So, about that "Conspiracy of Silence" by Joe Paterno, Curley, Schultz & Spanier at Penn State.
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
It's on my yahoo as well. Everything you do online is saved on your computer. Yahoo presents the info on your page. Yahoo owns Rivals, so they'll put their message board stuff on your homepage.
In Desmond's defense, he may have recanted. No one understands a freakin word he says.
I've been active on rivals and yahoo for years, this was the first time to link to a message board post. Of all the sandusky and paterno posts on this board how did this particular post get the honor of being the first? I've never searched for anything related to the sandusky mess nor do I read everything on this board about it, it's just odd. I guess they were successful getting me to click one more time to a site I'm already clicking to many times per day.
Not sure how twitter works but since that is Desmond's main mode of communicating - can someone that knows twitter toss his grenade back at him?
bwifan
Well-Known Member
I know 1 thing... ChiTown and Wensilver are tearing apart Howard Bryant on Twitter right now LOL... He looks like a pig roasting on the spit over an open fire...
You mean the Howard Bryant who was arrested for domestic abuse and also resisted arrest?
There was unquestionably a massive failure, and it occurred when the trained professionals at the Second Mile and CYS missed opportunities to stop a child predator.
Your criticism of the Penn State officials is the result of hindsight bias.
Probably not, but it was kind of you to give him the benefit of the doubt.
No it based on common sense. Employee investigated for improper conduct with child in shower a unrelated to work function. Normal corrective action is tell employee not to bring children into shower or facility unrelated to work function.
Yup, you nailed it. All those trained professionals and THE FOOTBALL COACH should have stopped him.
I wonder if any of those child welfare specialists could have been our offensive coordinator.
I have to assume that by now you realize & have accepted that the employer was the Second Mile.
Maybe not a football coach but don't you think one of the highly paid administrator would have some common sense? No one had to identify him as a pedophile to stop his access or place safe guards in place. It as simple as saying hey jerry you are no longer allowed to bring kids into the Lasch building just so your are not falsely accused again.
What would you do if an employee of your was investigated for improper conduct with a child in office shower? Would you say it is no big deal? Or would you say since it not part of your job here it best you don't bring them to work? I know I would cover my and the companies behind and make sure that it was the last time it occurred.
Earth to @PSU_Nut: THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SECOND MILE DID.
Last edited:
Congratulations, you just pointed out one of the things they did. BTW, you used "employee" again. Don't you realize how disingenuous you make yourself look?
What are you talking about? The first incident was in 1998 when he was employed. The pension board ruled that the law can not be retroactively applied back when he was employed. Sexual abuse was not part of the law when he was employee. The law was amended in 2004 to include sexual abuse. He official retired in 1999.
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/11/court_timing_of_his_child-sex.html#incart_river_home
bwifan
Well-Known Member
I agree that what second mile did. The second mile is not responsible for access to Lasch Building. That is the universities responsibility. They did not need second miles permission to do so.
They did not until after 2004. It took two incidents. They continued to let him have access after the 1998 incident.
THE '98 INCIDENT WAS INVESTIGATED BY THE FREAKIN POLICE. ...WHY DO YOU KEEP MENTIONING IT?
Police, DA, child welfare investigated that incident and found no basis for doing ANYTHING, but you blame Penn State for not doing anything. The experts could find no basis for doing something, but PSU was supposed to.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Like we have said earlier... PSU_Nut doesn't like to let facts get in the way of opinion....
They found no basis for criminal charges. My point is that as an administrator your responsibility it to protect the university. I don't need to know if the person is a pedophile to say it a good policy to not allow employees to shower after hours with children. How many true or false accusation does it take to make a policy that is common sense?
Would you are a manager would you allow employees to bring children into work after hours to shower with them? Would you continue to allow them to do so after the employee was investigated?
I don't care if they said he was innocent. Him showering with children was not part of his job at Penn State. Therefore it reasonable to not have to deal with an investigation if accused again.
So you think there nothing wrong with allowing a employee to bring kids into your office building after hours to shower especially after they already been accused of improper conduct?Like we have said earlier... PSU_Nut doesn't like to let facts get in the way of opinion....
The retirement board initially told Sandusky it was denying his pension in a letter sent to him in prison in late 2012. The agency said the denial was based on crimes he had been convicted of committing between 2005 and 2008.
^^^ That's from your own article. In other words, your own statement isn't even supported by the pension board. Here's more:
"Because we find that nothing in the record in any way establishes that Mr. Sandusky was a PSU employee when the underlying criminal acts were committed, we reverse the board's decision," President Judge Dan Pellegrini wrote in the decision, which reinstated the pension with back interest.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/b...t_Penn_State_pension.html#RKkFVliwlEIOKpiu.99
Oh for cryin' out loud. You harp about Sandusky being an employee at the time of the then unfounded 1998 report. OK, he was. He wasn't an employee in 2001 however so your above scenario is fantasy.
That doesn't mean he wasn't an employee in 1998 when he was first accused of improper conduct in the shower.
It doesn't matter if the report was unfounded. It still put the university and employee at risk of being accused of it.
Hypothetically if Larry Johnson is accused of improperly touching a child in the shower. He admits he crossed the line and it was probably in appropriate. Do you think Ohio State should continue to allow Larry Johnson to shower with kids after hours in the Woody Hayes Athletic Facility? Wouldn't it be common sense for Ohio State to say LJ we know it was unfounded but it would be best for both you and the university that you no longer shower with kids.
Is that too much to expect? I am not expecting them to fire him. I not expecting them to label him a pedophile. He can still do his job at the university in his full capacity. Just telling him to stop showering with little boys.
Since when did it take a certification of being a pedophile and or criminal charges to decide it not a good idea to allow an employee to shower after hours with kids?
What falsehood was that? He was accused of improper contact with a child in 1998 when he was an employee. As an employee and former employee he was still given access to Penn State facility where he was allowed to shower with kids.
Pension board didn't go after him for that as you claimed earlier. But you do bring up an intriguing point about yourself. You assume Curley and Shultz had intimate knowledge of the event, even though you have shown no evidence of such, and the laws work against you by showing they would not have access to the info. Then, you don't show any evidence they were consulted on access or what their thoughts were on the topic if they were consulted. Even more so, you ignore who actually granted access (Erickson and the bot). You sound like a real honest individual.
Similar threads
