Joe, Penn State Lies.

[MacNit2.0]

It'll help you grow

Soon, and the truth I tell you shall set you free.

I am free as can be Skippy.

But keep on keeping on…you make such a compelling case lol.

 

[joeaubie21]

What's the flamer blowing out of his azz now?

 

[WHCANole]

I am free as can be Skippy.

You are truth free but I shall remedy that.

But keep on keeping on…you make such a compelling case lol.

Well, of course I do! Now, repeat after me: Joe is not my god and he failed morally to protect those kids. Healing bro

 

[Waltwam]

Well somebody has to do it. You JoeBots are quite daft. Instead of just calling me names while looking like a child, debate me on the facts. I know them and you should learn them.

Go back to your own board!

 

[joeaubie21]

Whackoffnole, flamer.

 

[WHCANole]

Go back to your own board!

Quit defending pedos and their enablers.

 

[NoBareFeet]

Quit defending pedos and their enablers.

Quit defending fraudsters who stole millions from Penn St and it's stupid leadership

 

[joeaubie21]

The flame continues to fly out of the butt of the idiot.

 

[indynittany]

How so? This should be fun.

The truth is full of gray areas and nuance. Your narrative was proven demonstrably false over a decade ago. Still, you can't deviate one iota from your script. If you do, the whole thing unravels.

For example, the email from Spanier (below), in response to Curley, proves that those men were not operating under the belief that a boy had been abused:

This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.

• “This approach is acceptable to me.” Right out of the gate, Spanier exercises his role as the final authority. If Freeh wanted a smoking gun, he had it. He could have easily downplayed any participation by Paterno based on this single statement. That he didn’t, especially in light of how little he had regarding Joe, suggests a far more nefarious agenda was in play.
• Spanier acknowledged that Tim’s proposal to inform Sandusky required an additional step. If contacting DPW had been taken off the table, the number of steps would have been reduced by one.
• Spanier acknowledged that what Tim was proposing would entail a difficult conversation with Sandusky. It would be awkward and uncomfortable. This is consistent with a delicate personnel issue, not a criminal one. In fact, if it had been believed to have been criminal in nature, speaking to Jerry at all would have been ill advised.
• Spanier then said he is supportive and he admired Tim’s willingness to do that. This is wholly inconsistent with the narrative put forth, but again supports the theme of trying to help Sandusky deal with boundary issues.
• “The only downside for us…” This statement is absolutely critical to understanding the whole mess. Spanier is stating that their purpose is to help Sandusky, to send him a message that his behavior must change otherwise there would be consequences, both for him and PSU. However, his use of the word ‘only’ in the context of that message being received precludes any vulnerability from this incident in and of itself and was entirely dependent on some future indiscretion on Sandusky’s part. Had they understood that a boy had been abused, their vulnerability for not reporting would have been unrelated to any subsequent event and open ended. At that point, several people, especially the boy and his family, could have reported the matter to child services at any time. This statement, along with Schultz’s initial notes where he said “unless JS confesses…” proves that they did not believe they were dealing with a criminal situation.
• Spanier is keeping the option of contacting DPW on the table.
• His use of the word ‘humane’ suggests again that they were trying to be considerate of how their actions might affect Sandusky while still doing the right thing with respect to the university’s involvement. Had a sex crime been the elephant in the room, it is highly unlikely that they would care one iota about Jerry, but would have been entirely focused on how best to minimize the damage to Penn State and the wellbeing of the victim.
• Finally, what's conspicuously absent from this or any of the emails, is any mention of the boy.

This plan had nothing to do with concealing a crime and everything to do with preventing one down the road. By showering alone with TSM kids in the PSU facilities, Jerry was opening himself and PSU to a civil suit based solely on an accusation. It could have happened in 1998. C/S/S were trying to prevent that with their actions. They weren't concerned with what had happened, but with what could happen.

Once all the felony charges against C/S/S were dropped, the narrative was discredited. PSU should have gone all out to rebuild Joe's reputation at that time. Again, the narrative is so fragile that it can't withstand even that one, long overdue, concession.

