Paterno had two legacies and his followers need to accept it

[pandaczar12]

JVP did not immediately report what McQueary told him explaining he "did not want to interfere with anyones weekend". JVP told Mike "it's now my job to figure out what we want to do." There is no evidence that JVP did made any inquiries into who the child was and if he was OK. After Curley met with JVP on 2/27/01, the plan to report Jerry to Child Services that was agreed upon on 2/26 by C/S/S was abandoned.

What JVP was told by MM was watered down hearsay of an incident that happened the night before. The moment had passed, there was no child in danger. We find out eventually from the boy in the shower that he wasn't in danger at all that night. The simple fact that MM waited to report it, and watered it down, kills any sense of urgency on the part of JVP. Joe could have done nothing, but he did promptly send the report up the chain.

There is no evidence that JVP did NOT made any inquiries into who the child was and if he was OK.

After Curley met with JVP on 2/27/01, he went to McDonald's for lunch. The plan to report Jerry to Child Services that was agreed upon on 2/26 by C/S/S was abandoned. Since there is no evidence that JVP told anyone to do anything, is McDonald's equally to blame under your logic?

 

[Obliviax]

I think this is why the answer to the question "did Joe know Jerry had been investigated for child abuse in 1998 in 2001?" is so important.

I think the answer is yes, though admittedly all the "proof" of such is circumstantial.

The analogy isn't perfect --- but I may have mentioned once or twice before here that I lost a wife to a drunk driver in the mid-2000s. Absolutely I feel more now (vs. before) than it is my moral duty to make sure people who I know have been drinking don't start driving. Moral obligation.

Sorry to hear about the drunk driver. Horrible.

But that doesn't compare to Joe's situation. Others have made a good argument that knowing of 1998 could actually work against you reporting him in 2001. There could easily have been a "here we go again" attitude. Fact is, TSM was known for breaking down barriers with young men by going "up close and personal." Showering, actually, was part of the "athletic bonding" that TSM used to be effective. There is a fine line between creepy and illegal. A hug, at key times in a young man's life, is both effective and creepy, depending upon a ton of variables.

Regardless, Joe did exactly as he should have done; report it to the authorities and get the heck out of the way. It was simply an employee coming to him for advice after seeing something (of which is, today, still unclear). And, what Joe did, is today the NCAA's policy after years of study.

 

[91Joe95]

The response goes after the end QUOTE, Copernicus.

Shh. I like his responses inside the quotes.

 

[simons96]

Shh. I like his responses inside the quotes.

yeah seriously! don't spoil the joy I take in watching the Frazier lackey being completely inept on how to respond to posts!!

 

[bjf1984]

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

Ya' gotta' admit, there is a resemblance

 

[bjf1984]

E="michnittlion, post: 244650, member: 3524"]To be fair, did Joe invite some of this "hindsight bias"/"Monday Morning Quarterbacking" when he himself made his infamous hindsight quote?[/QUOTE]



.................... Relevance ............. : ............. MichNitt and CR...............

:

 

[BobPSU92]

You're missing the main point. Joe did what he thought was the right thing. By McQueary's own words, he gave Joe a watered down version of what he witnessed. Joe took that watered down info and did what he thought was the correct thing to do. Notify the administration and put McQueary in contact with the people charged with handling the issue.

It wasn't merely what Joe thought was the right thing to do. It was all he was allowed to do by law. It also matched the university's policy. It also matches the current ncaa recommendations.

 

[retsio]

Does any 'half brained critic' understand that after MM told Joe late Saturday morning, Joe had a previous long established engagement. Joe was on a plane to Pittsburgh for a dinner and speaking engagement and did not have time to gather all of the specific Penn State 'officials' (who knew where they were) and detail in full the fourth telling (MM father/ DR. D/ Joe would be third) of an encounter between a 'former coach' and a young boy.

The critics have a long established route to commentary -- Freeh, CR66, Nuts -- gloss over specific facts and condemn the reputation, because in their mind........"I saw/read/heard it somewhere, so it must be true."

