ADVERTISEMENT

LTE from former PSU Trustee...

Yeah, the police figured it out in 98. Maybe we needed the PSP that lied under oath at the JS trial. Or the one who thought the back up QB was one of Sandusky's abused kids. If not for one of the mothers.........I'm not sure the police found a victim. Ray can clarify that.
It doesn't matter what they did in 1998. Send the information to police and let them deal with it.
 
Getmyjive said, "The Pros at investigating these claims were the police. If they went to the police and let them figure it out, PSU would be fine right now."

I asked if you were being deliberately obtuse or lacked the capacity to understand the facts.
Based on the above quote, I'm going to have to go with the Combo.
When the problem was reported to mandatory reporters who should have reported it to the police, the message died.
Please don't say that they reported a watered down version. That would add duplicitous to the Combo, like supersizing the drink or fires.
Here is what you apparently do not understand. The administrators had a duty to protect PSU. When something that serious comes down the pipeline (in your facilities, involving an ex coach with deep ties to the school and with the eye witness being part of the football program), you cover your ass in every way. If they would have done the prudent thing and reported the incident, PSU would have been perfectly fine.
 
Yup. Just like we'd be fine if they had only called ChildLine.
Look, if you're going to use a screen name to be a board apologist, that's your call. But for heaven's sake, put some real effort into it.
I'm not apologizing for the board, I am pointing at the people directly involved. Not the ones who were tasked with dealing with the fallout 10 years later. Yeah, the board made mistakes and were not ready to handle the situation... they have been skewered. The ones responsible for the mess get a pass on here and that is infuriating.
 
To getmyjive's point: how closely do you expect Joe Paterno was to selecting what sorts of incidents would and would not be insured in 1992? I daresay that was likely out of Tim Curley's league as well. You've told us whose job it was to keep Jerry away from kids in 2001. Whose job was it to make sure PSU had coverage if there was child sexual abuse on campus from 92-99?

Who was the University's risk-management person in 1992-1999? You know, the guy (?) who reviews the risks PSU must shoulder vs the risks covered by insurance?

All Tim (or Schultz or Spanier) had to do was call the police. Again, why does he get a pass?
 
I'm not apologizing for the board, I am pointing at the people directly involved. Not the ones who were tasked with dealing with the fallout 10 years later. Yeah, the board made mistakes and were not ready to handle the situation... they have been skewered. The ones responsible for the mess get a pass on here and that is infuriating.
So you're another one of those hero posters whose superpower is the hindsight bias. You're a dime a dozen.
 
"HE" did it? How about Sandusky and the administrators who decided not to let the pros handle the situation?

I'm sorry, have any of those charges gone to trial? Oh, I remember now, the ones that have were dismissed with prejudice. Looks like they did the right thing after all, which leaves Hintz, Lubert, Silvis, and the rest of the bot that screwed up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ziggy
I'm not apologizing for the board, I am pointing at the people directly involved. Not the ones who were tasked with dealing with the fallout 10 years later. Yeah, the board made mistakes and were not ready to handle the situation... they have been skewered. The ones responsible for the mess get a pass on here and that is infuriating.

Have you checked the status of the charges? They keep getting dismissed with prejudice, which means more and more of what they did was correct. Which, again, just leaves Hintz, Lubert, Silvis, and the rest of the board that screwed up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
So you're another one of those hero posters whose superpower is the hindsight bias. You're a dime a dozen.
No, it's not a hindsight thing. It's simple... man gets caught showering with a kid, report him to police. Let them figure out if anything illegal was going on.
 
I'm sorry, have any of those charges gone to trial? Oh, I remember now, the ones that have were dismissed with prejudice. Looks like they did the right thing after all, which leaves Hintz, Lubert, Silvis, and the rest of the bot that screwed up.
This has nothing to do with charges. This is about the leaders of a University not protecting it.
 
Have you checked the status of the charges? They keep getting dismissed with prejudice, which means more and more of what they did was correct. Which, again, just leaves Hintz, Lubert, Silvis, and the rest of the board that screwed up.
You understand that they could be cleared of all criminal charges yet still put PSU in a position to be liable, right?
 
I am going to try to shorthand this, simply because I suspect there is something I have wrong here. PMA, which has been for decades PSU's insurer, ALSO had a direct hand in selecting the B&I trustees who ran the University for decades. And these were the same decades, am I right about that?

Specifically, did we not find out a few weeks ago in the PMA vs. PSU case that from 92-99 there was an exclusion in place which meant that PSU was not covered for on campus child sex abuse during those years? Did the PMA-selected trustees during those years know about Sandusky? Did they exclude the coverage in order to limit PMA's exposure? Is it mere coincidence that the exclusion ended with the retirement of Jerry Sandusky?

Setting aside all other considerations, I cannot imagine why, during the 90s, a time when the President of the United States was accused of various forms of sexual harassment and abuse, a giant org like PSU willfully excludes from its liability coverage any claims for sex-related anything. I have never known of such an exclusion. Jerry Sandusky or no, you have no coverage if a grad assistant successfully hits on a 17 yo student? If a branch campus teacher hits on a 15 yo summer student? No coverage? That alone seems to be a negligent failure by the trustees to protect the assets of the University.