 

[WHCANole]

Quit defending fraudsters who stole millions from Penn St and it's stupid leadership

If by fraudsters you mean the victims of Sandusky then I see my work is REALLY cut out for me. This is the ultimate sickness of JoeBots.

The leadership was stupid for not exercising more oversight of CSS and Joe.

I will endure to teach you all.

 

[WHCANole]

The truth is full of gray areas and nuance.

Not really

Your narrative was proven demonstrably false over a decade ago.

Four juries said otherwise.

Still, you can't deviate one iota from your script. If you do, the whole thing unravels.

No need to deviate as it is the truth but your narrative is pure fantasy

For example, the email from Spanier (below), in response to Curley, proves that those men were not operating under the belief that a boy had been abused:

Not at all. It is clear that the three are rationalizing not reporting Sandusky when they know his conduct was sexually inappropriate as testified to by Joe.

This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.

• “This approach is acceptable to me.” Right out of the gate, Spanier exercises his role as the final authority. If Freeh wanted a smoking gun, he had it.

Agree and this is why he went to jail. The buck stopped with him. However.....

• He could have easily downplayed any participation by Paterno based on this single statement. That he didn’t, especially in light of how little he had regarding Joe, suggests a far more nefarious agenda was in play.

No it means that he (Freeh) took Joe's input to not report Sandusky VERY seriously and it weighed heavily in Spanier's desire NOT to report him.

As Freeh says: 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."

• Spanier acknowledged that Tim’s proposal to inform Sandusky required an additional step. If contacting DPW had been taken off the table, the number of steps would have been reduced by one.

There were three steps that CSS originally decided to do in February 2001. 1) Confront Sandusky 2) Inform TSM 3) Report Sandusky to DPW.

Curley and Joe decided to only go to Sandusky and Spanier "added" back the step to go to TSM. DPW was taken off the table and Sandusky was not reported.

• Spanier acknowledged that what Tim was proposing would entail a difficult conversation with Sandusky. It would be awkward and uncomfortable. This is consistent with a delicate personnel issue, not a criminal one. In fact, if it had been believed to have been criminal in nature, speaking to Jerry at all would have been ill advised.

I agree they handled it like a personnel issue when it was in fact a crime that Spanier acknowledged could come back to bite them later. Coverup. Keeping it internal instead of informing the proper authorities. Inappropriate sexual activity with a child by an adult is NEVER a "personnel matter".

• Spanier then said he is supportive and he admired Tim’s willingness to do that. This is wholly inconsistent with the narrative put forth, but again supports the theme of trying to help Sandusky deal with boundary issues.

No it is consistent with Spanier passing the buck to Curley to try and keep his fingerprints off it and his Thanking Tim for letting him do so and doing the dirty work. This is not in any way inconsistent with the narrative put forth by Freeh originally. Just top admins covering up.

• “The only downside for us…” This statement is absolutely critical to understanding the whole mess. Spanier is stating that their purpose is to help Sandusky, to send him a message that his behavior must change otherwise there would be consequences, both for him and PSU. However, his use of the word ‘only’ in the context of that message being received precludes any vulnerability from this incident in and of itself and was entirely dependent on some future indiscretion on Sandusky’s part.

I disagree, Spanier is doing a vulnerability assessment of the actions they are taking RIGHT NOW. In the present. Only just means in reference to the decision taken NOW of the CURRENT molestation.

What is in the future that IF Sandusky molests again and is CAUGHT then PSU, Joe and CSS are vulnerable to legal and civil action THEN.

• Had they understood that a boy had been abused, their vulnerability for not reporting would have been unrelated to any subsequent event and open ended.

No, they are gambling that Sandusky won't do it again at least in a way that could be tied back to PSU. This is consistent with the OAG theory proposed at Spanier's trial and proven by the Jury verdicts and Curley and Schultz's guilty pleas.

• At that point, several people, especially the boy and his family, could have reported the matter to child services at any time.

Since that hadn't happened yet it was doubtful that it would but it was a calculated risk that they chose to take. It cost them dearly later. Often exposures of cover ups come from places not anticipated by the bad guys. In this case MM's testimony in 2010 sunk them.

