The worst part of the C/S/S trials

[ThePennsyOracle]

I'm very naive here

You've got that right.

 

[indynittany]

....But because we might want to defend C/S/S does not mean that we should ignore the simplest explanation of all the facts.

Isn't the simplest explanation of all the facts that Jack Raykovitz, not Graham Spanier, should be going to jail and that TSM was a house of horrors? Either that, or Jerry's innocent.

 

[bjf1991]

That's a good question.

Forget Harrisburg - that would be the shitty Patriot-News.

Now, Philadelphia? I don't follow sports - so I don't know if anyone from here would pick up that thread and weave a story. I can tell you a few women and their editors at the Inquirer had a HUGE GUFFAW over McQ's latest "slapping sounds" smartphone stunt.

Another poster here commented about McQueary failing that Success With Honor creed. To think of it, McQ's stunningly erect penis and prurient mindset invited the NCAA to do the damage they did to the guys on the 2011/2012 squad.

I wonder what Mauti & Zordich and the rest of the guys would now have to say about it? Frank Bodani is one guy who I'll email thanking him for his viewpoint, and he responds with a nice acknowledgement - and I like John U. Bacon as well. They both might write on this topic, as they wrote about the 2011/2012 team.

Nobody is gonna' write any story different from the current one........

At least not unless and until someone gives them 1/10 of a reason to.

A whole slew of folks have had that opportunity....... dozens of them..... I could list them by the dozens if I wanted to (I think we all could) .....
Even if I limited the names to those folks who claimed to be "on our side"(for a quick Baker's Dozen, one could start with CS and S, and the 10 folks who have occupied "A9" seats over the last 5 years) ......

And every damn one of them .......
EVERY DAMN ONE OF THEM......

Tripped over their own dicks - either intentionally or "incompetently" (or both)

And - as best I can recall - none of those names start with an McQ.

FWIW

 

[BobPSU92]

I'm in the field of child care and I would not tell you that. If there's reasonable suspicion of child endangerment there are a number of things you should do, especially as a mandated reporter. At a minimum you make a report to CPS and let them investigate.

None of the people at Penn State were mandated reporters, and from what we know, they did not know of abuse.

Why didn't raykovitz, the mandated reporter, file a report?

 

[humpydudas19]

You've got that right.

Take a hike you Pitt turd.

 

[indynittany]

Mike McQueary is batting about 0.168, below the Mendoza line.

No one respects him. Everyone hates him. No one believes much about the details as he now relates them. No one really believes that he was as explicit as he now says he was with Curley. Most people think that his description was probably vaguely expressed and subject to minor revisions, despite the fact that he now says he was clear as a bell.

BUT, people do believe he saw something very upsetting and terrible. No one believes that he decided on a Friday night to make up something to arrange a meeting with Paterno. No one believes that. Nor should they. MM saw something ugly. He probably expressed it poorly and perhaps intentionally so, especially to Joe Paterno. But the idea that nothing whatsoever happened because he's now exaggerating his "whistleblower" status is silly.

It's pretty well established that MM is a pervert. On the night this happened, he was supposedly home watching Rudy. That's been pretty well debunked. It was a Friday night and Mike was still living the life of BMOC. It's more likely, he swung by Lasch after pounding drinks all night. His father told him to come home because he was drunk on his ass.

You're leaving out the part where Schultz says "The only downside is that if the message isn't "heard" or isn't acted upon, then we become vulnerable for not having reported it."

So, your interpretation that Tim Curley did not propose to exclude DPW was not shared by Schultz. Schultz clearly thought that Curley meant to tell Sandusky only and to not involve DPW. Given that they did not ever tell the DPW, you really do not have a rational choice but to accept that they agreed to not tell DPW or the cops.

A) It was Spanier's email, not Schultz's.

B) For the "only downside" on Spanier's radar to be triggered, a subsequent incident would have to occur. How is that possible if a child had just been abused in their facilities? How is the open ended risk that the boy in the shower and his family might initiate a report not the elephant in the room?

C) Nothing in their communications suggested Curley wanted to only tell Sandusky. That's utter BS! The Second Mile was always to be told. Sandusky's cooperation with Curley's directive relative to his future access to the facilities determined the necessity of involving DPW. What's Jack Raykovitz's excuse?

D) Contacting DPW was always on the table. And it was always dependent on Jerry's future behavior, not what he had done in the past.

 

[bjf1991]

Isn't the simplest explanation of all the facts that Jack Raykovitz, not Graham Spanier, should be going to jail and that TSM was a house of horrors? Either that, or Jerry's innocent.

Lot of truth there....

And - of all people - Graham Spanier was practically force-fed a gold-plated opportunity to place the spotlight on Jack R. (and C and S would have had the same opportunity - if they hadn't already shit their beds)

And he - inexplicably - said "Nope"

No one is that stupid ....... I wouldn't think (although folks like Osprey, Covey, and GMJ and some of those message board savants might be in contention )

So? Where does one go from there?

Seriously?

