LTE from former PSU Trustee...

[GTACSA]

Show me which charges you expect to make it to trial. Its becoming more and more obvious the court thinks they did everything properly. I would just like to congratulate you, along with Roxine and a few others, for blaming known innocent people instead of trying to fix what really went wrong. Bravo to you and any victims caused by your actions.

My post wasn't about the charges or legal requirements; it merely addressed the fact that this all could have been avoided with one phone call or a meeting with CYS, the District Attorney and the State Police.

Why do you have such an aversion to admitting that none of this would have happened to Penn State had that phone call been made or a meeting set up?

All of the charges against Curley, Schultz and Spanier could be dropped and it won't change the public perception of what Penn State leadership failed to do in 2001. If you were driving down the road and saw a man get hit by a car and thrown into the gutter while the car drove away, and you never stopped to check on the condition of the pedestrian you'd have followed the law. But realize that there are many people who would feel you should have at least stopped to check on him even if it later turns out he wasn't hurt.

 

[GTACSA]

Get lost you troll. You're a clown.

Care to answer the question?

 

[Nellie R]

Care to answer my question?

No, you live in the same category as the Zip-personator.

 

[Zenophile]

The victim was not cooperating in '98. And why do you think that the outcome would have been the same?

Even though I disagree with your definition of the term "cooperating", I've amended my response to accommodate you.

We both know what happened in '98. Dodging the question doesn't make it not so -- and it really doesn't do much for your BUT POLICE! argument either.

In '98 there was a DA, a tangible victim (something the '01 incident still doesn't have) AND a sting operation. How'd that turn out?

Bonus question: Did the NCAA punish PSU for '98?

Your reply would be kindly appreciated.

 

[GTACSA]

No, you live in the same category as the Zip-personator.

You and I both know why you don't want to answer the question. The only rationale answer is that Penn State would never have experienced this firestorm and somehow you have trouble admitting that. In reality such an admission has zero bearing on your other points as to who also failed.

 

[Nellie R]

You and I both know why you don't want to answer the question. The only rationale answer is that Penn State would never have experienced this firestorm and somehow you have trouble admitting that. In reality such an admission has zero bearing on your other points as to who also failed.

No, you live in the same category as the Zip-personator. Just another groundhog among groundhogs. Accept your rightful place in line along with the Jive-talker. Deal with that "rationale" answer.

 

[didier]

He wasn't telling them what really happened.

He told them Jerry bear-hugged him, that he lifted him up to the shower-head and his butt was near Jerry's face. He told them Jerry kissed him on the head and told him he loved him. Also that he tried to shower away from Jerry and Jerry called him over. Is there something more that you know about?

 

[getmyjive11]

Even though I disagree with your definition of the term "cooperating", I've amended my response to accommodate you.

We both know what happened in '98. Dodging the question doesn't make it not so -- and it really doesn't do much for your BUT POLICE! argument either.

In '98 there was a DA, a tangible victim (something the '01 incident still doesn't have) AND a sting operation. How'd that turn out?

Bonus question: Did the NCAA punish PSU for '98?

Your reply would be kindly appreciated.

The difference was that they had an eye witness in 2001. That a huge distinction between the two incidents and would have resulted in a different outcome.

The NCAA shouldn't stick their noses in any criminal case, so we don't even need to go there.

 

[Marshall30]

Care to answer the question?

Your questions are repetitive ridiculous BS. Get lost already.

 

[GTACSA]

No, you live in the same category as the Zip-personator. Just another groundhog among groundhogs. Accept your rightful place in line along with the Jive-talker. Deal with that "rationale" answer.

No problem dealing with a non-answer; rationale or not. Although it's obvious why you don't enter a discussion on this issue, it is very strange as to why you feel a concession hurts your position; but then that's you.

 

[Zenophile]

You and I both know why you don't want to answer the question. The only rationale answer is that Penn State would never have experienced this firestorm and somehow you have trouble admitting that. In reality such an admission has zero bearing on your other points as to who also failed.

