Joe, Penn State Lies.

[Obliviax]

His vagueness is perfectly consistent with someone who doesn’t want to admit he was not touched sexually which may risk his PSU settlement money, and someone who doesn’t want to explicitly claim Jerry touched him sexually and risk a perjury charge.

I do acknowledge that Allan may honestly believe Jerry was grooming him with the showers, so he may not be technically lying when he claimed to be an abuse victim. But I think it’s clear based on all the evidence there was never any sexual contact between him and Sandusky.

True. But my only comment is that "grooming" isn't a crime unless there is a crime associated with it. In other words, if one is "friendly" with a child that isn't a crime. But if that person moves from "friendly" to "abusive" then grooming can be charged as a crime. I am not 100% certain of PA in 2011 but believe that was the law at the time and may still be.

And, of course, what he said in 2011 means little in terms of what the PSU people did or should have done in 2001. It is a matter of what he said in 2001.

 

[RussianEagle]

True. But my only comment is that "grooming" isn't a crime unless there is a crime associated with it. In other words, if one is "friendly" with a child that isn't a crime. But if that person moves from "friendly" to "abusive" then grooming can be charged as a crime. I am not 100% certain of PA in 2011 but believe that was the law at the time and may still be.

And, of course, what he said in 2011 means little in terms of what the PSU people did or should have done in 2001. It is a matter of what he said in 2001.

I believe one you establish that the defendant is a child sex offender, he then can be convicted of “grooming” offenses even if he never had actual sexual contact with a child. That’s why Jerry was convicted of SOME of the charges related to Victim 6, even though he did not claim sexual contact in his testimony, and that’s also why Jerry was convicted to SOME of the charges related to Victim 2, even though there was no victim to testify and McQueary’s witness testimony was unclear.

 

[Obliviax]

I believe one you establish that the defendant is a child sex offender, he then can be convicted of “grooming” offenses even if he never had actual sexual contact with a child. That’s why Jerry was convicted of SOME of the charges related to Victim 6, even though he did not claim sexual contact in his testimony, and that’s also why Jerry was convicted to SOME of the charges related to Victim 2, even though there was no victim to testify and McQueary’s witness testimony was unclear.

makes sense. But grooming, in and of itself, is not a crime. If it were, anyone being nice to a kid could be charged with grooming.

 

[WHCANole]

Please remember that Joe followed the policy for reporting this type of incident-that is he reported it to his immediate superiors. That is the protocol in PA. In fact, this manner of dealing with incidents of alleged abuse has become the standard at other schools. You report it to those who are trained to deal with it. Joe was not a witness, but the recipient of heresay, which he reported and required McQueary (the witness) to report as well. Incidents like this often catch everyone off guard and in a state of disbelief.

Joe, also participated in the decision not to report Sandusky as was noted by Freeh. As detailed in my report, the e-mails and contemporary documents from 2001 show that, despite Mr. Paterno's knowledge and McQueary's observations, four of the most powerful officials at Penn State agreed not to report Sandusky's activity to public officials. As made clear in the attachments to our report, on February 25, 2001, Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz agreed to report Sandusky's abuse to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. On February 27, 2001, these men agreed that reporting to DPW was not required, reasoning in the words of Graham Spanier that "[t]he only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it." The only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 and the agreement not to report on February 27, 2001, was Mr. Paterno's February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley regarding what to do about Sandusky. Again, this conversation was memorialized in the contemporary email, where Mr. Curley said "[a]fter giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday -- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps."

 

[WHCANole]

totally agree, in fact, I posted that this is the NCAA's guidance/policy for coaches who have allegations reported to them. They launched an investigation after PSU and came out with the guidance you stated after three years of research.

But Joe was involved after he reported and that violates said NCAA guidance.

 

[joeaubie21]

Responding to whackofftroll only encourages more of his nonsense. There's a reason he's on ignore.