 

[LundyPSU]

Oh really?!?!?!??! Joe's biographer, who had free and unfettered access to all of Joe's personal papers, claimed he didn't find even one single note even hinting at the 1998 incident, leave alone suggesting on any level that Joe knew about it and followed it closely. Are you claiming that you've personally had greater access to Joe's personal papers than even Joe Posnanski had; the guy who was charged with writing Joe's story, was fully embedded with the family for nearly a year, and had unfettered access to all of Joe's notes and papers for a time that mostly predated the breaking of the scandal and any hint of Joe's involvement? Or are you simply parroting Freeh's entirely unsupported conclusions on the 1998 incident? Your wording, which is nearly identical to Freeh's, strongly suggests the latter. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you anywa;, have you seen these personal papers of Joe's, excluding Curley's e-mails contained in the Freeh Report, that you reference in the above quote? These are not rhetorical questions. I'm waiting patiently for your answers.

I think CR66 is referring to JVP notes that he cut short a fundraising trip and cancelled a vacation during the JS investigation in 1998

 

[simons96]

I think CR66 is referring to JVP notes that he cut short a fundraising trip and cancelled a vacation during the JS investigation in 1998

can't recall which half ass writer for which half ass magazine dug up that nugget, but correlation does not equal causation.

there is nothing to indicate the ONGOING 1998 Sandusky investigation was the cause of Joe cutting short his holiday. In fact, some have indicated there was also an unusually powerful storm along the East Coast which more likely influenced this decision.

 

[PSU_Nut]

We find out eventually from the boy in the shower that he wasn't in danger at all that night.

We don't know what happened in that shower. Your are using a claim made to the defense team that even they did not find credible enough to use in the trial. This is just another illustration of the desperation people have to justify Joe's and Penn State handling of this incident.

 

[Howie'81]

We don't know what happened in that shower. Because some defense investigator claims at one point

Even if one accepts that we don't know what happened in that shower, that says something.

 

[JmmyW]

can't recall which half ass writer for which half ass magazine dug up that nugget, but correlation does not equal causation.

there is nothing to indicate the ONGOING 1998 Sandusky investigation was the cause of Joe cutting short his holiday. In fact, some have indicated there was also an unusually powerful storm along the East Coast which more likely influenced this decision.

The writer was Luke Dittrich of Esquire magazine.
http://deadspin.com/5912516/new-det...might-have-known-about-jerry-sandusky-in-1998

The first sting attempt was 5/13/1998. Paterno cancelled a fundraising event at Valley Forge for Friday 5/15 and a planned vacation to Avalon, NJ for 5/16 to 5/19.

The weather was clear in Avalon for the week of the planned vacation; however, there had been near-record rainfall of 2 inches on 5/12 just prior to those cancellations. It would be interesting to know whether the vacation home suffered rain damage.
http://www.wunderground.com/history....zip=08202&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999&MR=1

 

[simons96]

The writer was Luke Dittrich of Esquire magazine.
http://deadspin.com/5912516/new-det...might-have-known-about-jerry-sandusky-in-1998

The first sting attempt was 5/13/1998. Paterno cancelled a fundraising event at Valley Forge for Friday 5/15 and a planned vacation to Avalon, NJ for 5/16 to 5/19.

The weather was clear in Avalon for the week of the planned vacation; however, there had been near-record rainfall of 2 inches on 5/12 just prior to those cancellations. It would be interesting to know whether the vacation home suffered rain damage.
http://www.wunderground.com/history....zip=08202&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999&MR=1

well using the Sally Jenkins standard of believing in fantastical bullsh*t . . . Paterno is nailed right there.

ya with me Carnes???

 

[sluggo72]

The writer was Luke Dittrich of Esquire magazine.
http://deadspin.com/5912516/new-det...might-have-known-about-jerry-sandusky-in-1998

The first sting attempt was 5/13/1998. Paterno cancelled a fundraising event at Valley Forge for Friday 5/15 and a planned vacation to Avalon, NJ for 5/16 to 5/19.

