they are hiding things, but not about Joe. it is about them.

ironically, the only credible part of the Freeh report is that even he said there was no evidence Sandusky's retirement had anything to do with the 1998 investigation (well, in the actual report, he said something different in the summary, LOL)

but to believe Joe put winning football games above child molestation, but not above bad grades or getting a suit from an agent, is patently ludicrous.

I would never think Joe put winning football ahead of innocent children. However, he loved State College the community. My opinion is anyone who invested as much of his life within a community as Joe did...would fear what an investigation and subsequent punishment might mean to a community. I know many Pitt fans call Joe the God of State College...but, he was a man. Any man would be torn facing that choice.

 

[mbahses]

[QUOTE="Pitt is #1, post: 197925, member: 11612"All I'm saying is what if this is what further digging would uncover?

Louis Freeh spent EIGHT AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS trying to dig up dirt on Paterno.

What exactly do you think he missed?[/QUOTE]


Truth & fact.

 

[Pitt is #1]

History and facts always depend on who is the writer. PSU fans should know this better than anyone.

 

[Zenophile]

However, many on here feel the BOT and Politicians are hiding some things. In my opinion, that would only mean there is something worse than what has already been revealed. I could not imagine a worse scenario for everyone involved than what I have put forth. That is why I would let sleeping dogs lie. If a scenario like this would come out...it would destroy a great University.

"The four most powerful people at Penn State knowingly failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade." -Louis Freeh July, 12, 2012

I would challenge you to conceive of a more absurdly flamboyant scenario than the above.

 

[CDW3333]

Fixed your post.

Nope. Sorry. Paterno said:


Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.

Emphasis added.

 

[Zenophile]

Nope. Sorry. Paterno said:


Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.

Emphasis added.

Add emphasis to any word you like; Joe still reported what McQueary told him to Curley and Shultz. It was what he should have done at the time, and it's what someone who receives such a report now should do.

 

[mbahses]

Add emphasis to any word you like; Joe still reported what McQueary told him to Curley and Shultz. It was what he should have done at the time, and it's what someone who receives such a report now should do.

But, but, but....

Joe didn't call the police...Joe didn't tell Mike to call...the police....

Joe told Sassano it was sexual nature.....

Joe went to a banquet in Pittsburgh and didn't call the police.....

Joe told Mike You did the right thing to tell me.....

blah, blah, blah...etc., etc., etc.

 

[RentechCEO]

The first two members of the BOT to learn about the Sandusky investigation were Paul Suhey and Ira Lubert -- both in 2009. That knowledge brought about the selection of Frazier as a B&I trustee (and lawyer), then the hiring of Cynthia Baldwin. Baldwin stonewalled the case until March 2011....when Corbett and Surma agreed to go after Spanier and Paterno using Sandusky.

By November 2011, the course was set.

Had the University been acting on proper legal advice, it would have stated that he charges against PSU officials were groundless AND that there was NO EVIDENCE that any of Sandusky's crimes occurred on campus after THEY intervened in 2001. Furthermore, the University should have stated that they received a similar report of Sandusky showering with two boys in 1998 and that police and child protection agents did not find it to be a case of child abuse. That incident drove their decision making in 2001 to report the incident to The Second Mile and to ban Sandusky from using the workout facilities with children after the incident. All evidence indicates that he abided by that directive. PSU was not provided any information in 1998, 2001, or any time up until just prior to charges being filed in 2011 that Sandusky's behavior crossed the line into an abuse situation.

Any assertions otherwise have no basis in reality.

How did Baldwin stonewall the case against Sandusky?

 

[RentechCEO]

Thanks Ray. I think this might be the first time I saw the info that Suhey and Lubert were informed about the investigation in 2009. Is this from one of your reports? If so, can you link it here, please.

Wouldn't that be illegal?

 

[RentechCEO]

The fact that Joe and Spanier and Curley and Schultz had testified was in the newspaper in March of 2011. In May of that same year there was a briefing at which Spanier and Baldwin told them what the subject of the GJ investigation was. They did NOTHING, and asked no questions, and indeed they later claimed not to have known anything about any of it until the GJ presentment came out in NOVEMBER 11.

The fact is that in the 1990s there was talk about not leaving your kids with Jerry. This talk was reported BY A BOARD MEMBER after the scandal broke. These people fired Joe for not doing the right thing. By their very own standards they were guilty of the same sort of dereliction of duty.

Wasn't there a BOT member who was questioning Spanier and wanted more info? Didn't Baldwin or someone say Spanier commented on "This guy won't let up" or words to that effect.
Also, didn't some of the BOT say that when Spanier briefed them in May that he said very little and told the BOT it was a Second Mile Issue when he knew about 2001? Did the BOT know about 2001 soon after it happened? How about 1998?

 

[Aoshiro]

How did Baldwin stonewall the case against Sandusky?

For many months she made no effort to respond to subpoenas that she accepted from the Attorney General on Penn State's behalf. In fact, she apparently did not even tell administrators that the OAG had served subpoenas. This was probably the basis of the deal that she cut in Spring 2012 with the OAG to avoid prosecution herself.

 

[LundyPSU]

Wasn't there a BOT member who was questioning Spanier and wanted more info? Didn't Baldwin or someone say Spanier commented on "This guy won't let up" or words to that effect.
Also, didn't some of the BOT say that when Spanier briefed them in May that he said very little and told the BOT it was a Second Mile Issue when he knew about 2001? Did the BOT know about 2001 soon after it happened? How about 1998?