 

[PSUCYCLING]

Joe, also participated in the decision not to report Sandusky as was noted by Freeh. As detailed in my report, the e-mails and contemporary documents from 2001 show that, despite Mr. Paterno's knowledge and McQueary's observations, four of the most powerful officials at Penn State agreed not to report Sandusky's activity to public officials. As made clear in the attachments to our report, on February 25, 2001, Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz agreed to report Sandusky's abuse to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. On February 27, 2001, these men agreed that reporting to DPW was not required, reasoning in the words of Graham Spanier that "[t]he only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it." The only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 and the agreement not to report on February 27, 2001, was Mr. Paterno's February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley regarding what to do about Sandusky. Again, this conversation was memorialized in the contemporary email, where Mr. Curley said "[a]fter giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday -- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps."

I think we have established with links to sworn testimony that there is no evidence that exists that what McQueary told Dranov, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz in 2001 constituted a sex crime or a crime for that matter. If it did, Dranov would have been in legal jeopardy as well. In fact, the prosecutor objected to Sandusky’s attorney asking Dranov if Mike described seeing any sexual contact. Some things to keep in mind:

- there is no law on the books that forbids an adult showering with a child / teenager. In his jury instructions, the judge specifically told the jury that showering is not illegal but must be taken in contex with other behaviors.

So far, it is quite apparent that you lack critical thinking skills to properly debate a complex legal issue such as this. You keep refering to a conversation that Curley had with Paterno where Paterno “changed“ Curley’s mind. This is your OPINION because there is no evidence ever presented of WHAT Paterno told Curley. Paterno was dead, Curley had lung cancer. If Paterno mob boss style told him not to report Jerry, don’t you think Curley would have testified to that fact in order to avoid jail? You know, like the Nazi’s at Nuremberg.

In order to properly support your arguement, please present evidence of WHAT Paterno told Curley that changed his mind. That is what intelligent people do.

 

[LandoComando]

Nole and people like him can't be reasoned with. They believe Joe should have been like John Rambo and taken justice into his own hands with Sandusky.

To be fair, he'd be looked at more favorably if he had. Meeting the legal requirement rarely is applauded.

 

[DrJC]

It is also interesting to note that Joe used Jerry and Dotty Sandusky to babysit children in the family. If he had any inkling that JS was a child predator, I doubt that he would have used them for babysitting!

 

[WHCANole]

I think we have established with links to sworn testimony that there is no evidence that exists that what McQueary told Dranov, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz constituted a sex crime or a crime for that matter.

I don't think you have done that. We have determined through testimony that MM did not tell Dranov anything actionable but the jury believed he did tell CSS such.

If it did, Dranov would have been in legal jeopardy as well.

Dranov was not a mandatory reporter in this instance as state law then required the victim to come before him as a patient to activate that obligation legally.

In fact, the prosecutor objected to Sandusky’s attorney asking Dranov if Mike described seeing any sexual contact.

He objected to leading the witness which he was.

Some things to keep in mind:

- there is no law on the books that forbids an adult showering with a child / teenager. In his jury instructions, the judge specifically told the jury that showering is not illegal but must be taken in contex with other behaviors.

Yes, it was never about the fact that they were showering together but rather the sexual touching.

So far, it is quite apparent that you lack critical thinking skills to properly debate a complex legal issue such as this.

I seem to match your skills

You keep refering to a conversation that Curley had with Paterno where Paterno “changed“ Curley’s mind.

This is a reasonable as Curley wouldn't have mentioned Joe's involvement otherwise. No other reason to bring Joe up otherwise.

This is your OPINION because there is no evidence ever presented of WHAT Paterno told Curley.

It is circumstantial but damning nonetheless.

Paterno was dead, Curley had lung cancer. If Paterno mob boss style told him not to report Jerry, don’t you think Curley would have testified to that fact in order to avoid jail? You know, like the Nazi’s at Nuremberg.

No, more like a cult member taking a bullet for the man and institution who were singularly responsible for his successful professional life. Curley tried to avoid jail by telling the OAG one thing behind closed doors when he made his deal and then another (amnesia) on the stand in front of his supporters but the judge saw through that and gave him the most jail time. Curley gladly went to jail for Joe as that makes him a hero in State College. Had he implicated Joe in any thing negative he would not today be able to live in that town.

In order to properly support your arguement, please present evidence of WHAT Paterno told Curley that changed his mind. That is what intelligent people do.

I have done that. As the record says Curley changed his mind and told Spanier and Schultz so and mentioned that Joe was involved in that decision. At worst, Joe changed his mind or at best just agreed with Curley not to report Sandusky. He would not have mentioned Joe otherwise.