I'll be happy to answer it. The entire premise of your question suffers from the hindsight bias (& this is me waiting for your tired "No it isn't!" reply).

You're judging Curly and Schultz's (still mostly unknown) actions with the benefit of knowing the outcome -- or what the outcome should have been. An outcome, by the way, that the pro's missed and missed repeatedly.

Jerry didn't have "Pedophile" tattooed on his forehead in 2001 like he does in 2016. In 2001 that space was occupied by the phrase "Award Winning Charity Founder & Pillar of the Community".

 

[Zenophile]

The difference was that they had an eye witness in 2001. That a huge distinction between the two incidents and would have resulted in a different outcome.

The NCAA shouldn't stick their noses in any criminal case, so we don't even need to go there.

An "eyewitness" who didn't see anything according to his sworn testimony.

 

[91Joe95]

the victim said that nothing happened in 1998.

The mother did, against the victim's wishes.

Yeah, all he did was cooperate with a sting operation. So silly of anyone to think otherwise.

 

[pandaczar12]

My post wasn't about the charges or legal requirements; it merely addressed the fact that this all could have been avoided with one phone call or a meeting with CYS, the District Attorney and the State Police.

Why do you have such an aversion to admitting that none of this would have happened to Penn State had that phone call been made or a meeting set up?

All of the charges against Curley, Schultz and Spanier could be dropped and it won't change the public perception of what Penn State leadership failed to do in 2001. If you were driving down the road and saw a man get hit by a car and thrown into the gutter while the car drove away, and you never stopped to check on the condition of the pedestrian you'd have followed the law. But realize that there are many people who would feel you should have at least stopped to check on him even if it later turns out he wasn't hurt.

If George W. Bush would have called in the Navy Seals to take out Sandusky, none of this would have happened to Penn state. The problem is, GWB had no reason to call in the Navy Seals to take out Sandusky. It's unreasonable to expect GWB to have known then what we know now. This is the standard you apply to the PSU admins.

Your analogy is highly flawed. The problem is that C/S/S did not SEE anything. So in your analogy, they need to be told by MM, who was driving down the road and hears what he thinks is the sound of a car breaking, for a 2-3 second glance in his foggy rearview mirror, he sees a guy standing near a car.

So what should C/S/S do when they eventually get the untimely report of the guy possibly being hit by a car? Short of building a time machine there is really nothing they can do. Would you expect them to call the police? Hopefully now you see how absurd your argument is.

 

[GTACSA]

Your questions are repetitive ridiculous BS. Get lost already.

I don't remember you ever engaging in any conversation on the merits; you just insult people. I do want to congratulate you and your therapist as it appears you have now subdued your fecal obsession. Perhaps a couple more sessions and you'll conquer it entirely.

 

[GTACSA]

If George W. Bush would have called in the Navy Seals to take out Sandusky, none of this would have happened to Penn state. The problem is, GWB had no reason to call in the Navy Seals to take out Sandusky. It's unreasonable to expect GWB to have known then what we know now. This is the standard you apply to the PSU admins.

Your analogy is highly flawed. The problem is that C/S/S did not SEE anything. So in your analogy, they need to be told by MM, who was driving down the road and hears what he thinks is the sound of a car breaking, for a 2-3 second glance in his foggy rearview mirror, he sees a guy standing near a car.

So what should C/S/S do when they eventually get the untimely report of the guy possibly being hit by a car? Short of building a time machine there is really nothing they can do. Would you expect them to call the police? Hopefully now you see how absurd your argument is.

You swung and missed again; nothing new.

 

[91Joe95]

My post wasn't about the charges or legal requirements; it merely addressed the fact that this all could have been avoided with one phone call or a meeting with CYS, the District Attorney and the State Police.

Why do you have such an aversion to admitting that none of this would have happened to Penn State had that phone call been made or a meeting set up?

