I always encourage well-reasoned and objective Internet OUTRAGE.. You all know that. However, in this case, we are left to guess why the lawsuit was dropped. As far as I know, there has been no official statement.
Carry on with the OUTRAGE.
Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
Thanks. It's a tangled web, and the Paternos didn't want to sue Penn State.
I assume some will remain OUTRAGED.
.FIRE. SUE.
I think there is some truth to what Ziegler is saying. To win the case The Paterno Family would have had to drag in the 70s accusers and take them down one by one. They have steadfastly refused to question the "victims" in this case. Once this reality became apparent, it was an easy decision.
The nitwits that share a brain with the MSM are never going to let go of the false narrative. Winning a case with the NCAA......The victories have been returned the sanctions removed......and dragging the lunatic 70s "victims" into the public eye would have been at best a Pyrrhic victory.
I can only speak for myself. I know Joe was innocent in this affair. He and Sue are the best things to ever happen to PSU. If Sue Paterno felt this was the best course of action at this point.....who am to question this wonderful lady? God Bless her.
The nitwits that share a brain with the MSM are never going to let go of the false narrative. Winning a case with the NCAA......The victories have been returned the sanctions removed......and dragging the lunatic 70s "victims" into the public eye would have been at best a Pyrrhic victory.
I can only speak for myself. I know Joe was innocent in this affair. He and Sue are the best things to ever happen to PSU. If Sue Paterno felt this was the best course of action at this point.....who am to question this wonderful lady? God Bless her.
Scott is useless. Sorry to have that opinion of somebody, but nobody is forcing him to make public statements that make it obvious.
It was one of the most misdirected lawsuits ever.
Too bad
But it's death means nothing to anyone aside from the named parties and the chest-thumpers
Though it is kind of "sadly entertaining" to see the parade of qualifications and "explainations" being put forward. :-(.
Too bad
But it's death means nothing to anyone aside from the named parties and the chest-thumpers
Though it is kind of "sadly entertaining" to see the parade of qualifications and "explainations" being put forward
. :-(.It's worthwhile to remember who the true victims in this whole ordeal are:
Jerry and Dottie Sandusky (and their children who have remained truthful and loyal)
Joe and Sue Paterno
Jay Paterno (his coaching prospects destroyed through no fault of his own)
Graham Spanier
Gary Schultz
Tim Curley
All who have remained loyal and dedicated to the pursuit of the truth, only to be disparaged at every turn in the PC media (and by Pitt fans, of course)
And the true perpetrators:
Tom Corbett
Louis Freeh
Rodney Erickson
The OGBOT (no need to list them all individually)
Mike McQueary
Greedy attorneys (esp. Andrew Shubin) and the "victims" they represent (though I don't rule out those "victims" being unwitting pawns of their attorneys)
All those who advance/defend the false narrative
Jerry Sandusky still has a chance to prove his innocence with an appeal, but the numbers of those who will fight the good fight with him against ALL the perpetrators (even those that are unpopular and non-PC to fight against) seem to be dwindling...
Sandusky a "victim?" Jesus H. Christ! Are you insane?
It's noble to have mercy on someone who clearly has mental issues, but it's a shame that it comes at the expense of the greater cause of justice...
I don't see it. The case against the NCAA is about their actions which had nothing to do with the 70's victims. They (the NCAA) based their decision on the Freeh report, no?
After the insurance company released the details of the 1976 claim the Paternos said they wanted a public review of it because of the alleged involvement of Joe.
I don't doubt the Paternos are willing to put victims first if it came to that. I just don't see how it would come down to that in the lawsuit.
I could be wrong though.
I love the way people here don't even attempt to use logic or reason.
Everything is based solely on what you'd like to be true.
Logic: Grown man sees X in a shower and instead of trying to stop it or calling police, he calls his dad. And his dad and family friend, both astute medical professionals, didn't seem what he saw worthy of calling police or stopping it.
Is X:
A) A child rape
B) A man renown as a saint in regards to childrens' charities doing what everyone knew he did, shower with children
Logic sure as hell ain't "A"
Is X:
A) A child rape
B) A man renown as a saint in regards to childrens' charities doing what everyone knew he did, shower with children
Logic sure as hell ain't "A"
I seem to recall that the NCAA did pursue the PMA files angle as though they were building a case against Paterno that was beyond the scope of Freeh.
It is reasonable to assume......you are wrong. Not the result of an investigation.......just my opinion. Be happy I'm not charging you $8.5 million.
Based on what, you not wanting to acknowledge the Paternos case took a hit with Curley's testimony?