 

[WHCANole]

To be fair, he'd be looked at more favorably if he had. Meeting the legal requirement rarely is applauded.

And here I would say "minimum" since there was more action Joe could have legally taken.

 

[WHCANole]

It is also interesting to note that Joe used Jerry and Dotty Sandusky to babysit children in the family. If he had any inkling that JS was a child predator, I doubt that he would have used them for babysitting!

When he left them there were others there and not one on one with Sandusky when he normally did his diddling.

 

[RussianEagle]

It is also interesting to note that Joe used Jerry and Dotty Sandusky to babysit children in the family. If he had any inkling that JS was a child predator, I doubt that he would have used them for babysitting!

I believe it was Tim Curley that allowed the Sandusky’s to babysit their children. Joe had little personal relationship with Jerry and I believe Dottie and Sue did not get along. That’s why Joe was so quick to throw Jerry under the bus

 

[RussianEagle]

I think we have established with links to sworn testimony that there is no evidence that exists that what McQueary told Dranov, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz in 2001 constituted a sex crime or a crime for that matter. If it did, Dranov would have been in legal jeopardy as well. In fact, the prosecutor objected to Sandusky’s attorney asking Dranov if Mike described seeing any sexual contact. Some things to keep in mind:

- there is no law on the books that forbids an adult showering with a child / teenager. In his jury instructions, the judge specifically told the jury that showering is not illegal but must be taken in contex with other behaviors.

So far, it is quite apparent that you lack critical thinking skills to properly debate a complex legal issue such as this. You keep refering to a conversation that Curley had with Paterno where Paterno “changed“ Curley’s mind. This is your OPINION because there is no evidence ever presented of WHAT Paterno told Curley. Paterno was dead, Curley had lung cancer. If Paterno mob boss style told him not to report Jerry, don’t you think Curley would have testified to that fact in order to avoid jail? You know, like the Nazi’s at Nuremberg.

In order to properly support your arguement, please present evidence of WHAT Paterno told Curley that changed his mind. That is what intelligent people do.

If Curley had planned to report Sandusky to DPW and Joe told him something that changed his mind, there is no way Curley would still hold Joe in high regard. Yet Curley remains a huge supporter of Joe to this day.

The emails that were voluntarily turned over by Gary Schultz, which so many use to damn Joe, reveal a completely different narrative when viewed in context with other emails/notes. The initial plan was for Curley to personally confront Sandusky. But then Tim started getting cold feet about it and suggested maybe they just have DPW confront Sandusky. But then Tim finally decided that he would indeed contact Sandusky directly, even if it was uncomfortable for him. When he called Joe, Joe almost certainly told him something along the lines of “It’s your decision, why are you asking me”

 

[RussianEagle]

makes sense. But grooming, in and of itself, is not a crime. If it were, anyone being nice to a kid could be charged with grooming.

Correct. There was a case where a man was charged with a child sex abuse crime for watching children in a weird way at a hotel pool. What happened was a parent complained about the man, and then the hotel looked into him and discovered he was viewing child porn on the hotel Wi-Fi. He was charged no only with the porn offenses but also a charge related to watching to kids with bad intentions.

My point is that is why Jerry was convicted of 45 counts. It wasn’t like the jury weighed each charge individually. They just became convinced he was a sex offender and felt he did something wrong every time he was in the presence of one of the boys.

 

[WHCANole]

If Curley had planned to report Sandusky to DPW and Joe told him something that changed his mind, there is no way Curley would still hold Joe in high regard. Yet Curley remains a huge supporter of Joe to this day.

Nothing would make Curley hold Joe in low regard. Joe gave him his entire professional life. Curley went to jail to protect Joe. Cult like loyalty and wrong.

The emails that were voluntarily turned over by Gary Schultz,

By his Secretary to Freeh

which so many use to damn Joe,

Rightfully so

reveal a completely different narrative when viewed in context with other emails/notes.

Not if you read them plainly without JoeBot bias.

The initial plan was for Curley to personally confront Sandusky. But then Tim started getting cold feet about it and suggested maybe they just have DPW confront Sandusky.

No, the plan was to confront Sandusky, alert TSM and then report it to DPW.