But if the PMA-selected trustees did not know about Jerry, then why did the exclusion end when he retired?
IF the PMA-selected trustees warned PMA about the risk of Jerry, and played along while PMA cut out the coverage, then they sold the University down the river, selecting the interests of their PMA backers over the interests of the University. I have always felt there were lots of people on the BoT who knew more about this than Joe did.


Kudos to Horst for fighting his lonely fight years ago. It did not work. Seems impossible to assume it could.
I could make lots of money in the insurance business if I had advance knowledge of where to find the risks and exclude them.

Why does PSU have the same risk insurer for all this time? How many times has this insurance business been sent out for bid since PMA became the insurer. Were there other times when oddball insurance exclusions popped up and PSU paid the claims itself? Another question: what was the premium paid to reinstate the coverage after Jerry retired?

Disclaimer--what I have written here is incendiary, I know. As I indicated, I may have the facts wrong. Happy to have that pointed out if it is true.

Dem, I think this is insightful. It gives a fresh look at a thousand points of light, there seems to be a noxious set of weeds devouring the purse strings of the University, The level of dis-ingenuousness is appalling; the scope of malfeasance ......WOW. This needs to be burned down; I doubt it can be sorted with a simple herbicidal cleansing. I haven't even heard mention of the prime commercial land gift to the University along the Benner Pike; what's the quid pro quo on that property. Who was the governor then?

Wish you were there... we could use your abilities.
 
"HE" did it? How about Sandusky and the administrators who decided not to let the pros handle the situation?
Raykovitz was supposed to be the "pro", what with his child-centered professional education and all. He dropped the ball on his legal obligations instead following Heim the non-pro's "advice".

Enough of your jive-talking. Time for you to go read the law. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206 and 91Joe95
You understand that they could be cleared of all criminal charges yet still put PSU in a position to be liable, right?

Not because of what they did. Maybe because of that inaccurate report Hintz, Lubert, Silvis, and the rest of the bot commissioned, but definitely not because CSS followed the law.
 
Raykovitz was supposed to be the "pro", what with his child-centered professional education and all. He dropped the ball on his legal obligations instead following Heim the non-pro's "advice".

Enough of your jive-talking. Time for you to go read the law. :rolleyes:

Reading is hard. Understanding is even tougher for some. Then there are those that are simply interested in lying.
 
Raykovitz was supposed to be the "pro", what with his child-centered professional education and all. He dropped the ball on his legal obligations instead following Heim the non-pro's "advice".

Enough of your jive-talking. Time for you to go read the law. :rolleyes:
The "pro" in my example was the police. Not the guy leading a company that the perv created and had full run of.
 
Not because of what they did. Maybe because of that inaccurate report Hintz, Lubert, Silvis, and the rest of the bot commissioned, but definitely not because CSS followed the law.
CSS killed us, period. Their ignorance screwed ultimately screwed us.
 
Why does it matter? Care to tell me who pushed for it?
Because those individuals pressed to give JS unfettered access to FB facilities with his children. This was approved over JVP's objections. Who failed the university in this instance?
 
Because those individuals pressed to give JS unfettered access to FB facilities with his children. This was approved over JVP's objections. Who failed the university in this instance?
It was pushed by Spanier and questioned by Erickson.
 
CSS killed us, period. Their ignorance screwed ultimately screwed us.

Are you really this stupid? Seriously, are you this stupid? Its OK if you are, not everyone is endowed with, let's call it below average mental capacity to understand the law. I'm just curious at this point if you recognize your own limitations.
 
CSS killed us, period. Their ignorance screwed ultimately screwed us.
They followed the law. You have a really bad case of hindsight bias, and come up with situations other than what they actually were at the time. This has been explained over and over and over for you and others on this forum. I'm beginning to think you have reading issues as well.
 
No, it's not a hindsight thing. It's simple... man gets caught showering with a kid, report him to police. Let them figure out if anything illegal was going on.
And that responsibility rests entirely on McQueary. If he thought it was something sexual he should have reported it to police or DCBS. He didn't. OT at least if he did (Schultz?) he didn't make his case clearly enough.
 
I'm serious when I ask you if you understand just how stupid you are. Now, some posters might say you're smarter than the founding fathers, but I'm not seeing it.
It might not be polite, but I call this kind of activity by "getmyjive", and all those who engage in it "Groundhog Day".

There was a "columnist" in Iowa named Daniel P Finney the other day who engaged in this activity. Every single time someone different tried to ask an intelligent question or give him information, he would flash a snippet of the "summary" portion of the debunked Freeh Fraud Opinion to them, as if he had not received cited information and links to read to get them up current from the previous person. This happened about 5 or 6 times over 2 or 3 days.

It's really sad, but either there are some people who are incapable of comprehending things explained to them numerous times, or they are doing it on purpose to be a troll. I can never figure out which without the benefit of meeting them in person.
 
Last edited:
I'm serious when I ask you if you understand just how stupid you are. Now, some posters might say you're smarter than the founding fathers, but I'm not seeing it.
It's pretty simple. Report it to police in 2001 and PSU is off the hook for every victim after that.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT