Penn State must be guilty. $93 million paid to Jerry's victims by PSU.

[BHF23]

Setting aside C/S/S and Paterno for the moment, if certain board members knew more than they're admitting and for a longer period of time (there's no doubt at least several of them did; and I'm talking pre-1998), wouldn't that explain a lot? I'm not a lawyer, but if they knew something and failed to act, doesn't their inaction put the university in the crosshairs for lawsuits also? If so, surely they'd know that. They'd also know that their knowledge/involvement would likely/possibly come out during the proceedings. So it could well be that Penn State IS liable, but not necessarily entirely (or at all, if you prefer) for the reasons the board wants us to believe. And avoiding the discovery process and any personal accountability could explain why the settlements seem so high and why it doesn't seem like the victims/alleged victims are scrutinized too deeply. Maybe they know if the whole truth came out, awards might be even higher? And, not coincidentally, they'd face personal consequences of some sort? So, in a way, what's best for them personally (avoiding consequences) actually IS in the best interest of PSU (limiting damages)? (Hope it doesn't sound like I support that line of reasoning.)

For the record, I think 1998 and 2001 are convenient shiny objects for the worst of the bad guys in all this. More happened. Some of it much earlier than 1998. A significant number of people, both inside and outside the university, knew it. Sandusky and others have been protected at a higher level than the football office for a long time. I guess that gets away from the original post, so I'll stop at that.

SR/BHF

 

[fairfaxlion2]

Setting aside C/S/S and Paterno for the moment, if certain board members knew more than they're admitting and for a longer period of time (there's no doubt at least several of them did; and I'm talking pre-1998), wouldn't that explain a lot? I'm not a lawyer, but if they knew something and failed to act, doesn't their inaction put the university in the crosshairs for lawsuits also? If so, surely they'd know that. They'd also know that their knowledge/involvement would likely/possibly come out during the proceedings. So it could well be that Penn State IS liable, but not necessarily entirely (or at all, if you prefer) for the reasons the board wants us to believe. And avoiding the discovery process and any personal accountability could explain why the settlements seem so high and why it doesn't seem like the victims/alleged victims are scrutinized too deeply. Maybe they know if the whole truth came out, awards might be even higher? And, not coincidentally, they'd face personal consequences of some sort? So, in a way, what's best for them personally (avoiding consequences) actually IS in the best interest of PSU (limiting damages)? (Hope it doesn't sound like I support that line of reasoning.)

For the record, I think 1998 and 2001 are convenient shiny objects for the worst of the bad guys in all this. More happened. Some of it much earlier than 1998. A significant number of people, both inside and outside the University, knew it. Sandusky and others have been protected at a higher level than the football office for a long time. I guess that gets away from the original post, so I'll stop at that.

SR/BHF

Yes, that would explain a lot. And I think we should know about it and make sure those people are not on the board anymore! Also they should be held personally liable.

 

[toddbrewster]

For the record, I think 1998 and 2001 are convenient shiny objects for the worst of the bad guys in all this. More happened. Some of it much earlier than 1998. A significant number of people, both inside and outside the University, knew it. Sandusky and others have been protected at a higher level than the football office for a long time.

BHF, I have yet to read any evidence Jerry had sex with anyone outside of victim testimony. It seems like everyone's testimony was changed to fit the scenario. There was also testimony that convicted Jerry, where research after the trial showed the time lines did not match up. I have studied AM, Matt and AF and I am convinced they are liars.

I would love to hear evidence that you have where it proves Jerry was having sex with others before 1998.

 

[91Joe95]

Entities are not liable for rumors, or for hearing rumors.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

BHF, I have yet to read any evidence Jerry had sex with anyone outside of victim testimony. It seems like everyone's testimony was changed to fit the scenario. There was also testimony that convicted Jerry, where research after the trial showed the time lines did not match up. I have studied AM, Matt and AF and I am convinced they are liars.

I would love to hear evidence that you have where it proves Jerry was having sex with others before 1998.

Exactly. We need evidence and facts. Not hearsay or innuendo to convict someone in America. There is a good chance that Jerry was convicted unjustly. What's the harm in having another trial?