The weather was clear in Avalon for the week of the planned vacation; however, there had been near-record rainfall of 2 inches on 5/12 just prior to those cancellations. It would be interesting to know whether the vacation home suffered rain damage.
http://www.wunderground.com/history....zip=08202&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999&MR=1

Joe knew the rain was going to make the ocean cloudy, and thus reduce his visibility when he went scuba diving. He didn't want to waste a trip

 

[Zenophile]

Even if one accepts that we don't know what happened in that shower, that says something.

BINGO.

 

[Zenophile]

We don't know what happened in that shower.

That is exactly correct. Y'know, you might just understand the concept of "hindsight bias" after all.

 

[WeR0206]

Even if one accepts that we don't know what happened in that shower, that says something.

Exactly. However, in MM's 2010 version of the story he claims he didn't see insertion but was still somehow certain sodomy was occurring between JS and the boy.

However this 2010 version of MM's story of certain sodomy occurring is refuted by none other than JM when he testified re: 2001 and his follow up convo with Schultz (from page 151 of CSS 12/16/11 prelim):

Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?

A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.

Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?

A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
==================================================================================
Also the 2010 version of MM's story was refuted by MM himself when Roberto finally got him to admit he wasn't 100% sure/certain what was going on in the shower (from page 72 of 12/16/11 prelim) while cross examining him re: his 2001 conversation with Joe:

Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?

A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.

Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?

A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.

Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?

A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on

Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure

A: Okay, 100 percent sure

Q: Okay, you can’t say that?

A: No
=========================================================

IMO the above testimony shows explicitly that what MM told people in 2001 did in fact have a grey area (hence the "at least" verbiage in JM's testimony....there wouldn't be any grey area/at least verbiage if MM reported certain sodomy in 2001). In other words in 2001 MM wasn't certain of anything. He may have assumed/speculated things were happening but he wasn't certain and didn't report it as such. MM played revisionist history in 2010 thus throwing JVP and CSS under the bus.

The only thing everyone (JVP, C/S/S, JM, Dr. D, JR) else besides MM testified to being certain about in 2001 was an inappropriate late night shower that was over the line and made a PSU GA uncomfortable. That's it. None of them ever said MM's story included him being certain JS was sodomizing/molesting the boy, even JM himself!!

 

[Aoshiro]

Which facts are those Wendy? Your's or the real ones?Here are some of the real ones to ponder while you wait for your lunch meeting. JVP did not immediately report what McQueary told him explaining he "did not want to interfere with anyones weekend". JVP told Mike "it's now my job to figure out what we want to do." There is no evidence that JVP did made any inquiries into who the child was and if he was OK. After Curley met with JVP on 2/27/01, the plan to report Jerry to Child Services that was agreed upon on 2/26 by C/S/S was abandoned.

Further, there is circumstantial evidence contained in JVP's personal papers that strongly suggests that not only did he know about the 1998 incident, but followed it closely.

1. Joe left for Pittsburgh right after talking to McQueary to attend the annual Dapper Dan dinner, which is a charity event. Given Mike's lack of urgency, are you suggesting that Paterno should have pulled out of that event?
2. Joe talked to Curley the next morning (Sunday). It is completely dishonest to make it seem otherwise. Only a lying POS would do that.
3. The fact that Joe didn't remember why he didn't immediately meet with Curley is not proof that he did something wrong (as you are trying to portray it). It's proof how unreliable a person's testimony is about something that happened A DECADE EARLIER. You are a despicable POS for trying to make it seem like anything else
4. Furthermore, the fact that Freeh did not reveal the real reason that Paterno didn't meet with Curley immediately is proof that Freeh is either a) the most incompetent investigator in the history of the US or b) a lying sack of $hit. Neither is a good luck for your hero.
5. It was not Paterno's business to figure out who the kid was. He was a football coach, not an investigator. Anyone who thinks that a football coach had any business sticking his nose into this is a person with a "football culture" problem.
6. The only thing that changed after Curley talked to Paterno was that Curley decided to confront Sandusky directly instead of going behind his back. Nothing else changed.
7. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that Paterno followed the 1998 incident closely. You are a liar.