• This statement, along with Schultz’s initial notes where he said “unless JS confesses…” proves that they did not believe they were dealing with a criminal situation.

Crimes and wrongdoing are what one confesses to. You refute yourself with that idea.

• Spanier is keeping the option of contacting DPW on the table.

Meaningless. He did not contact them and Sandusky continued to prey on boys. You can't justify "Well I stand by what I could have done." Spanier didn't and other boys paid after the incident.

• His use of the word ‘humane’ suggests again that they were trying to be considerate of how their actions might affect Sandusky while still doing the right thing with respect to the university’s involvement.

Cover up and looking out for Jerry as a former member of the "family". No concern for the child

• Had a sex crime been the elephant in the room, it is highly unlikely that they would care one iota about Jerry, but would have been entirely focused on how best to minimize the damage to Penn State and the wellbeing of the victim.

The best way they thought to minimize damage to PSU was to cover it up and not report it. They didn't give a damn about the kid as shown by their unwillingness to even try and find out who it was.

• Finally, what's conspicuously absent from this or any of the emails, is any mention of the boy.

Correct! Because ALL they gave a damn about was the reputation of PSU and Jerry. They could have cared less about the kid. That PSU reputation and THEIR jobs were paramount!

This plan had nothing to do with concealing a crime and everything to do with preventing one down the road.

Which by turning in Sandusky THEN (2001) would have completely eliminated the possibility of future CSA. However, CSS and Joe knew about 1998 and Chamber's report. Had Sandusky been exposed as a pedophile in 2001 and then the media and public learned of 1998 and the subsequent PSU inaction then CSS and Joe would have lost their jobs. No 409! They knew this and so covered it up.

By showering alone with TSM kids in the PSU facilities, Jerry was opening himself and PSU to a civil suit based solely on an accusation.

It wasn't the showering that was the issue and you know it! It was the touching. You JoeBots always lie about that!

MM was not freaked out by seeing Sandusky merely in the shower with the child BUT the fact that it looked like he was anally sodomizing the boy.

It could have happened in 1998.

PSU could have and should have acted then (1998) to restrict Sandusky. But they covered up Chambers report.

C/S/S were trying to prevent that with their actions. They weren't concerned with what had happened, but with what could happen.

Yes, if it was found out that they covered it up. They had ample reason to restrict and even ban Sandusky from bringing kids to campus in 1998 and alerting the staff as well. But they were silent in 1998. this informed what they did in 2001. Cover up.

Once all the felony charges against C/S/S were dropped, the narrative was discredited.

But they went to jail. All of them so I think THEY were discredited and not the truth.

PSU should have gone all out to rebuild Joe's reputation at that time.

They aren't that stupid because they have stated he failed as a leader to protect those children. Trying to overlook his guilt in the abuse of children would just make PSU look worse.

Again, the narrative is so fragile that it can't withstand even that one, long overdue, concession.

I think your narrative is the fragile one since no one outside your bubble believes it. Your narrative is a conspiracy theory. CSS are convicted criminals, Sandusky is in jail and Joe will FOREVER be associated with the scandal. It will tarnish his image forever. He does have the wins total though.

 

[Lion84]

WTF dude - get a life. PSU isn’t even you team - you are a very weird individual.

 

[RussianEagle]

Doing anything other than what he did would have been professional suicide and Sandusky would have been free. Going to Joe was his best option as the police would never have believed him over Sandusky without Joe being a part of it.

If your theory is true. That being that McQueary absolutely knew he had witnessed a criminal act that needed to be reported to the police, but Mike was afraid he wouldn’t be believed so he needed Joe Paterno to “back him up”. Then it is inconceivable that Mike would not have disdain for Joe. But that is indeed the case, as Mike still strongly supports Joe Paterno even after his death.

 

[RussianEagle]

The truth is full of gray areas and nuance. Your narrative was proven demonstrably false over a decade ago. Still, you can't deviate one iota from your script. If you do, the whole thing unravels.

For example, the email from Spanier (below), in response to Curley, proves that those men were not operating under the belief that a boy had been abused:

This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.