 

[roswelllion]

While I don't want to believe epradelli I would love to hear from some of the BoT [alumni] who visit this board about the size of the settlements. Even if we assume the worst [BoT aware and C/S/S and JVP complicit] which I passionately don't believe, aren't these settlements "over the top" for this type of lawsuit. Even the catholic church who IMO had much more knowledge of what was going on in their parishes hasn't been paying this much per occurrence have they?
Another question for those who have studied these things. if the church had a priest who left the priesthood and continued to abuse kids was the church liable for all his crimes since he wasn't reported? It seems to me if FTR was not a crime for PSU how could they be held liable for JS post employment?

Something is very wrong that we keep paying and I don't think even the alumni elected BoT are complaining are they?

 

[BHF23]

BHF, I have yet to read any evidence Jerry had sex with anyone outside of victim testimony. It seems like everyone's testimony was changed to fit the scenario. There was also testimony that convicted Jerry, where research after the trial showed the time lines did not match up. I have studied AM, Matt and AF and I am convinced they are liars.

I would love to hear evidence that you have where it proves Jerry was having sex with others before 1998.

toddbrewster,

I'm not going to tell you I know exactly how far Sandusky went with each kid. I do question some of the allegations and testimony. I don't doubt that there were some money-grabs. I'm familiar with JZ's work. I don't think he does himself any favors with his delivery, but I'm not going to ignore him just because of that. I give him credit for interviewing Jerry and Dottie, not because I'd necessarily believe what they say, but because I think it's a useful part of a thorough investigation. (It's not like governors, board members, police, etc. never lie, and we listen to them.) I tend to agree with you on AM, Matt and possibly AF (though Sandusky admitted to enough with AF to be a problem). I agree that other victims changed their stories. This won't answer your question (none of this "proves Jerry was having sex with others before 1998," and I've not made that claim), but here goes:

1. Regarding AM: He lost me with his interview with the former FBI guy, insisting he HAD to be V2 because of the date. Which was wrong. However, in the 2000-2002 time frame, AM received two payments of $500 each from Sandusky associate Dominic Toscani (through the Caritas Foundation). Another boy also received two payments of $500 each in that time frame, and a third received one $500 payment. You tell me...what were these payments for? (Not a rhetorical question, as I don't know.) And whether it was AM or someone else in the shower that night, I believe Mike McQueary witnessed something inappropriate between Sandusky and a kid.
2. Regarding Matt: I've heard stuff all over the map with Matt, but most everyone agrees with you that he's a liar. He testified under oath to the grand jury (I think I'm right about this) that nothing ever happened to him, but changed his mind when he saw which way the wind was blowing and the checkbook opened. I'll say that at least one story I've been told about Matt puts him in a very unflattering role in some of this.
3. Pre-1998, without betraying confidences, I've heard enough stories from enough people I find credible that suspicions about Sandusky within the university go back to the 1970s. (At least one public accusation dates to the 1960s.) Some PSU board members have had suspicions since at least the early 1990s. Information of some sort was passed along to janitorial staff in the mid-1990s, alerting them to look out for discarded, soiled boys' underwear following Second Mile camps on campus. (This information was passed along to Freeh's group, with no apparent followup. FWIW, I ran that by Ray Blehar, and Ray had a plausible, innocent explanation for it. I respect Ray greatly.)
4. I have not spoken with Greg Bucceroni directly, but have talked with two people who have. Those two people told me that they believe him; that he's the "real deal." Whether he is or not, I have found other support for some of his allegations. I'll say this: true or not, nothing he says about Sandusky/TSM/Freeh strikes me as implausible. Somewhat connected to this, Ray Blehar said at one point that former PA AG Leroy Zimmerman "may not have had a role in the current Sandusky debacle, but you can be damned sure he was covering for Sandusky when he was the sitting AG from 1981 to 1989." I absolutely believe that.

So...proof that Sandusky was having sex with kids prior to 1998? No, I don't have proof. But then, I never alleged that. I know people suspected "stuff." Different people, different stuff, no doubt. We know he was told not to shower naked with kids, but wouldn't/couldn't stop. Seems like you'd only have to be told once.