All of the charges against Curley, Schultz and Spanier could be dropped and it won't change the public perception of what Penn State leadership failed to do in 2001. If you were driving down the road and saw a man get hit by a car and thrown into the gutter while the car drove away, and you never stopped to check on the condition of the pedestrian you'd have followed the law. But realize that there are many people who would feel you should have at least stopped to check on him even if it later turns out he wasn't hurt.

You and I both know they did everything right. You and I both know they were victims of a malicious prosecution perpetuated by a lying and potentially politically motivated AG office. You and I both know PSU still gets blamed for 1998 completely invalidating your premise. You and I both know the bot f'd up royally. You and I both know no other university before or after handled a situation like they did.

 

[Zenophile]

You and I both know they did everything right. You and I both know they were victims of a malicious prosecution perpetuated by a lying and potentially politically motivated AG office. You and I both know PSU still gets blamed for 1998 completely invalidating your premise. You and I both know the bot f'd up royally. You and I both know no other university before or after handled a situation like they did.

(just for the record: I know, too)

 

[pandaczar12]

You swung and missed again; nothing new.

You do realize that they timestamp posts? Within 2 minutes of my post, you were able to spend a minute to reply to someone else, read my post (for comprehension) that absolutely destroys your point, and reply. Not likely for someone with your limited abilities, even assuming you saw my post the second it appeared. We know the truth, I've crushed you so many times that you don't even want to play anymore, so you quickly threw in the towel.

Is your position so weak that you've completely given up on defending it? So very sad.

 

[91Joe95]

I don't remember you ever engaging in any conversation on the merits; you just insult people. I do want to congratulate you and your therapist as it appears you have now subdued your fecal obsession. Perhaps a couple more sessions and you'll conquer it entirely.

Funny, I don't remember you ever engaging in the merits of your posts.

 

[91Joe95]

You do realize that they timestamp posts? Within 2 minutes of my post, you were able to spend a minute to reply to someone else, read my post (for comprehension) that absolutely destroys your point, and reply. Not likely for someone with your limited abilities, even assuming you saw my post the second it appeared. We know the truth, I've crushed you so many times that you don't even want to play anymore, so you quickly threw in the towel.

Is your position so weak that you've completely given up on defending it? So very sad.

Well, he has changed his stance multiple, multiple times over the years about what he thinks they should have done. Suspiciously, it tends to be right after the law either gets shown to him and a judge completely destroys his previous stance.

 

[Marshall30]

Well, he has changed his stance multiple, multiple times over the years about what he thinks they should have done. Suspiciously, it tends to be right after the law either gets shown to him and a judge completely destroys his previous stance.

Typical Penn Live/PiTiot is GT.

 

[GTACSA]

I'll be happy to answer it. The entire premise of your question suffers from the hindsight bias (& this is me waiting for your tired "No it isn't!" reply).

You're judging Curly and Schultz's (still mostly unknown) actions with the benefit of knowing the outcome -- or what the outcome should have been. An outcome, by the way, that the pro's missed and missed repeatedly.

Jerry didn't have "Pedophile" tattooed on his forehead in 2001 like he does in 2016. In 2001 that space was occupied by the phrase "Award Winning Charity Founder & Pillar of the Community".

With all due respect you didn't answer my question which was to describe how Penn State would have been involved in this firestorm had leadership called or met with CYS, the District Attorney and the State Police.

I understand the concept of hindsight bias and, not to disappoint you, it should have no relevance to as to whether a report by Penn State leadership in 2001 would have insulated Penn State from the firestorm. That is different from the question as to whether leadership should have made the call. We differ on that and so be it.

 

[GTACSA]

You do realize that they timestamp posts? Within 2 minutes of my post, you were able to spend a minute to reply to someone else, read my post (for comprehension) that absolutely destroys your point, and reply. Not likely for someone with your limited abilities, even assuming you saw my post the second it appeared. We know the truth, I've crushed you so many times that you don't even want to play anymore, so you quickly threw in the towel.