• “This approach is acceptable to me.” Right out of the gate, Spanier exercises his role as the final authority. If Freeh wanted a smoking gun, he had it. He could have easily downplayed any participation by Paterno based on this single statement. That he didn’t, especially in light of how little he had regarding Joe, suggests a far more nefarious agenda was in play.
• Spanier acknowledged that Tim’s proposal to inform Sandusky required an additional step. If contacting DPW had been taken off the table, the number of steps would have been reduced by one.
• Spanier acknowledged that what Tim was proposing would entail a difficult conversation with Sandusky. It would be awkward and uncomfortable. This is consistent with a delicate personnel issue, not a criminal one. In fact, if it had been believed to have been criminal in nature, speaking to Jerry at all would have been ill advised.
• Spanier then said he is supportive and he admired Tim’s willingness to do that. This is wholly inconsistent with the narrative put forth, but again supports the theme of trying to help Sandusky deal with boundary issues.
• “The only downside for us…” This statement is absolutely critical to understanding the whole mess. Spanier is stating that their purpose is to help Sandusky, to send him a message that his behavior must change otherwise there would be consequences, both for him and PSU. However, his use of the word ‘only’ in the context of that message being received precludes any vulnerability from this incident in and of itself and was entirely dependent on some future indiscretion on Sandusky’s part. Had they understood that a boy had been abused, their vulnerability for not reporting would have been unrelated to any subsequent event and open ended. At that point, several people, especially the boy and his family, could have reported the matter to child services at any time. This statement, along with Schultz’s initial notes where he said “unless JS confesses…” proves that they did not believe they were dealing with a criminal situation.
• Spanier is keeping the option of contacting DPW on the table.
• His use of the word ‘humane’ suggests again that they were trying to be considerate of how their actions might affect Sandusky while still doing the right thing with respect to the university’s involvement. Had a sex crime been the elephant in the room, it is highly unlikely that they would care one iota about Jerry, but would have been entirely focused on how best to minimize the damage to Penn State and the wellbeing of the victim.
• Finally, what's conspicuously absent from this or any of the emails, is any mention of the boy.

This plan had nothing to do with concealing a crime and everything to do with preventing one down the road. By showering alone with TSM kids in the PSU facilities, Jerry was opening himself and PSU to a civil suit based solely on an accusation. It could have happened in 1998. C/S/S were trying to prevent that with their actions. They weren't concerned with what had happened, but with what could happen.

Once all the felony charges against C/S/S were dropped, the narrative was discredited. PSU should have gone all out to rebuild Joe's reputation at that time. Again, the narrative is so fragile that it can't withstand even that one, long overdue, concession.

Another important point is that this email, which the Freehbasers claim damns Paterno and PSU, was printed out and filed by Gary Schultz and then Gary voluntarily turned it over during the investigation. This is not the actions of men looking to cover up sexual assault.

Adam Clark has an excellent Twitter thread showing how the emails and notes taken in order and in context show the truth is the opposite of the Freeh Report:

 

[Waltwam]

Quit defending pedos and their enablers.

How do we know you aren't one?

 

[WHCANole]

If your theory is true.

It's not a theory and MM discussed such at the prelim hearing when asked why he didn't go to police.

That being that McQueary absolutely knew he had witnessed a criminal act that needed to be reported to the police, but Mike was afraid he wouldn’t be believed so he needed Joe Paterno to “back him up”.

I think MM thought he saw a crime and did go to Joe for top cover.

Then it is inconceivable that Mike would not have disdain for Joe.

Why?

But that is indeed the case, as Mike still strongly supports Joe Paterno even after his death.

Because Joe gave him top cover for 9 more years and gave him a job on the team. Joe would have continued to protect MM had he remained in his job and even told his family not to attack MM which they haven't.

 

[WHCANole]

WTF dude - get a life. PSU isn’t even you team - you are a very weird individual.

Pot meet kettle

 

[WHCANole]

How do we know you aren't one?

or you?

 

[WHCANole]

Another important point is that this email, which the Freehbasers claim damns Paterno and PSU, was printed out and filed by Gary Schultz and then Gary voluntarily turned it over during the investigation. This is not the actions of men looking to cover up sexual assault.