I met JZ in person a couple years back and had a cordial 10 minute or so conversation with him. Told him I was also trying to figure out what happened here. Ray Blehar's name came up, and John told me that Ray was "too conspiratorial" for his liking. Don't think I'm betraying a confidence there; pretty sure he's told Ray the same thing directly. I told him I thought Ray would be proven correct on that, and I'll stand behind that now.

To be clear...I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I started doing what I've been doing because I wanted to know what happened. Period. Feels like I learn something new every day.

SR/BHF

 

[BHF23]

Exactly. We need evidence and facts. Not hearsay or innuendo to convict someone in America. There is a good chance that Jerry was convicted unjustly. What's the harm in having another trial?

Wasn't making a comment on this. Just stating my beliefs in response to a question. I'm not a witness to anything, and really have no interest in convincing anyone else I'm "right."

On the other hand, though I live in Georgia, if you're looking for someone to vouch for the fairness of the criminal justice system in Pennsylvania, I'm probably not your guy.

SR/BHF

 

[BHF23]

Entities are not liable for rumors, or for hearing rumors.

Fair enough. Was just hypothesizing. Is there a point where looking into rumors is prudent, from a liability standpoint? Honestly...don't know. That's why I'm asking. If that's all it was, then could it be worthwhile to fight it? It's not just the money...maybe not even mainly the money...but the damage to the university's reputation. If it was nothing more than "somebody heard rumors," why wasn't that worth fighting for?

SR/BHF

 

[psudukie]

I just wanted to post Aquino note on bhf. I have had the pleasure of meeting him in person on a couple of occasions and also talked on the phone a couple times. I would certainly call him a friend.

He has always been very open minded,willing to listen and entertain thoughts and ideas. He is very knowledgable about thing surrounding Jerry Sandusky abd the scandal. He has no pre determined outcome or narrative in his mind. He has his opinions as we all do but he is not fixed in cement. He and I agree on some..... maybe even on the vast majority of generalities in this sorted affair. He's worth listening to and he will find most of you hear worth listening to.

Bhf thanks for sharing thoughts ideas etc in your seeking of truth.

 

[BHF23]

I just wanted to post Aquino note on bhf. I have had the pleasure of meeting him in person on a couple of occasions and also talked on the phone a couple times. I would certainly call him a friend.

He has always been very open minded,willing to listen and entertain thoughts and ideas. He is very knowledgable about thing surrounding Jerry Sandusky abd the scandal. He has no pre determined outcome or narrative in his mind. He has his opinions as we all do but he is not fixed in cement. He and I agree on some..... maybe even on the vast majority of generalities in this sorted affair. He's worth listening to and he will find most of you hear worth listening to.

Bhf thanks for sharing thoughts ideas etc in your seeking of truth.

Good to hear from you, sir. Hope all is well with you. Spending an exotic "vacation" in my office today, working on my report and making a couple posts on the board here. Thanks for the kind words. Hope to talk with you soon.

SR/BHF

 

[fairfaxlion2]

toddbrewster,

I'm not going to tell you ...

You mention a lot of things in your post. A lot of things that relate to questions that have been raised all over the place; all over the internet, but have never made it into the mainstream. Like , after he retired, why was Sandusky appointed to the board of a publicly traded company? I mean that is just bizarre. The Freeh report totally glossed over anybody outside of PSU, IMO, and left a ton of questions unanswered.

 

[91Joe95]

Fair enough. Was just hypothesizing. Is there a point where looking into rumors is prudent, from a liability standpoint? Honestly...don't know. That's why I'm asking. If that's all it was, then could it be worthwhile to fight it? It's not just the money...maybe not even mainly the money...but the damage to the university's reputation. If it was nothing more than "somebody heard rumors," why wasn't that worth fighting for?

SR/BHF

Insurance doesn't pay out based on rumors. They don't care if you're trying to protect your reputation.

 

[Marshall30]

You mention a lot of things in your post. A lot of things that relate to questions that have been raised all over the place; all over the internet, but have never made it into the mainstream. Like , after he retired, why was Sandusky appointed to the board of a publicly traded company? I mean that is just bizarre. The Freeh report totally glossed over anybody outside of PSU, IMO, and left a ton of questions unanswered.