But then Tim finally decided that he would indeed contact Sandusky directly, even if it was uncomfortable for him.

After he talked to Joe.

When he called Joe, Joe almost certainly told him something along the lines of “It’s your decision, why are you asking me”

Curley mentioning Joe was name dropping to get his plan approved by Spanky not to report. He would not have mentioned Joe otherwise. Even Ziegler believes that. At worst Joe changed Curley's mind, at best he supported the decision NOT to report the pedo.

 

[WHCANole]

Correct. There was a case where a man was charged with a child sex abuse crime for watching children in a weird way at a hotel pool. What happened was a parent complained about the man, and then the hotel looked into him and discovered he was viewing child porn on the hotel Wi-Fi. He was charged no only with the porn offenses but also a charge related to watching to kids with bad intentions.

My point is that is why Jerry was convicted of 45 counts. It wasn’t like the jury weighed each charge individually. They just became convinced he was a sex offender and felt he did something wrong every time he was in the presence of one of the boys.

Did the jury say that or did you just make it up?

 

[MacNit2.0]

Nothing would make Curley hold Joe in low regard. Joe gave him his entire professional life. Curley went to jail to protect Joe. Cult like loyalty and wrong.

By his Secretary to Freeh

Rightfully so

Not if you read them plainly without JoeBot bias.

No, the plan was to confront Sandusky, alert TSM and then report it to DPW.

Aster he talked to Joe.

Curley mentioning Joe was name dropping to get his plan approved by Spanky not to report. He would not have mentioned Joe otherwise. Even Ziegler believes that. At worst Joe changed Curley's mind, at best he supported the decision NOT to report the pedo.

Did Curly tell you that or did you just make that up?

 

[joeaubie21]

Whackoffnole, Wayfair is having a toilet seat sale.

 

[Waltwam]

None of what you mention excuses PSU (CSS and Joe) from notifying police in 2001 of what MM saw.

1998 was NOT reported by PSU but rather by the victim's mother and Alycia Chambers.

Clear indication they should have reported it. Second guess what "might" have been done is criminal considering they were dealing with child safety. Any moral leader would have reported it to police. However, Joe and Curley decided it was not a good idea.

That's exactly what they thought. It would be bad for PSU and THEM as the knew about 1998 and did NOTHING to mitigate it.

Yes they did, so said a jury.

They plead guilty period.

Appeals courts all the way to the Supreme Court of the US said otherwise.

Still went to jail. ALL of them

No, Al Lord, a Joebot Alumni BOT member said that.

False. No proof of that.

BS. He looked the other way and participated in the decision NOT to report Sandusky.

If I tell you about some thing I saw recently (even if my story changes multiple times) and you don't report it from what I said I heard, should your life be destroyed for not reporting it?

 

[WHCANole]

Did Curly tell you that or did you just make that up?

Didn’t need him to tell me the record shows that. You should read it.

 

[WHCANole]

If I tell you about some thing I saw recently (even if my story changes multiple times) and you don't report it from what I said I heard, should your life be destroyed for not reporting it?

If you’re talking about MM his story never materially changed hence four independent juries believed him. I’ll make it simple. Adult + child + ANYTHING sexual= CALL THE POLICE!

 

[Westcoast24]

Whackoffnole, Wayfair is having a toilet seat sale.

You started this thread pnnylion. You’re getting what you wanted, right?

 

[MacNit2.0]

Didn’t need him to tell me the record shows that. You should read it.

I read it…says nothing of the kind.

 

[WHCANole]

You started this thread pnnylion. You’re getting what you wanted, right?

It's like cat nip to him. I enjoy it.

 

[WHCANole]

I read it…says nothing of the kind.

Then you either haven't read it or you are just blind to it. Even your hero Ziegler agrees

 

[joeaubie21]

Whackoffnole Wayfair is having a toilet seat sale.

 

[joeaubie21]

The next time whackoffnole posts a fact will be the first.

 

[Waltwam]

If you’re talking about MM his story never materially changed hence four independent juries believed him. I’ll make it simple. Adult + child + ANYTHING sexual= CALL THE POLICE!

I have been in that situation in the past and when I called the authorities I was told I had no right to judge! But in this conversation , my understanding that legal authorities had Sandusky in prior circumstances and they did nothing. But I do have one question. Why don't you rip on the adult man who witnessed all these atrocities and didn't call the police? Instead you rip on the guy who heard the story second hand!