Honest to god, I wonder what it's like to be such a lying POS. Do you have any conscience at all? Or are you a sociopath? It is absolutely disgusting to think that you have any sway over the alumni association. No one should give the PSAA a penny as long as Jim Carnes and his miserable, rotten, lying friends are pulling the strings.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Just reading the title of this thread agitates me. This dude Hudnall (or whatever his name is) has a fixed opinion on the subject of Joe Paterno, and it is not gonna change. Period. That's bad enough, but he makes it so much worse by presenting his opinion as if it were established, immutable fact. A fait accompli which is not open to debate, and to which we simply have to acclimate ourselves. It makes me want to send him an e-mail asking him "When did you stop beating your wife?"

 

[WeR0206]

1. Joe left for Pittsburgh right after talking to McQueary to attend the annual Dapper Dan dinner, which is a charity event. Given Mike's lack of urgency, are you suggesting that Paterno should have pulled out of that event?
2. Joe talked to Curley the next morning (Sunday). It is completely dishonest to make it seem otherwise. Only a lying POS would do that.
3. The fact that Joe didn't remember why he didn't immediately meet with Curley is not proof that he did something wrong (as you are trying to portray it). It's proof how unreliable a person's testimony is about something that happened A DECADE EARLIER. You are a despicable POS for trying to make it seem like anything else
4. Furthermore, the fact that Freeh did not reveal the real reason that Paterno didn't meet with Curley immediately is proof that Freeh is either a) the most incompetent investigator in the history of the US or b) a lying sack of $hit. Neither is a good luck for your hero.
5. It was not Paterno's business to figure out who the kid was. He was a football coach, not an investigator. Anyone who thinks that a football coach had any business sticking his nose into this is a person with a "football culture" problem.
6. The only thing that changed after Curley talked to Paterno was that Curley decided to confront Sandusky directly instead of going behind his back. Nothing else changed.
7. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that Paterno followed the 1998 incident closely. You are a liar.

Honest to god, I wonder what it's like to be such a lying POS. Do you have any conscience at all? Or are you a sociopath? It is absolutely disgusting to think that you have any sway over the alumni association. No one should give the PSAA a penny as long as Jim Carnes and his miserable, rotten, lying friends are pulling the strings.

Amen!!

Anyone suggesting that Joe or C/S/S should have went outside of their jobs/training and tried to figure out who JS (an EX EMPLOYEE) was with that night is an imbecile or an ass with an agenda. The ONLY people who should have done that are JR and the folks at TSM, since you know, they were the ones actually employing JS and responsible for the well being of kids JS was hanging around with and legally required to look into ANY AND ALL incident reports that come their way.

We still don't know whether or not TSM did look into who JS was with that night after Curley reported the incident to JR. Sure would be nice if the PA OAG would have found that out huh? Either that or JR/TSM/OAG know exactly who V2 is and they don't want to admit it b/c it would ruin the current narrative.

I still find it insane that the media/freeh crucified C/S/S/Joe (some college admins and a football coach) for not finding out who the kid was yet gave a complete pass to JR and TSM (the people who were actually required to find out who JS was with) for doing the same.

 

[Raffycorn]

Exactly. However, in MM's 2010 version of the story he claims he didn't see insertion but was still somehow certain sodomy was occurring between JS and the boy.

However this 2010 version of MM's story of certain sodomy occurring is refuted by none other than JM when he testified re: 2001 and his follow up convo with Schultz (from page 151 of CSS 12/16/11 prelim):

Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?

A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.

Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?

A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
==================================================================================
Also the 2010 version of MM's story was refuted by MM himself when Roberto finally got him to admit he wasn't 100% sure/certain what was going on in the shower (from page 72 of 12/16/11 prelim) while cross examining him re: his 2001 conversation with Joe:

Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?

A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.

Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?

A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.

Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?

A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on

Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure

A: Okay, 100 percent sure

Q: Okay, you can’t say that?