This is NOT about hiding what people knew about Jerry and his supposed "acts". It is about the BoT trying to cover up what shenanigans they and TSM were involved in regarding no vote contracts, sweetheart deals, money laundering and other shady crap. TSM by-laws had a personal responsibility clause for wrong doingand this was another thing they wanted to avoid because of crossover members from the BoT on TSM along with friends and family.

 

[Marshall30]

Insurance doesn't pay out based on rumors. They don't care if you're trying to protect your reputation.

They also don't cover real or imaginary misdeeds of ex-employees.

 

[Aoshiro]

Exactly. We need evidence and facts. Not hearsay or innuendo to convict someone in America. There is a good chance that Jerry was convicted unjustly. What's the harm in having another trial?

Young men testifying that Jerry raped them is not "hearsay and innuendo."
Jerry was a pedophile. They exist in every community. The fact that Jerry was a pedophile does not mean that anyone at Penn State was aware that Jerry was a pedophile.

 

[BHF23]

You mention a lot of things in your post. A lot of things that relate to questions that have been raised all over the place; all over the internet, but have never made it into the mainstream. Like , after he retired, why was Sandusky appointed to the board of a publicly traded company? I mean that is just bizarre. The Freeh report totally glossed over anybody outside of PSU, IMO, and left a ton of questions unanswered.

Unanswered questions by design, I believe. There are a few things that convinced me that the Freeh Report was a dishonest enterprise, rather than just an incompetent piece of work, and that's one of them: the glossing over of anybody outside of PSU. IMO, the real coverup involves the people who were protecting Sandusky and others at The Second Mile. Without examining that, Freeh would have no need to look at any possible connections between those protectors and PSU muckety-mucks. The terms of Freeh's engagement were set by the SITF (mostly Frazier and Corbett's proxy Tomalis) and Corbett himself by steering the SITF in Freeh's direction. Corbett and the SITF (along with Freeh himself, of course) are entirely responsible for the contents and consequences of the Freeh Report. One of those consequences, clearly intended, is the protection of The Second Mile.

SR/BHF

 

[toddbrewster]

toddbrewster, I'm not going to tell you I know exactly how far Sandusky went with each kid. I do question some of the allegations and testimony. I don't doubt that there were some money-grabs. I'm familiar with JZ's work. I don't think he does himself any favors with his delivery, but I'm not going to ignore him just because of that. I give him credit for interviewing Jerry and Dottie, not because I'd necessarily believe what they say, but because I think it's a useful part of a thorough investigation. (It's not like governors, board members, police, etc. never lie, and we listen to them.) I tend to agree with you on AM, Matt and possibly AF (though Sandusky admitted to enough with AF to be a problem). I agree that other victims changed their stories. This won't answer your question (none of this "proves Jerry was having sex with others before 1998," and I've not made that claim), but here goes: SR/BHF

Thank you. I was a big Joe supporter on bwi for years defending Joe against his retiring. I also was a big defender of Jay, because I think PSU alum were trying to hurt Joe via Jay. When the scandal broke, I think I was the first to start a barrage saying this is a Sandusky scandal not a PSU Scandal and Jerry should be hung by his manhood. There were many facts that did not make sense until JZ implied Jerry was a chaste pedophile. This tied up all the loose ends and showed why this became the Move On Scandal. There are many who swear Jerry is innocent and one can NEVER prove they are innocent. All anyone can do if show evidence that an incident is improbable. I have said that IMO went past boundaries. Why did he keep doing it? My theory is that Jerry was trying to outdo his father who helped underprivileged kids at the local Y. He might have been advised by his lawyer to pay kids where he went beyond boundaries and was just an idiot for keep doing it. It seems stupid, but I want a trial to clean this up. Even if evidence comes out of the woodwork that Jerry is guilty, IMO the trial would change a lot of minds, especially I think it will clear Joe in the mind of public opinion.

 

[wensilver]

Unanswered questions by design, I believe. There are a few things that convinced me that the Freeh Report was a dishonest enterprise, rather than just an incompetent piece of work, and that's one of them: the glossing over of anybody outside of PSU. IMO, the real coverup involves the people who were protecting Sandusky and others at The Second Mile. Without examining that, Freeh would have no need to look at any possible connections between those protectors and PSU muckety-mucks. The terms of Freeh's engagement were set by the SITF (mostly Frazier and Corbett's proxy Tomalis) and Corbett himself by steering the SITF in Freeh's direction. Corbett and the SITF (along with Freeh himself, of course) are entirely responsible for the contents and consequences of the Freeh Report. One of those consequences, clearly intended, is the protection of The Second Mile.