 

[joeaubie21]

I have been in that situation in the past and when I called the authorities I was told I had no right to judge! But in this conversation , my understanding that legal authorities had Sandusky in prior circumstances and they did nothing. But I do have one question. Why don't you rip on the adult man who witnessed all these atrocities and didn't call the police? Instead you rip on the guy who heard the story second hand!

Because he's trolling as he has been for a decade. He wants attention.

 

[WHCANole]

I have been in that situation in the past and when I called the authorities I was told I had no right to judge!

Then the blame rests on them squarely and completely. That is as much as you can do but that didn't happen here.

But in this conversation , my understanding that legal authorities had Sandusky in prior circumstances and they did nothing

No, in 1998 the police wanted to charge Sandusky and believed they had the evidence to convict him. The locally elected DA decided not to charge a local god based on one incident with no third party eyewitnesses as was the case in 2001.

. But I do have one question. Why don't you rip on the adult man who witnessed all these atrocities and didn't call the police? Instead you rip on the guy who heard the story second hand!

So, to blame all of this on Mike McQueary, as all in JoeBot nation wish to, and thus clear their godlike leaders and institution is understandable but wrong. By putting yourself in MM's shoes as a GA who needed a job I would say he wanted top cover from institutional retribution which Joe could afford him. At least until 2011 then they fired him anyway.

I rip on Joe because he had the power to do something with no fear of institutional revenge and he and his supporters held him out as a paragon of virtue who always did the right thing. If you talk the talk you must walk the walk. Joe didn't and kids paid.

 

[joeaubie21]

A certain little fellow has sobered up, and uses the follow button to stalk.

 

[Lion84]

A certain little fellow has sobered up, and uses the follow button to stalk.

Remember Joe was no Bobby Bowden - lol

 

[MedDawg]

I agree with this take. Curley also talked with with Second Mile brass about this incident, so no, it wasn’t a coverup. We are also looking at things through a lens of post Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, USA Gymnastics and Swimming, and Sandusky scandals. Now, anything that is close, people think first to call CPS. Back then, not so much.

And the current rules for a football head coach are still to report to his superiors and not to call CPS or the police.

Is there any coach anywhere who has called the police before contacting his superiors? That would be seen as meddling. That's why it is still not in the rules.

 

[Obliviax]

And the current rules for a football head coach are still to report to his superiors and not to call CPS or the police.

Is there any coach anywhere who has called the police before contacting his superiors? That would be seen as meddling. That's why it is still not in the rules.

Agreed. Unless the coach was the witness, then call the police. But Joe acted EXACTLY as he should have when having an employee report that he "suspected" someone of abuse. Had MM said that he witnessed abuse, the first question should have been "then WTF didn't you call the police?"

 

[WHCANole]

And the current rules for a football head coach are still to report to his superiors and not to call CPS or the police.

There are no such rules that would prohibit anyone from calling the police as that would be illegal to mandate.

Is there any coach anywhere who has called the police before contacting his superiors? That would be seen as meddling. That's why it is still not in the rules.

This is completely false. If you see or believe a crime has been committed you can and should always call the police directly if you wish.

 

[WHCANole]

Not Victim 2. Which is the only case tied to Paterno.

McQueary saw that and Joe testified he was told by MM that it was CSA.

 

[WHCANole]

Agreed. Unless the coach was the witness, then call the police.

No, ensure the police are called whether your boss does or not.

But Joe acted EXACTLY as he should have when having an employee report that he "suspected" someone of abuse.

But Joe later participated in the decision not to report Sandusky. So, he caused more children to suffer.

Had MM said that he witnessed abuse, the first question should have been "then WTF didn't you call the police?"

MM wanted top cover from JoePa from institutional retribution for reporting a local god for CSA.

 

[WHCANole]

Remember Joe was no Bobby Bowden - lol

Bobby wasn't fired in disgrace as was Joe.

 

[joeaubie21]

The BoT used Joe and Spanier as scapegoats to cover their involvement, and that of family/friends in The Second Mile.

The shredder trucks got to the Mile in record time, which the PSP and local LE promptly ignored.