A: No
=========================================================

IMO the above testimony shows explicitly that what MM told people in 2001 did in fact have a grey area (hence the "at least" verbiage in JM's testimony....there wouldn't be any grey area/at least verbiage if MM reported certain sodomy in 2001). In other words in 2001 MM wasn't certain of anything. He may have assumed/speculated things were happening but he wasn't certain and didn't report it as such. MM played revisionist history in 2010 thus throwing JVP and CSS under the bus.

The only thing everyone (JVP, C/S/S, JM, Dr. D, JR) else besides MM testified to being certain about in 2001 was an inappropriate late night shower that was over the line and made a PSU GA uncomfortable. That's it. None of them ever said MM's story included him being certain JS was sodomizing/molesting the boy, even JM himself!!

What you present is not exactly what Roberto got McQueary to "admit" to, based on the text of the testimony you provided. McQueary remained adamant - and has remained adamant in every other proceeding - that while he can't be 1000% percent sure that Jerry and the boy actually were, in fact, engaged in intercourse, he believed both at the time and today that he saw intercourse occurring. For the purposes relevant to Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno, that is where the analysis ends. The question is not (with regards to C/S/S/P) "what was happening in the shower?" the question is "what did McQueary believe he saw in the shower?" No, McQueary could not have been 100% sure that "intercourse" WAS occurring without seeing penetration, but what he WAS sure of is that when he saw Jerry and the boy, he thought they were engaged in it. And he's been adamant about that in every court proceeding.

 

[Aoshiro]

What you present is not exactly what Roberto got McQueary to "admit" to, based on the text of the testimony you provided. McQueary remained adamant - and has remained adamant in every other proceeding - that while he can't be 1000% percent sure that Jerry and the boy actually were, in fact, engaged in intercourse, he believed both at the time and today that he saw intercourse occurring. For the purposes relevant to Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno, that is where the analysis ends. The question is not (with regards to C/S/S/P) "what was happening in the shower?" the question is "what did McQueary believe he saw in the shower?" No, McQueary could not have been 100% sure that "intercourse" WAS occurring without seeing penetration, but what he WAS sure of is that when he saw Jerry and the boy, he thought they were engaged in it. And he's been adamant about that in every court proceeding.

So Mike was sure that Jerry was having intercourse with a child and (1) he walked away without doing anything to help the kid; (2) his dad didn't tell him to intervene to help the kid; and (3) his dad and Dr Dranov did not tell him to call the police.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.

 

[pandaczar12]

We don't know what happened in that shower. Your are using a claim made to the defense team that even they did not find credible enough to use in the trial. This is just another illustration of the desperation people have to justify Joe's and Penn State handling of this incident.

You are using the actions of the most inept defense team ever to justify your point of view. This is just another illustration of the desperation people have to vilify Joe's and Penn State handling of this incident.

 

[WeR0206]

What you present is not exactly what Roberto got McQueary to "admit" to, based on the text of the testimony you provided. McQueary remained adamant - and has remained adamant in every other proceeding - that while he can't be 1000% percent sure that Jerry and the boy actually were, in fact, engaged in intercourse, he believed both at the time and today that he saw intercourse occurring. For the purposes relevant to Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno, that is where the analysis ends. The question is not (with regards to C/S/S/P) "what was happening in the shower?" the question is "what did McQueary believe he saw in the shower?" No, McQueary could not have been 100% sure that "intercourse" WAS occurring without seeing penetration, but what he WAS sure of is that when he saw Jerry and the boy, he thought they were engaged in it. And he's been adamant about that in every court proceeding.

MM's testimony stated he was sure that it looked like intercourse was going on (not exactly a rock solid statement for a 3rd party person listening to his story to hang their hat on). But then later on in the same testimony MM says he couldn't say with 100% certainty that intercourse is what was going on. Hence the self contradictory nature of MM's testimony.

In other words MM ASSUMED something was happening but didn't actually see it.

What about JM's testimony....do you not have any remarks on those? If MM was sure that it looked like JS was sodomizing a boy, why did JM describe it as at least a very inappropriate action? Wouldn't certain sodomy rise FAR above/worse than that description?

