Feels like a slap in the face
- Thread starter Al_Tuna
- Start date
- Status
I don't think C/S/S are mistake free, but intent has to be looked at in a case like this. Making a mistake as judged in hindsight is different than deliberately making a mistake for nefarious reasons.
Other schools that are facing similar crap (Syracuse, MSU) aren't moving on, and they're way better off than we are.
I agree.
The fact they lied about 98 is what I took issue with. After the Spanier trial played out I'm of the opinion Curley and Schultz just made the wrong call with the best intentions.
I think they were embarrassed and figured omitting 98 was inconsequential. The OAG probably should have given them a chance to amend their testimony instead of going scorched earth. It would have saved so much time and money.
I think Spanier is less honorable as he still hasn't owned up to lying about 98. He went public with his denials so it's harder to admit. He still has to do it though.
It won't even be in the same ballpark...they will fight it because they have people in charge who care about their university and not themselves.
I'll bet you a dollar nothing happens to them. They will put the blame on the guilty party like our university should have done.
This is a football message board, correct? Just checking.
Yep, good call. It's all about football.
Then why did Paterno get fired? And why did they accept the consent decree? And why did they not fight the sanctions? And why did they not fight to get the bowl money they were owed? That's a lot of sh!t to take when they supposedly put the blame on Sandusky.
Because as I said, the most important thing to any University is it's name. PSU had two administrators instantly charged. The highest admin then put out a statement of support that infuriated the public. The masses were angry, and rightfully so. The University had no choice but to remove Paterno. Make no mistake, that GJ testimony should have never been leaked, and the leaker should have been charged. However, it was done and so PSU was left with only one option.
The DOE claims he was present at a meeting about it on May 4.
Try this one on for size, asshole. Friends were involved in a lawsuit. During discovery, opposition counsel elicited statements from a "witness" that it intended to enter into evidence. Judge ruled that they could. Friends' counsel motioned to call said witness. Opposing counsel objected, producing a statement from the witness that appearing at trail would create undue hardship. Judge agreed. Friends' counsel then moved to depose witness. Opposing counsel objected and judge ruled in their favor. At the end, all the judge would allow friends' counsel to submit an interrogatory. Answers to the interrogatory never directly addressed the questions posed, instead only referring to answers in the initial interrogatory.
So why, great legal mind, did the judge in this case limit one side from asking questions that it thought to be pertinent? While I have no direct knowledge of other cases in which this has happened, I am told from reliable sources that this practice isn't uncommon.
Have to disagree a little bit about your "judged in hindsight" perspective.
When Curley et al received their 2001 report of Sandusky's being found naked in the shower of a locked, limited-access building at or about 10:00 at night, engaging in some sort of physical activity with a naked, sub-teen boy, they were already aware of the 1998 investigation and at least generally what it had been for. True, they would've also known he'd been completely cleared of any wrongdoing at the time. But knowledge of his clearance then did not change the fact that now they had a second report, originated by a (supposedly at least) credible individual, of similar activity to that which triggered the 1998 investigation, occurring at an odd time of day in rather suspicious circumstances.
From where I sit, no 20 / 20 hindsight would've been required for a prudent man, acting out of an abundance of caution in the circumstances and with a primary view to the protection of innocent children, to have immediately notified proper State authority of McQueary's report. The fact that C/S/S elected not to do so likely represents a misdirected sense of caring for an individual, born of previous friendship, being allowed to override the administrative caution objectively demanded by the situation they were confronted with. Their positions of high organizational responsibility meant they were paid to make just that kind of tough call. Where Jerry Sandusky is concerned they failed to do so and the rest is sad, irreversible history.
Last edited:
Here is a question that might require 20/20 foresight: how do ambiguous descriptions of what went on in the shower that night transmogrify into anal rape 10 years later?
Given the number of actors in this lawsuit, 3-4 depending on whether you count a married couple as one or two. one was a witness. And, yes, it ended the lawsuit.
I'm not implying anything. I have no idea what the judge has ruled regarding evidence in the Paterno case (remember, it's under seal). But I am saying that a judge can make a ruling on evidence that effectively scuttles a case.
Uh, no. I described the aforementioned case to a number of friends who are attorneys, some in pretty high-powered firms. Each of them said that what I described is not uncommon, even in larger cases. It's not a matter of how much evidence a judge's rulings can block, but how key the evidence is to the case. But then, you and Wetzel are a formidable legal team with expertise far exceeding that of the lawyers to whom I talk, so I really shouldn't even bother.
I'm not doing anything with it. Just offered a suggestion as to what might be happening. But you're so well plugged in we should all wait for your proclamations. Amazing what bookkeepers in State College are privy to.
And through the actions of the BOT from then until now, our name is forever ruined.
You qualify as a very despicable individual. Hopefully you don't have children and never will.
No it's not. Look, you can pretend that this is all on the BOT, but CSS's conviction/pleas have nothing to do with the BOT. They screwed penn state and the victims and now are known as criminals. The reputation hit would be the same regardless. You all are mad at the wrong people.
The BoT, Corbett and Surma orchestrated this entire debacle. But for petty intrigues and agendas it didn't have to be.
- Status