The emails were turned over to Freeh by Schultz's assistant who copied them. Gary should have turned them over when Baldwin asked him about what he had on Sandusky when the first subpoenas came in from the OAG. He didn't because he was covering up. He kept them as a CYA to show his boss Spanky approved on the steps they took.

Adam Clark has an excellent Twitter thread showing how the emails and notes taken in order and in context show the truth is the opposite of the Freeh Report:

View embedded media

I don't see it in that thread. Are the other notes from the Alumni BOT conspiracy reports? I see notes apparently from Spanier AFTER THE FACT justifying and lying about his involvement. Once again from 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."

 

[Lion84]

Pot meet kettle

What the hell does that even mean? I bet you are one of those butt hurt criminol fans who thought Saint Bobby deserved the all time wins crown.

 

[WHCANole]

What the hell does that even mean? I bet you are one of those butt hurt criminol fans who thought Saint Bobby deserved the all time wins crown.

The the pot calling the kettle black doofus. I don't know but I bet Bobby would rather not have that "crown" knowing the the shame, disgrace and guilt of Joe.

 

[harbest]

The the pot calling the kettle black doofus. I don't know but I bet Bobby would rather not have that "crown" knowing the the shame and guilt of Joe.

Your parents married because they fell in love and wanted to start a family. Imagine their disappointment when you arrived. Go back to your Nole hole and let us decide our own morality.

 

[WHCANole]

Your parents married because they fell in love and wanted to start a family. Imagine their disappointment when you arrived.

My parents were and are VERY proud of me.

Go back to your Nole hole and let us decide our own morality.

No, you need a conscience as you are rationalizing evil. I am happy to help with that.

 

[harbest]

My parents were and are VERY proud of me.

No, you need a conscience as you are rationalizing evil. I am happy to help with that.

Lets see your degree in psychology first. Maybe you're the one who needs help.

 

[joeaubie21]

Lets see your degree in psychology first. Maybe you're the one who needs help.

Wackoffnole just a fool.

 

[WHCANole]

Lets see your degree in psychology first. Maybe you're the one who needs help.

I’m thinking your dismissal of evil requires more than psychology?

 

[Waltwam]

or you?

You are the one shouting the loudest and you're the one who started this whole thread years after!

 

[MacNit2.0]

You are truth free but I shall remedy that.

Well, of course I do! Now, repeat after me: Joe is not my god and he failed morally to protect those kids. Healing bro

Talking to yourself Handleman? Never a good sign.

I will be sticking what I know to be true.

 

[Westcoast24]

You are the one shouting the loudest and you're the one who started this whole thread years after!

Pnnylion started this thread. He starts one of these every few months. This entire thread is exactly what he was looking for.

 

[WHCANole]

You are the one shouting the loudest and you're the one who started this whole thread years after!

I didn’t start this thread that nut @joeaubie21 did. You silly boi

 

[WHCANole]

Talking to yourself Handleman? Never a good sign.

Talking to you young boi. Trying to set you straight!

I will be sticking what I know to be true.

I will tell you what is true grasshopper

 

[MacNit2.0]

Talking to you young boi. Trying to set you straight!

I will tell you what is true grasshopper

You talk like a man with a paper a$$hole…tis true.

 

[WHCANole]

You talk like a man with a paper a$$hole…tis true.

Silly boi

 

[harbest]

I’m thinking your dismissal of evil requires more than psychology?

 

[joeaubie21]

You talk like a man with a paper a$$hole…tis true.

LOL... flamer and his paper asshole!

 

[WHCANole]

View embedded media

Joe Knew too.

 

[Lion84]

The the pot calling the kettle black doofus. I don't know but I bet Bobby would rather not have that "crown" knowing the the shame, disgrace and guilt of Joe.

I know what it SUPPOSED to mean but your context is all wrong moron.

 

[WHCANole]

I know what it SUPPOSED to mean but your context is all wrong moron.

Fits the situation perfectly cretin.

 

[joeaubie21]

Whackoffnole...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂pee pee poo poo caca.

 

[MacNit2.0]

Silly boi

Now quit looking in the mirror Junior.