Also,if in 2001 MM was sure that it looked like sodomy was occurring why didn't he EVER make a written statement to UPPD or ask Schultz/UPPD why no one from UPPD ever came to take his written statement??? No criminal charges or investigation into JS could come about without the one and only witness making a written statement to UPPD. Any grown adult would know this. If that was the case why did MM, when TC followed up with him via phone a few weeks later, express no dissatisfaction, never said the police needed to be called, and never said more needed to be done????

That simply makes no sense if MM's 2010 version of the story is the truth. The only explanation for the above is that in 2001 MM didn't know exactly what JS and the kid were doing b/c he couldn't really see anything but still felt it was inappropriate, over the line, and made him uncomfortable and reported it as such. That's exactly what Joe testified to as well as C/S/S/JM/Dr. D/and JR.

 

[Zenophile]

What you present is not exactly what Roberto got McQueary to "admit" to, based on the text of the testimony you provided. McQueary remained adamant - and has remained adamant in every other proceeding - that while he can't be 1000% percent sure that Jerry and the boy actually were, in fact, engaged in intercourse, he believed both at the time and today that he saw intercourse occurring. For the purposes relevant to Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno, that is where the analysis ends. The question is not (with regards to C/S/S/P) "what was happening in the shower?" the question is "what did McQueary believe he saw in the shower?" No, McQueary could not have been 100% sure that "intercourse" WAS occurring without seeing penetration, but what he WAS sure of is that when he saw Jerry and the boy, he thought they were engaged in it. And he's been adamant about that in every court proceeding.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here as it relates to Joe.

That he received a vague report of what McQueary witnessed is a fact not in dispute by any party.

That he passed McQueary's report along to the Athletic Director & the Top Police Official in accordance with the law & Penn State policy (as well as best practice as taught by CSA advocates) is also a fact not in dispute.

 

[bjf1984]

What you present is not exactly what Roberto got McQueary to "admit" to, based on the text of the testimony you provided. McQueary remained adamant - and has remained adamant in every other proceeding - that while he can't be 1000% percent sure that Jerry and the boy actually were, in fact, engaged in intercourse, he believed both at the time and today that he saw intercourse occurring. For the purposes relevant to Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno, that is where the analysis ends. The question is not (with regards to C/S/S/P) "what was happening in the shower?" the question is "what did McQueary believe he saw in the shower?" No, McQueary could not have been 100% sure that "intercourse" WAS occurring without seeing penetration, but what he WAS sure of is that when he saw Jerry and the boy, he thought they were engaged in it. And he's been adamant about that in every court proceeding.

Actually.....you are completely and utterly wrong. (sorry)

With respect to CSS:
"what did McQueary believe he saw in the shower?".....is not only NOT "the question", it is - in fact - irrelevant. Period.
If he "thought" he saw 4 individuals gang-rapping a 10 year old boy (just to use an absurd example).....it has no relevance to this case at all. MM is not on trial here.


In fact, equally irrelevant is the question "What did MM believe he told CS?", or even "What did/does MM believe CS thought about the conversation?" (remember, he didn't even meet with Spanier).


So many folks want to "decide" this case based on the snippets they choose to select from MM's testimony - usually dependent on which "side" they choose to want to be on.....(which, in a way, is to be expected - since he (MM) is the only one who has given testimony in quite a few venues, even as we approach the 4 year mark). The end result is that we have two factions - one beating the crap out of everything MM ever did, thought, or believed....the other trying to extrapolate MM's testimony to indict an entire culture.


What IS the relevant is question is "What - after talking w MM - did CS believe happened in the shower?"
and the question "What did they (CS) do subsequent to that conversation?"

NONE of us will have answers to those questions unless/until there is an actual trial AND we can then evaluate the testimony of CSS (assuming they choose to take the stand) and all of the additional "evidence" that the prosecution has (contemporaneous documents, communications etc) and the evidence that the defense presents.
We know that the prosecution claims to have a mountain of evidence which indicates that CSS knowingly and willfully covered up the actions of a pedophile. The only way we will have any basis to determine if that is true or not true is when/if we get into a courtroom.
If, in fact, the prosecution has nothing but a bunch of crap like the "Baldwin Testimony", then we will know that all the prosecution did was use MM to serve their own purposes - and then leave him hanging out to dry (which would tell us a lot about a whole bunch of people).
If they do have a mountain of incriminating evidence, then the trial will certainly bring that out.