Is your position so weak that you've completely given up on defending it? So very sad.

I have no clue as to what that rambling means; perhaps you could rephrase.

I didn't respond to you directly because you've demonstrated in the past it's a waste of time. I f you insist note that my reference to the man being hit by a car was not intended as an analogy to the Penn State facts of who saw what, but rather was a reference to my point in my post that public perception won't be changed by the criminal charges against CSS being dismissed. Most people think that when a person receives a report of inappropriate sexual contact between a man and a young boy the police should be notified. Most people think that when a person sees a pedestrian hit by a car they should stop.

Feel free to be one of those people who would not do either; that's what makes the world go around.

 

[91Joe95]

I have no clue as to what that rambling means; perhaps you could rephrase.

I didn't respond to you directly because you've demonstrated in the past it's a waste of time. I f you insist note that my reference to the man being hit by a car was not intended as an analogy to the Penn State facts of who saw what, but rather was a reference to my point in my post that public perception won't be changed by the criminal charges against CSS being dismissed. Most people think that when a person receives a report of inappropriate sexual contact between a man and a young boy the police should be notified. Most people think that when a person sees a pedestrian hit by a car they should stop.

Feel free to be one of those people who would not do either; that's what makes the world go around.

Are you so dumb to realize that your analogy fails because PSU made the equivalent of calling 911 under the reporting laws, not only in 2001, but also in 2007? Wait, don't answer that.

 

[Zenophile]

With all due respect you didn't answer my question which was to describe how Penn State would have been involved in this firestorm had leadership called or met with CYS, the District Attorney and the State Police.

- Except that we still don't know that they didn't call CYS (& this is me waiting for your tired "Yes, we do!" reply). The fact is we don't know. And according to the auditor general, CYS doesn't know either.

- Your supposition that they should have called the DA or the State Police is another hindsight bias issue ("No, it isn't!"). Yes. It is.

 

[GTACSA]

- Except that we still don't know that they didn't call CYS (& this is me waiting for your tired "Yes, we do!" reply). The fact is we don't know. And according to the auditor general, CYS doesn't know either.

- Your supposition that they should have called the DA or the State Police is another hindsight bias issue ("No, it isn't!"). Yes. It is.

How is hindsight bias relevant to the question of whether Penn State would have avoided this whole mess if they had called CYS, the DA and the State Police? Note I didn't ask you how hindsight bias is relevant to whether they should have called them.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

How is hindsight bias relevant to the question of whether Penn State would have avoided this whole mess if they had called CYS, the DA and the State Police? Note I didn't ask you how hindsight bias is relevant to whether they should have called them.

The King is back!!

 

[Zenophile]

How is hindsight bias relevant to the question of whether Penn State would have avoided this whole mess if they had called CYS, the DA and the State Police? Note I didn't ask you how hindsight bias is relevant to whether they should have called them.

Except that we still don't know that they didn't call CYS. Your supposition is flawed. Asking the same flawed question again and again doesn't magically unflaw it.

 

[Marshall30]

gtacsa is an utter idiot.

 

[royboy]

How is hindsight bias relevant to the question of whether Penn State would have avoided this whole mess if they had called CYS, the DA and the State Police? Note I didn't ask you how hindsight bias is relevant to whether they should have called them.

So you want a definite answer to your hypothetical and will settle for nothing less?

A foolish quest, and it makes you appear to be a fool to be obsessed with a point that isn't known, and at it's most favorable answer to you, still would involve going back into time to accomplish it.

 

[GTACSA]

Except that we still don't know that they didn't call CYS. Your supposition is flawed. Asking the same flawed question again and again doesn't unflaw it.

Well you are free to think that, but based upon the record that is highly unlikely. While I would be ecstatic if that were the case, the following facts don't support it.

There was no documentation in Schultz's files that CYS was contacted. Schultz did not testify that CYS was contacted, only that he had some equivocal recollection that they may have been notified, which based upon his knowledge that the incident involved JS perhaps touching a young boys genitals, is odd. McQueary was never contacted by CYS. Curley did not report it to CYS and did not know if anyone did, even though he was the final arbiter of how this matter was concluded.