I think we only know things through the BOT/Freeh lens. I don't think we know exactly what was shared by Spanier and Baldwin. Even the mention of 1998 and 2001 incidents should have been enough to raise questions. One just as simple as what if there are others and what if they happened at PSU? Common sense. These are intelligent people, who mostly work as risk managers in their professions. Honestly, it is hard to believe there was not a single question. But, that is what we have been led to believe

 

[Pitt is #1]

Yes, and it has created a buzz that still has no

"The four most powerful people at Penn State knowingly failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade." -Louis Freeh July, 12, 2012

I would challenge you to conceive of a more absurdly flamboyant scenario than the above.

Well okay...let's play the Mark Madden card. Evidence of a child sex ring involving Jerry, The Second Mile and State political figures Joe campaigned and raised money for?

 

[Class of 67]

I know you are not trolling and are sincerely looking for answers, but I, for one, will not be providing any input. This matter has discussed at length here, over thousands of hours these past 4 years. To open it all back up, just because someone asked, is something I want no part of.

This is the best answer.

 

[simons96]

Yes, and it has created a buzz that still has no

Well okay...let's play the Mark Madden card. Evidence of a child sex ring involving Jerry, The Second Mile and State political figures Joe campaigned and raised money for?

only person I ever saw Joe campaign for was President Bush. The real one, not his fake kid.

 

[Pitt is #1]

H

only person I ever saw Joe campaign for was President Bush. The real one, not his fake kid.

Honestly, I know very little about the events that happened in State College. However, I do know time heals all wounds and it is beginning to heal this one. The more the John Zeigler types keep pushing it back in the public eye...I think it hurts the healing. My biggest fear would be a Charlton Heston "Planet of the Apes" scenario. I just think at this point...it's best to let this story die.

 

[Zenophile]

Yes, and it has created a buzz that still has no

Well okay...let's play the Mark Madden card. Evidence of a child sex ring involving Jerry, The Second Mile and State political figures Joe campaigned and raised money for?

Points for absurdity and flamboyance. Just don't think it takes PSU down.

Honestly, I know very little about the events that happened in State College. However, I do know time heals all wounds and it is beginning to heal this one. The more the John Zeigler types keep pushing it back in the public eye...I think it hurts the healing. My biggest fear would be a Charlton Heston "Planet of the Apes" scenario. I just think at this point...it's best to let this story die.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Obliviax]

H


Honestly, I know very little about the events that happened in State College. However, I do know time heals all wounds and it is beginning to heal this one. The more the John Zeigler types keep pushing it back in the public eye...I think it hurts the healing. My biggest fear would be a Charlton Heston "Planet of the Apes" scenario. I just think at this point...it's best to let this story die.

Hmmm....so, if I have a weird mole on my nose I should just let it go and have it fester rather than taking proactive measures that may diagnose skin cancer? There is a basic, fundamental problem with the processes and proceedures in central PA (was going to say PSU but fear it is bigger than that). It will harm all of us if not corrected.

You stand for something or you stand for nothing.

 

[demlion]

H


Honestly, I know very little about the events that happened in State College. However, I do know time heals all wounds and it is beginning to heal this one. The more the John Zeigler types keep pushing it back in the public eye...I think it hurts the healing. My biggest fear would be a Charlton Heston "Planet of the Apes" scenario. I just think at this point...it's best to let this story die.

The first line of your post quoted above is proved by all you have posted up to now. Time will not heal this wound. Can people get over it so that it does not dominate their entire lives? Sure. That is the dynamic you are calling "healing," but it is not healing.

When you have a group of smart, educated, relatively well-to-do people who have been betrayed on this level, they will not heal until the people who caused the wounds are made to account for what they did, and the healing will not fully begin until those who did it are without power at the University.

Elsewhere in this thread you suggested that we ought to all just forget about it and let it die, because, you warn us, the truth may be more horrible than the lies they have laid up there from the beginning. I suppose that is possible but I do not care--I want to know the truth. If, as I said, that leaves PSU a smoking ruin, then so be it.

Otoh, there are timid souls like yourself even in our fanbase and even on this board--people who think that if the truth is too horrible there is no reason to chase it. I do not agree; most PennStaters do not agree; and I suspect that even most Pitters do not agree with that sentiment, and lack only the right sort of issue to adopt precisely the same view as me. If your beloved grandfather was posthumously smeared and you knew he did nothing wrong, you would know the right thing to do--find out the truth.

Now perhaps you would not have the character to insist on the truth, but doing the right thing is different than knowing what the right thing is. The latter is a mere intellectual exercise. The former takes character. Got Character?

A smarter person than me once said, "Time wounds all heels." I hope your health insurance is paid up.

 

[Pitt is #1]

It's your school...do as you like. I'm sure any PR firm worth a damn would give the same advice as me at this point.

 

[demlion]

It's your school...do as you like. I'm sure any PR firm worth a damn would give the same advice as me at this point.

This is not a PR issue--but even if it were, there have been lots of PR losers paid tons of money here, and they cannot fix this. Only the truth will fix it. BTW, thanks for presuming to give me permission to do what I told you I was going to do even before you said it. You are a classy guy.

 

[Pitt is #1]

Sorry, I offended your delicate sensibilities!