When does the trial start? LOL

 

[simons96]

hey bf . . . is now a good time to remind everyone that the OAG concedes that in 2001, Curley and Schultz did nothing illegal?



(seems a relevant point that gets lost among the haters)

 

[LundyPSU]

None of it makes sense. Including Mike's own testimony about what he actually saw and what he believed was happening. Everyone 's actions (including Mike's) in 2001 don't reconcile with what is claimed in 2010-2012. So what carries more weight.....actions in 2001 or words in 2010-2012?

 

[GTACSA]

It wasn't merely what Joe thought was the right thing to do. It was all he was allowed to do by law. It also matched the university's policy. It also matches the current ncaa recommendations.

What statute prevented Joe from informing the CYS about MM's report?

I was not aware that current NCAA policy provides that reports of sexual assault in the athletic department are to be handled by the Athletic Director to investigate and then make the final disposition on the incident. In fact I thought it was the exact opposite. There is nothing in those NCAA guidelines that prevents a member of the Athletic Department from notifying other departments of the University or outside authorities of the reported assault.

 

[psuro]

What statute prevented Joe from informing the CYS about MM's report?

a

I guess the same statute that prevented McQ his dad or Dr Dranov from the same.

 

[Zenophile]

What statute prevented Joe from informing the CYS about MM's report?

I was not aware that current NCAA policy provides that reports of sexual assault in the athletic department are to be handled by the Athletic Director to investigate and then make the final disposition on the incident. In fact I thought it was the exact opposite. There is nothing in those NCAA guidelines that prevents a member of the Athletic Department from notifying other departments of the University or outside authorities of the reported assault.

Why do you think that Joe had to ability to detect what the licensed professionals of the PA Child Welfare system could not?

 

[LundyPSU]

What statute prevented Joe from informing the CYS about MM's report?

I was not aware that current NCAA policy provides that reports of sexual assault in the athletic department are to be handled by the Athletic Director to investigate and then make the final disposition on the incident. In fact I thought it was the exact opposite. There is nothing in those NCAA guidelines that prevents a member of the Athletic Department from notifying other departments of the University or outside authorities of the reported assault.

What if Joe believed it was being reported to CYS/DPW?

 

[bjf1984]

What statute prevented Joe from informing the CYS about MM's report?

I was not aware that current NCAA policy provides that reports of sexual assault in the athletic department are to be handled by the Athletic Director to investigate and then make the final disposition on the incident. In fact I thought it was the exact opposite. There is nothing in those NCAA guidelines that prevents a member of the Athletic Department from notifying other departments of the University or outside authorities of the reported assault.

There is nothing in any statute - to the best of my knowledge - that prevents you from shoving your testicles into a blender. As much as I might like for you to do that, that still doesn't make it a criminal offense for you to opt to not do so (unfortunately).

Would it be theoretically possible to come up with a more inane "argument"?

Apparently - we still have at least one "circle-jerker" on premises.

 

[BobPSU92]

Guys, remember to use the Ignore function.

Morons like cr66 (i.e., jim carnes), raffycorn, gtacsa, and psu nut definitely belong on the ignore list. They've been arguing the same stupidity since 2011. Arguing with them accomplishes nothing. They aren't going to "see the light". They aren't going to suddenly accept the facts. They are trolls here to argue the same tired, inaccurate points over and over again. Stop wasting your time with them.

 

[pandaczar12]

What statute prevented Joe from informing the CYS about MM's report?

I was not aware that current NCAA policy provides that reports of sexual assault in the athletic department are to be handled by the Athletic Director to investigate and then make the final disposition on the incident. In fact I thought it was the exact opposite. There is nothing in those NCAA guidelines that prevents a member of the Athletic Department from notifying other departments of the University or outside authorities of the reported assault.