SR/BHF

I have to agree. I was thinking about what was NOT being said over the past few years. What entities have remained relatively silent and their principals unscathed? - and it always circles back to Second Mile, CYS & the OAG.

Extreme efforts have been made to publicly keep this shitstorm within the confines of campus - giving the national public a parochial mindset of "THEY ALL KNEW". Which is a farce, because I live in a college town and I haven't a rip of an idea of what "goes on" over on the campus let alone down the street with my neighbors.

Not much of this toxicity has leaked across Atherton and beyond, which should indicate something.

I also can't give the November 2011 Board of Trustees-at-large credit for being smart and having any sort of a plan. I mean, just look at them!

I am in hopes with the access to the Freeh work product, there will be answers. Was the hidden hand in all this the former Office of Attorney General? If the toxic waste were to spill, would it seep into the corrupt waters of the Bermuda Triangle that runs from Hershey - Harrisburg - State College, would it ooze down the Turnpike to Philadelphia?

 

[Marshall30]

IMO, If this is true, then this is most certainly NOT a PSU scandal but rather a PA GOP corruption scandal much like ALL of the other GOP scandals of the last 10 years. Furthermore, it puts the Fina/Kane/PA Judiciary fight into a much bigger context.

Here's the one thing that stumps me though...if what BHF23 and others are saying is true then why haven't the US DOJ/FBI stepped in?

Allegedly they have, according to Blehar and others.

 

[zwick99]

Can someone please explain why PSU was responsible for paying this $93 million? For what exactly was PSU's liability?

Who cares? Just raise taxes on Pitt. Problem solved.

 

[toddbrewster]

Young men testifying that Jerry raped them is not "hearsay and innuendo." Jerry was a pedophile.

Aoshiro, young men testifying that Jerry raped them does not mean beyond a shadow of doubt that they were raped . I've worked with disabled children at events, underprivileged children at ranches and at Children Ministries. I am a hugger, but I have been extremely careful to stay within boundaries. Twice I had to help boys in the bathroom. If some kid lied about me to the leaders, maybe someone would say yes this guy is always helping kids and even helped a kid in the bathroom and he saw... I can never prove I did rape someone. There were two events where the jury heard testimony that someone else saw it. One event unraveled at the trial and the other since the trial. Am I incorrect for wanting proof or at least an objective jury to try a man before he rots in jail?

 

[zwick99]

Aoshiro, young men testifying that Jerry raped them does not mean beyond a shadow of doubt that they were raped . I've worked with disabled children at events, underprivileged children at ranches and at Children Ministries. I am a hugger, but I have been extremely careful to stay within boundaries. Twice I had to help boys in the bathroom. If some kid lied about me to the leaders, maybe someone would say yes this guy is always helping kids and even helped a kid in the bathroom and he saw... I can never prove I did rape someone. There were two events where the jury heard testimony that someone else saw it. One event unraveled at the trial and the other since the trial. Am I incorrect for wanting proof or at least an objective jury to try a man before he rots in jail?

Do you have proof that you are just a hugger and nothing more?

 

[BHF23]

IMO, If this is true, then this is most certainly NOT a PSU scandal but rather a PA GOP corruption scandal much like ALL of the other GOP scandals of the last 10 years. Furthermore, it puts the Fina/Kane/PA Judiciary fight into a much bigger context.

Here's the one thing that stumps me though...if what BHF23 and others are saying is true then why haven't the US DOJ/FBI stepped in?[/QUOTE
Regarding the first part of your post, you can be pretty confident that, traced to the roots, this is a bipartisan scandal.

SR/BHF

 

[BHF23]

I have to agree. I was thinking about what was NOT being said over the past few years. What entities have remained relatively silent and their principals unscathed? - and it always circles back to Second Mile, CYS & the OAG.

Extreme efforts have been made to publicly keep this shitstorm within the confines of campus - giving the national public a parochial mindset of "THEY ALL KNEW". Which is a farce, because I live in a college town and I haven't a rip of an idea of what "goes on" over on the campus let alone down the street with my neighbors.