Now all of those facts support a conclusion that CYS wasn't called. So if I were a betting man I'd wager they were not called; but I admit I've lost bets before.

If the facts eventually prove that CYS was contacted about this incident and failed to investigate, then that is a major game changer.

 

[GTACSA]

gtacsa is an utter idiot.

Thank you; that is the nicest thing you ever said about me. Kudos to both you and your counselor.

 

[91Joe95]

Well you are free to think that, but based upon the record that is highly unlikely. While I would be ecstatic if that were the case, the following facts don't support it.

There was no documentation in Schultz's files that CYS was contacted. Schultz did not testify that CYS was contacted, only that he had some equivocal recollection that they may have been notified, which based upon his knowledge that the incident involved JS perhaps touching a young boys genitals, is odd. McQueary was never contacted by CYS. Curley did not report it to CYS and did not know if anyone did, even though he was the final arbiter of how this matter was concluded.

Now all of those facts support a conclusion that CYS wasn't called. So if I were a betting man I'd wager they were not called; but I admit I've lost bets before.

If the facts eventually prove that CYS was contacted about this incident and failed to investigate, then that is a major game changer.

Its irrelevant. The courts keep ruling they followed the law.

 

[aalion]

With all due respect you didn't answer my question which was to describe how Penn State would have been involved in this firestorm had leadership called or met with CYS, the District Attorney and the State Police.

I understand the concept of hindsight bias and, not to disappoint you, it should have no relevance to as to whether a report by Penn State leadership in 2001 would have insulated Penn State from the firestorm. That is different from the question as to whether leadership should have made the call. We differ on that and so be it.

I'll answer.... PSU calls CYS and it gets investigated (maybe) like 1998 (at best). Someone talks to MM and he tells them he didn't see anything, only heard sounds. Boy maybe is found or not and if the victim is the only 1 who seems to have claimed to being that victim, says nothing happened. Case is dropped.

Two possible outcomes from there. 1) JS is never convicted and continues to abuse. That's bad. or 2) some other accusation comes up, or some investigative reporter revisits 2001 in some new light. And what would the world say? PSU knew! Joe knew! JVP ran the place and that is why the charges were dropped! There was a coverup! JVP was told of a child rape and "did nothing"! JVP kept JS around to keep him quiet (yes people actually said that)! JVP fired JS because he knew (even though JS left a full 2 years after charges were investigated and dismissed). JS was raping little boys at PSU football facilities for decades! Hell, a "motive" was invented out of thin air with absolutely 0, none, no evidence attached to it "to protect the reputation of the football program!".

Fact is, all of those statements above would lack the same evidence or logic in this manufactured scenario as it would in the current scenario. Yet the world and the media keep repeating them today, without any facts or evidence or logic. So why wouldn't they repeat them now?

The same people who claim JVP or PSU should have tried to find the victim, would now claim JVP/PSU fumbled around in a matter for police investigation in order to try and quiet the victim (much like they claim with Baylor).

JVP followed the law, university policy, and NCAA policy to the letter, and got crushed for it. Noone at PSU broke any laws. To this date no victim has ever testified in court as to being abused on PSU's campus. Almost all of the charges, and ALL of the serious charges, that JS was convicted of occurred off of PSU's property. Yet this is a PSU scandal and PSU is to blame. Because noone cares about facts in this story.

And here is the most salient fact out there, and you cannot refute it. Every single person inside and outside PSU (MM, Dr. D, Mr. McQ, JVP, C/S/S, Dr. R., ...) acted 100% consistent with believing that JS was a weird but good guy who did something inappropriate. And they took literally dozens of actions that are inconsistent with "we know JS is evil but want to cover it up".

 

[Zenophile]

(Point conceded.)

Thank you.

 

[pandaczar12]

I have no clue as to what that rambling means; perhaps you could rephrase.

