Who is surprised by this?
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/2..._knew_about_Sandusky_as_far_back_as_1976.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/2..._knew_about_Sandusky_as_far_back_as_1976.html
Surprise: Paterno story comes from Inquirer....
- Thread starter lionlurker
- Start date
1976...was that when the Philadelphia news media knew about Bill Conlin being a molester?
Had to know about this pervert in their midst, didn't they?
Had to know about this pervert in their midst, didn't they?
Lubert becomes head of BOT. Son controls Inquirer.
Yeah, coincidence.
Yeah, coincidence.
So let me see if I have this straight based on the article and Wick Sollers' response....The Philly Rag is publishing that Paterno knew of some alleged incidents because PSU's corrupted OG BOT paid these claims that publicly broadcast, advertised and asked for, but no authority has ever vetted the claims or circumstances of the claims? They're legit claims because the corrupt OG BOT paid them??? Huh???
What I have been waiting for. The article said that the 1976 accuser got money. He got money, lots of money. Woke up one day in the last several years, put together a good story, had it bought, got paid -- about 45 years after the fact. Money.
Or maybe he is telling the truth. If he didn't get paid I might believe it. Is his testimony or whatever you call it available? Love to see the details. Never will.
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the OG BOT solicited people to submit absurd claims like this re: Joe and then tell them don't worry about lying, I'm on/have influence over the team that's vetting the claims. I got you.
They knew these claims would hit the public sooner or later via litigation with their pals at PMA. They then call their lackeys in the press like Charles Thompson at pennlive and the philly rags and get them to "report" on the info and disseminate out to national press and Viola, more cementing of current false narrative!
I thought it came from The PN and Charlie the Tuna. Are you sure Inquirer was first?
Last edited:
Or maybe they happened. Everything you guys talk about has to be a "conspiracy" against Paterno. It's amazing.
Of course not, but what BOT would? Do you expect them to disclose all the information about the victims that they have settled with?
I think many on here need to come to the realization that something terrible happened here and that's why we have paid for it. If you care about Penn State you should try to move on.
What exactly bad happened here and why is PSU responsible? Can you answer that? Do you have the evidence supporting PSUs culpability?
What evidence did the alleged victims have? How can you confirm that they were, in fact, victims? Can you answer that? I believe the BOT could disclose enough information as to the evidence without compromising identities.
Keep in mind this was not their money they were spending. Would you, personally, pay out $60M without knowing the details?
I look forward to your answers to all of the above.
Are you seriously asserting that the bot withheld allegations from the police?
Forget all that (though its still important), jive is stating the bot has actively kept allegations away from the police.
The university had representation from people who have done this kind of vetting process before. You can't seriously believe that ANY organization would offer details on such settlements, do you?
The university or the BOT? Please distinguish which one you are referring to.
How was PSU culpable? I think you can answer that, right? That's not asking for details of settlements.
Awaiting your reply.
The university was culpable for not reporting the incidents when they were notified of them.
You all are chasing after the BOT when you should be mad as hell at the people who failed to report.
First of all, a university is not a person and cannot report anything.
I think you should realize this.
I ask again who had representation, the university or the BOT?
Who failed to report? I haven't seen anybody found guilty of failing to report. Please list those individuals.
Look forward to your response.
Enough to get PSU to pay. PSU didn't settle with all the people who came forward, so I would guess that they had some kind of validity to their stories.
Oh good, you are going down that route.
The BOT are the leaders of the University. The people who failed to report are those that were told of the allegations and did not bring the information to police. Surely you realize that civil liability is different than criminal liability, right?
Can you confirm Philly.com broke the news or was it PennLive? Thanks.
Wrong. This accuser was part of the 2015 settlements. The last & least credible of the bunch. As far as we know there are no more unpaid accusers.
You believe every single thing all 30 of them said? Even the convicted murderer?
"If you care about Penn State you should try to move on."
That might be the dumbest thing ever written on this board.