Not much of this toxicity has leaked across Atherton and beyond, which should indicate something.

I also can't give the November 2011 Board of Trustees-at-large credit for being smart and having any sort of a plan. I mean, just look at them!

I am in hopes with the access to the Freeh work product, there will be answers. Was the hidden hand in all this the former Office of Attorney General? If the toxic waste were to spill, would it seep into the corrupt waters of the Bermuda Triangle that runs from Hershey - Harrisburg - State College, would it ooze down the Turnpike to Philadelphia?

Probably safe to broaden that triangle a bit.

SR/BHF

 

[Marshall30]

Who cares? Just raise taxes on Pitt. Problem solved.

LOL!

The taxpayers paid to clean the Height of Ignorance, the Petersen Center roof debacle, and a new jumbotron for there. Pitt's hand is always out.

 

[troutrus]

Some of you folks have a serious problem. The denial stage shouldn't last this long. Actually rather pitiful.

 

[lionlurker]

So ignore us, then. Apparently it's our problem, so ignore us.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

Setting aside C/S/S and Paterno for the moment, if certain board members knew more than they're admitting and for a longer period of time (there's no doubt at least several of them did; and I'm talking pre-1998), wouldn't that explain a lot? I'm not a lawyer, but if they knew something and failed to act, doesn't their inaction put the university in the crosshairs for lawsuits also? If so, surely they'd know that. They'd also know that their knowledge/involvement would likely/possibly come out during the proceedings. So it could well be that Penn State IS liable, but not necessarily entirely (or at all, if you prefer) for the reasons the board wants us to believe. And avoiding the discovery process and any personal accountability could explain why the settlements seem so high and why it doesn't seem like the victims/alleged victims are scrutinized too deeply. Maybe they know if the whole truth came out, awards might be even higher? And, not coincidentally, they'd face personal consequences of some sort? So, in a way, what's best for them personally (avoiding consequences) actually IS in the best interest of PSU (limiting damages)? (Hope it doesn't sound like I support that line of reasoning.)

For the record, I think 1998 and 2001 are convenient shiny objects for the worst of the bad guys in all this. More happened. Some of it much earlier than 1998. A significant number of people, both inside and outside the university, knew it. Sandusky and others have been protected at a higher level than the football office for a long time. I guess that gets away from the original post, so I'll stop at that.

SR/BHF

So if we accept your theory that powerful people (including the BOT) at PSU knew about Jerry prior to 1998 and did nothing and this explains why the payouts are so high. And further these people don't want their prior knowledge revealed... where does this put us? Isn't this actually worse if it's discovered that the cover up extended further up the chain than C/S/S? How does PSU come out of this cleanly if this is the case?

 

[lionlurker]

There is no way PSU comes out of this any better, only worse. However, the truly guilty must bear the burden, and not the scapegoats.

 

[fairfaxlion2]

IMO, If this is true, then this is most certainly NOT a PSU scandal but rather a PA GOP corruption scandal much like ALL of the other GOP scandals of the last 10 years. Furthermore, it puts the Fina/Kane/PA Judiciary fight into a much bigger context.

Here's the one thing that stumps me though...if what BHF23 and others are saying is true then why haven't the US DOJ/FBI stepped in?

The last 10? Try back to Budd Dwyer and earlier. Lots of corruption scandals. If there is a political scandal tied to the second mile, it would be one of the least surprising things since this case started.

 

[toddbrewster]

Do you have proof that you are just a hugger and nothing more?

That is my point Zwick. I can never prove that I am just a hugger and nothing more. Jerry can never prove that even though he crossed boundaries he never had sex. The prosecution has to prove that to a jury who should believe Jerry was innocent until proven guilty. However, because of Scott Paterno, the media and the BOT; the jury believed Jerry was guilty until proven innocent. That is a hurdle almost impossible to beat. The jury all thought Jerry was a monster and they would be labeled pedophile enablers if they found him innocent. If Clemente wanted to analyze me from afar, he could say that I targeted kids that no one would believe and I kept putting myself in these situations. As a result, I have cut down my volunteering tremendously and I am sure potential foster parents are factoring this in too.