I didn't respond to you directly because you've demonstrated in the past it's a waste of time. I f you insist note that my reference to the man being hit by a car was not intended as an analogy to the Penn State facts of who saw what, but rather was a reference to my point in my post that public perception won't be changed by the criminal charges against CSS being dismissed. Most people think that when a person receives a report of inappropriate sexual contact between a man and a young boy the police should be notified. Most people think that when a person sees a pedestrian hit by a car they should stop.

Feel free to be one of those people who would not do either; that's what makes the world go around.

I'm sorry, I will use smaller words next time. I forgot who I was talking to.

If you are going to tell someone that their post is rambling, when you do it, you should probably make sure that post is properly punctuated and not full of other errors. Do you need me to provide a "cite" you can visit to learn about the English language?

Responding to me is a waste of time. It's because you are wrong, and anytime you respond to anyone, it's a waste of time for you. How come everyone seems to know this but you?

It's fun to watch you backpedal on your terrible analogy. CSS did not receive a report of inappropriate sexual contact between a man and a young boy, your point is moot. Most people think that if the organizations that are setup to stop child abuse are broken, that they should get all the attention. Feel free to be one of those people who continues to point the spotlight away from those broken organizations and to the university that did everything it was supposed to both legally and morally.

 

[GTACSA]

I'm sorry, I will use smaller words next time. I forgot who I was talking to.

If you are going to tell someone that their post is rambling, when you do it, you should probably make sure that post is properly punctuated and not full of other errors. Do you need me to provide a "cite" you can visit to learn about the English language?

Responding to me is a waste of time. It's because you are wrong, and anytime you respond to anyone, it's a waste of time for you. How come everyone seems to know this but you?

It's fun to watch you backpedal on your terrible analogy. CSS did not receive a report of inappropriate sexual contact between a man and a young boy, your point is moot. Most people think that if the organizations that are setup to stop child abuse are broken, that they should get all the attention. Feel free to be one of those people who continues to point the spotlight away from those broken organizations and to the university that did everything it was supposed to both legally and morally.

No back peddle on the analogy, just explaining what was in front of your face but you failed to see. Even more amazing is that after I explained it you still don't understand.

BTW what were you rambling on about?

 

[ApexLion]

Scares me, too. The suggestion that this was a systematic effort is truly frightening, especially when I reflect that I gave these people one of my kids and a lot of my money for 4 years.

The truth can certainly scare us, and maybe more than that. But remember, in terms of money Sandusky was protected anyway, since if PMA did not pay, PSU would. I would love to see the documents regarding the decision to exclude coverage, both from the insurer's side and the University's side. And also the docs regarding both PMA's and PSU's decision to cancel the exclusion.

I guess what I'm wondering is if someone like Spanier thought Sandusky was bulletproof due to protection from those same people?

This brings up one of the biggest issues surrounding the Sandusky tragedy: there are multiple interests around the university yet the media reported as if everyone at Penn State was unified when the exact opposite is true -- we have BOT members openly contentious of those that were indicted prior to the indictments. We have camps at Penn State that play blood sport politics yet our PA media presents the university as one, faceless, institution all in league together.

 

[Connorpozlee]

My post wasn't about the charges or legal requirements; it merely addressed the fact that this all could have been avoided with one phone call or a meeting with CYS, the District Attorney and the State Police.

Why do you have such an aversion to admitting that none of this would have happened to Penn State had that phone call been made or a meeting set up?

All of the charges against Curley, Schultz and Spanier could be dropped and it won't change the public perception of what Penn State leadership failed to do in 2001. If you were driving down the road and saw a man get hit by a car and thrown into the gutter while the car drove away, and you never stopped to check on the condition of the pedestrian you'd have followed the law. But realize that there are many people who would feel you should have at least stopped to check on him even if it later turns out he wasn't hurt.

Great, except that McQueary would have been the one driving the car. PSU administration would have been the guys being told after it happened.