Last edited:
If I move on, and I am strongly considering it, I surely won't care at all about Penn State.
It's getting to the point where it emotionally it may simply not be worth it for me anymore. I slept very little last night.
There may be nothing at all to these latest accusations. But they are almost impossible to defend against. The dead guy cannot defend himself, and a lot of folks will now no longer listen. It's hard to prove a negative.
There is great evil here, to be sure. Either the accusations are correct or some folks are going to great, great lengths to smear a dead guy.
"The heart of man is deceitfully wicked above all else. Who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9)
Either Joe actually knew--and still let his kids and grandkids be anywhere near Sandusky--which is indefensible
Or, there are folks who will stoop to the lowest pits of hell to get their way.
I find the former to be hard to believe, as it is out of character. But the vast majority of America likely will believe it. As far as Penn State is concerned, folks were willing to overlook whatever happened in 2001, because we were "punished". Now? Never. I wish it were otherwise. Think of Dreyfus. It took him decades to be exonerated. If true here, I shan't live to see it.
Or by your logic, maybe something terrible didn't happen. Why can't people make things up for money or other nefarious reasons? Bottom line is any reasonable person could infer many things from the facts presented (notice I said facts).
This: "There is great evil here, to be sure. Either the accusations are correct or some folks are going to great, great lengths to smear a dead guy." I'll take Pennlive/Inq going to great lengths to smear a deceased person for 1000, Alex.
It's people like you who need to give up, get away, and forget about Penn State.
What you wrote is absolutely pathetic.
First off, as upset as this crap gets you and us, it should NEVER get in the way of your daily life or a good night's sleep.
Secondly, more importantly, any self-respecting Penn Stater knows what Joe was all about and shouldn't give a damn what the public thinks. It's not healthy to do so, because it's not going to change. That should've became evident long ago.
Nut up, or get out.
I agree. But most folks are not reasonable about the issue of abuse. That's the problem. No one will listen. We are already seeing that.
Fine - then move on. I am going to stick around for a while and do what I can.
I said this before to GTASCA- it's silly to try to fight the public perception aspect of this. If all you are worried about is public perception, and you feel it's bad - then you should do yourself a favor and separate from Penn State. My primary focus is that the truth comes out. Public perception is like the weather - it's gonna change. Nothing you can do about it and it's even sillier to try.
And, for what it's worth - I never bothered to read the link and I won't based on the responses I have seen.
Last edited:
I do know what Joe stood for. But it's easy for you to not "give a d*mm about what the public thinks". I live in Columbus. Come back and tell me to man up after *you've* had your tires slashed.
Hey there, Captain Obvious, of course it's possible they happened, as in anything is possible. But this latest one is so improbable, for all of the reasons detailed here and in the other thread, as to make it darn near impossible. Yet you present it as as though each one were equally as likely to have occurred. Your contrarian shtick was obvious a long time ago. I'm deeply saddened that a poster I used to respect actually agreed with your post. At least people are showing their true colors and you know where they stand.
Please note that I am not talking about "moving on" like the BOT and its minions want us to. I despise them and everything they stand for.
But it gets really difficult to live here in Columbus at times.
Sorry about your tires. But people think Joe could have stopped Jerry...which is simply absurd and puts children in further danger. That's the overarching issue...not Paterno's legacy. And it's an issue that we can't move on from.
I surely agree with you on that. But as any mom knows, that defense doesn't tend to work too well in real life.
That was a case, however, where the Inky really could have used it to educate folks on predators--and chose not to. Much of the family seemed to know--and no one did anything. That seems to be a pattern in such cases. Why people don't report such things would be a case study in and of itself. One reason, I believe, is that these cases usually are not obvious at the time but can be in hindsight.
I actually had a brief e-mail exchange with Conlin regarding a column he wrote about Mike Schmidt (still one of my favorite ball players ever) not that long before his problems became known. Still weirds me out in light of what we know about him now.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Penn State WR target Matthew Outten releases top six
- Latest: Crusher1950
-