 

[BHF23]

So if we accept your theory that powerful people (including the BOT) at PSU knew about Jerry prior to 1998 and did nothing and this explains why the payouts are so high. And further these people don't want their prior knowledge revealed... where does this put us? Isn't this actually worse if it's discovered that the cover up extended further up the chain than C/S/S? How does PSU come out of this cleanly if this is the case?

I'm not sure I'd call that my overriding theory...was just asking some questions. My overriding theory is probably worse, and I don't think PSU is clean. There are a lot of facets to this...different motivations for different actions. But where the buck seems to stop is that The Second Mile must not be touched, at any cost to Penn State. Why would the PSU board sign on to the absolute destruction of the university in order to protect the goings on at TSM?

I guess I'm saying my overriding theory does not have the best interest of the university at the forefront of the board's decision making process.

SR/BHF

 

[jrd23psu]

Can someone please explain why PSU was responsible for paying this $93 million? For what exactly was PSU's liability?

It's not about liability. I'm sure they could probably have fought the latest claims that resulted in the additional 33 million being paid and maybe won, but at what cost? They don't want the bad publicity that would come from it. You can probably imagine how the media would frame it, regardless of the validity of the claims.

My question becomes, at what point does the university draw a line? I get the counter argument, that you don't draw a line when people have been victimized, but what kind of vetting process are they going through to determine if somebody actually is a victim, and if PSU had any role in them being abused? Because right now it seems like, at least to the rest of us, that the university is paying out millions to anybody who comes forward with a lawsuit to avoid any more bad publicity.

I really would like to know what kind of vetting process is being undertaken with this.

 

[jrd23psu]

Name one ! I can prove what I know . What's nonsense Joe did not know anything about Sandusky but a low level BS grad heard all the rumors and if the are false praise The Lord!

If you can prove it, then please do so.

 

[Marshall30]

LOL!

The taxpayers paid to clean the Height of Ignorance, the Petersen Center roof debacle, and a new jumbotron for there. Pitt's hand is always out.

I forgot the cost over runs at the Petersen Center. Hands out by Pitt again.

Barron puts his hands up, Pitt puts their hand out.

 

[WeR0206]

It's not about liability. I'm sure they could probably have fought the latest claims that resulted in the additional 33 million being paid and maybe won, but at what cost? They don't want the bad publicity that would come from it. You can probably imagine how the media would frame it, regardless of the validity of the claims.

My question becomes, at what point does the university draw a line? I get the counter argument, that you don't draw a line when people have been victimized, but what kind of vetting process are they going through to determine if somebody actually is a victim, and if PSU had any role in them being abused? Because right now it seems like, at least to the rest of us, that the university is paying out millions to anybody who comes forward with a lawsuit to avoid any more bad publicity.

I really would like to know what kind of vetting process is being undertaken with this.

As opposed to the bad PR that came from the freeh report that stated our entire culture enabled a pedo, a report which the OG Bot embraced a mere hours after it's release?? Come on man. The settlements weren't rammed through to prevent bad PR, they were rammed through to prevent the OG BOT's malfeasance from being exposed.

Or do you just think it was a coincidence that the latest settlements were approved right before Baldwin was about to be deposed and V6 was about to get access to freeh files? I don't think so.

 

[jrd23psu]

As opposed to the bad PR that came from the freeh report that stated our entire culture enabled a pedo, a report which the OG Bot embraced a mere hours after it's release?? Come on man. The settlements weren't rammed through to prevent bad PR, they were rammed through to prevent the OG BOT's malfeasance from being exposed.

Or do you just think it was a coincidence that the latest settlements were approved right before Baldwin was about to be deposed and V6 was about to get access to freeh files? I don't think so.

I don't know if it's a coincidence or not. I'm not one to typically believe in the conspiracy theories. What I do know is that I would love to know what the vetting process is for paying out somebody who comes forward as a victim.

 

[Marshall30]

I don't know if it's a coincidence or not. I'm not one to typically believe in the conspiracy theories. What I do know is that I would love to know what the vetting process is for paying out somebody who comes forward as a victim.

There was no vetting. It was a back and forth negotiation of what the BoT was willing to pay, and what the "victim" was willing to accept.