At least make a logical argument to counter mine. You automatically reject anything you don't like.
I have told you the main reason Sue threw in the towel. The Family has been consistent from the very beginning.....they are not questioning the veracity of "the victims." Not even the ones from the 70's or those represented by the likes of Andrew Shubin. If you choose to dispute this, it is you who ignores logic.
Curley testified that JVP DID NOT influence his decisions.
I was challenging JZ's assertion.
They did question the 70's victim who said he spoke with Joe.
The problem of discrediting the 70's victims didn't just arise. It's either part of the case or it isn't. I'm not sure how it would suddenly become a deal breaker?
There's no denying that Joe knowing about 98 impacted their case greatly.
I absolutely believe the Paternos would put victims first, I really do. I question why they would have to in this case?
If you don't want to discredit fake victims, then you really don't want to win a lawsuit.
Lawsuits are not the place to be worrying about hurting peoples feelings, especially liars feelings.
Lawsuits are not the place to be worrying about hurting peoples feelings, especially liars feelings.
Madeira's ADA Mark Smith used to work with Ray Gricar in '98. Smith told Madeira what he could remember of the 98 case (Smith himself wasn't assigned to it) before Madeira turned the Fisher case over to the OAG. Madeira BTW is almost certainly the one who told Ganim about Sandusky in early 2009 & Ganim probably told Mark Brennan of FOS who I think Blehar thinks is Ganim's source. Brennan then told the McQueary family in June 2009. Back to the OAG & 98 now; either Madeira or Smith told the OAG what they know. There's no evidence Madeira or the OAG had a 98 report yet which is why Eshbach was looking for one via subpoenas asking for PSU Sandusky files going back into the late 90s. This is probably why they decided to use a Grand Jury because they thought it was possible this connected to Gricar and a cover-up. It's also why Mike Gillum said they were told about an earlier case by the OAG in 2009. Now in the summer of 2010 Patriot News reporter Dave Jones was told of an incident in a PSU locker room that in hindsight he believed later was the 2001 incident but there's a very good chance it was the 98 incident. It's because of the tip Jones got that Patriot News emailed Spanier about it which the prosecutors later said at trial was the 98 incident. Jones has also said that Ganim got that same (98?) tip in the summer of 2010. Which is probably how Ganim got Eshbach (most likely) to clue her in & give her a lead in early 2011. BTW in the fall of 2010 Jones confronted Scott Paterno & told him the OAG were investigating a PSU cover up & he thought Joe was involved. So imagine what Scott was probably thinking when they OAG sent a subpoena & requested testimony from Joe in Jan 2011. That's why Scott had been the one guiding Joe through it & why he didn't object to Joe helping the OAG by rewording his story ala "sexual nature" which was a line given to him minutes before testimony by Eshbach.
And that's the rest of the story.
Thanks for this. Pretty head spinning keeping track of the timeline.
I'd still love to know why NBC didn't release the two pages detailing the second sting. I'm also inclined to believe Schrefflers supervisor took part in one of those stings in addition to Ralston. And I'm curious why the page detailing the setting up of Seasock is all screwed up, and why Freeh cites page 18 in two different ways. All very weird.
I'd still love to know why NBC didn't release the two pages detailing the second sting. I'm also inclined to believe Schrefflers supervisor took part in one of those stings in addition to Ralston. And I'm curious why the page detailing the setting up of Seasock is all screwed up, and why Freeh cites page 18 in two different ways. All very weird.
There were multiple reports that were collected to piece 98 together. Much of the info was quashed as was PA law to do so afterwards. This is why it was smart for Chief Harmon to file it under Administrative because that kept it untouched.
...and, of course, that would have violated PA law in the subject, but who's counting....
Don't know if that'll ever happen. Perhaps someday one or more of the miscreants behind this sham of a case, maybe a cop or a lawyer or one of Corbett's political lackeys will come clean and start talking. Or maybe one of the "victims" will grow a conscience. Until then I'll be able to rest easy with the knowledge that Joe was the innocent patsy of a corrupt governor and a few high-placed, vengeful members of our BoT. One thing I believe in is the truth always has a way of coming out. Let's hope it happens sooner rather than later.
The next time Ziegler marches in a parade, you should march with him. That
was quite the success.
Looks like he’s latching onto the Kavanaugh thing - I saw him tweet out an offer the other day to have a teenage girl drive around Bethesda to test Ford’s timeline, or something similar.
I am not a fan of Ziegler’s tactics or his politics. That being said, I don’t believe he has Trump Derangement Syndrome. I believe he had been very critical of Trump and thinks Trump will be very harmful to conservative ideals in the long run.