If you see someone breaking into your neighbors house, you see them smash a window and climb through, you call the police. If someone else comes to you and says that 2 towns over, they saw someone creeping around their neighbors house, and he thinks he might have broken in to their house, the night before. Do YOU call the police?

MM didn't witness abuse, he only suspected abuse. JVP did not witness anything, he merely got a watered down account of suspected abuse, the next day. JVP did exactly what he should have, and if he had done more, would have been criticized for "doing too much." The same idiots on this board and in the media would be saying that he wasn't god, and that he should have followed university process. They would be saying that since Joe knew about 1998 when Jerry was cleared, that should have given him the benefit of the doubt in 2001. Haters gonna hate.

http://onwardstate.com/2014/09/05/n...-investigations-paterno-supporters-criticize/

 

[psuro]

Why do you think that Joe had to ability to detect what the licensed professionals of the PA Child Welfare system could not?

He was omniscient, you know!

 

[GTACSA]

Guys, remember to use the Ignore function.

Morons like cr66 (i.e., jim carnes), raffycorn, gtacsa, and psu nut definitely belong on the ignore list. They've been arguing the same stupidity since 2011. Arguing with them accomplishes nothing. They aren't going to "see the light". They aren't going to suddenly accept the facts. They are trolls here to argue the same tired, inaccurate points over and over again. Stop wasting your time with them.

I merely asked you a question in order to see if you had any facts to support your assertion that the law prevented Joe from informing outside authorities, in addition to the AD, of MM's reported observation of Sandusky. May I infer from your response that there is no such law?

I also made a statement of fact that nothing in the NCAA guidelines prevents an employee of the athletic department from notifying outside authorities of reported sexual assaults and also pointed out to you that those guidelines do not support an athletic department resolving those reported assaults on its own. May I infer from your response that you also agree with this fact?

The only reason I even post on this subject is that I find it amazing how many posters have manufactured their own facts (your initial post to which I replied being a perfect example) and believe them to be real after they have been repeated over and over.

 

[bjf1984]

I merely asked you a question in order to see if you had any facts to support your assertion that the law prevented Joe from informing outside authorities, in addition to the AD, of MM's reported observation of Sandusky. May I infer from your response that there is no such law?

I also made a statement of fact that nothing in the NCAA guidelines prevents an employee of the athletic department from notifying outside authorities of reported sexual assaults and also pointed out to you that those guidelines do not support an athletic department resolving those reported assaults on its own. May I infer from your response that you also agree with this fact?

The only reason I even post on this subject is that I find it amazing how many posters have manufactured their own facts (your initial post to which I replied being a perfect example) and believe them to be real after they have been repeated over and over.

 

[Obliviax]

I merely asked you a question in order to see if you had any facts to support your assertion that the law prevented Joe from informing outside authorities, in addition to the AD, of MM's reported observation of Sandusky. May I infer from your response that there is no such law?

I also made a statement of fact that nothing in the NCAA guidelines prevents an employee of the athletic department from notifying outside authorities of reported sexual assaults and also pointed out to you that those guidelines do not support an athletic department resolving those reported assaults on its own. May I infer from your response that you also agree with this fact?

The only reason I even post on this subject is that I find it amazing how many posters have manufactured their own facts (your initial post to which I replied being a perfect example) and believe them to be real after they have been repeated over and over.

there are some facts you are missing:

• Policy was then, and is now, in such situations, to report it to your boss. Joe's boss then reported it to Schultz.
• Schultz office, at the time and today, is described as being "in charge of campus police."
• If you consider that to NOT be the police, I will point to Sen Gillibrand's notion that campus police and judicial system should supercede the US Consitititionls due process for campus sexual assault claims
• I would point you to laws that state Paterno was barred by law from being involved in the ensuing investigation. He was not a witness and had no claims other than to report that he had been contacted by an employee about a retired employee.
• I would also point to MM's comments, he made several times, that Paterno followed up with him "on more than one occasion" to make sure everything was OK and that MM was satisfied.

Overall, yeah, I guess Joe could have broken the law, intervened and "done more". However, guys like you would be complaining about that too.