 

[bjf1991]

A) It was Spanier's email, not Schultz's.

B) For the "only downside" on Spanier's radar to be triggered, a subsequent incident would have to occur. How is that possible if a child had just been abused in their facilities? How is the open ended risk that the boy in the shower and his family might initiate a report not the elephant in the room?

C) Nothing in their communications suggested Curley wanted to only tell Sandusky. That's utter BS! The Second Mile was always to be told. Sandusky's cooperation with Curley's directive relative to his future access to the facilities determined the necessity of involving DPW. What's Jack Raykovitz's excuse?

D) Contacting DPW was always on the table. And it was always dependent on Jerry's future behavior, not what he had done in the past.

Don't confuse Smithton.

He could get consternated pondering a yo-yo.

 

[SmithtonLion]

A) It was Spanier's email, not Schultz's. OK

B) For the "only downside" on Spanier's radar to be triggered, a subsequent incident would have to occur. How is that possible if a child had just been abused in their facilities? How is the open ended risk that the boy in the shower and his family might initiate a report not the elephant in the room? Biggest risk is that the child's family initiate a report - agreed.

C) Nothing in their communications suggested Curley wanted to only tell Sandusky. That's utter BS! The Second Mile was always to be told. Sandusky's cooperation with Curley's directive relative to his future access to the facilities determined the necessity of involving DPW. What's Jack Raykovitz's excuse? Agreed that the second mile was to be told, and was told. I only see that they considered telling DPW right away, then backed away from it. I also agree that Raykovitz had an equal chance to handle the situation.

D) Contacting DPW was always on the table. And it was always dependent on Jerry's future behavior, not what he had done in the past.

You have some interesting points, especially about the risk to them if the victim's family comes forward.....so their thinking was wrong/off there....or McQueary didn't tell them how bad it was. But it is unbelievable that McQueary would have called Joe, very upset, to report that JS was innocently showering with children, but it looked like he was having "boundary issues" again.

 

[indynittany]

None of the people at Penn State were mandated reporters, and from what we know, they did not know of abuse.

Why didn't raykovitz, the mandated reporter, file a report?

I'm not saying he had this option, but the obvious answer is that JR knew the boy was Allen Myers and he knew that Jerry had not abused him.

 

[bdgan]

You've got that right.

Is it normal for an accused person to accept a plea only to have the prosecutor go for the jugular?

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Take a hike you Pitt turd.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Is it normal for an accused person to accept a plea only to have the prosecutor go for the jugular?

Is it normal to think the humane thing to do upon hearing that Jerry was diddling a kid in the shower is....to go tell Jerry that someone thinks he's a pedophile instead of calling the police?

Hell no, it's not.

But, it doesn't stop you from being stupid, now does it?

 

[WTNuke]

None of the people at Penn State were mandated reporters, and from what we know, they did not know of abuse.

Why didn't raykovitz, the mandated reporter, file a report?

I'm not debating anything about this case, I'm just correcting your comment about what people in the child care field would say about reporting potential abuse.

 

[indynittany]

Is it normal to think the humane thing to do upon hearing that Jerry was diddling a kid in the shower is....to go tell Jerry that someone thinks he's a pedophile instead of calling the police?

Hell no, it's not.

But, it doesn't stop you from being stupid, now does it?

Of course not! The only logical explanation is that's not what they heard.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Of course not! The only logical explanation is that's not what they heard.

And here's what you don't get:

It's not normal for an old man to be in the shower with a young boy late at night, alone, in any circumstance.

Therefore, I don't really care what McQueary did or didn't tell them. The undeniable fact is that at minimum, he told Curley & Schultz that Jerry was alone at night in a shower with a boy.

Given that information, you don't go anywhere but the police.

Don't give me your BS about it being normal to shower with kids in 1960s locker rooms, that McQueary sanitized what he saw, etc. Attempting to rationalize this makes you sound like you have the same proclivities as Jerry--and you've said this same garbage for years. Who knows, maybe you do.

We will never know the "why" behind Curley/Schultz's actions. So, stop rationalizing it.

It's my opinion that Joe was powerless to do anything in this, and that this whole ordeal runs much deeper than any of us can comprehend.

Regardless, we're never going to know the truth and trying to rationalize minute details of this when the "right" actions are clear as day is pathetic.

 

[bdgan]

Is it normal to think the humane thing to do upon hearing that Jerry was diddling a kid in the shower is....to go tell Jerry that someone thinks he's a pedophile instead of calling the police?

Hell no, it's not.

Except that JM, Dranov, Joe, Curley, Shultz, and Spanier all said that's not what they heard. But don't let that cloud your thinking.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Except that JM, Dranov, Joe, Curley, Shultz, and Spanier all said that's not what they heard. But don't let that cloud your thinking.

Evidently you think it's normal to shower alone at night in deserted buildings with children.

But don't let that cloud your...err, thinking...either.

 

[canuckhal]

Evidently you think it's normal to shower alone at night in deserted buildings with children.

But don't let that cloud your...err, thinking...either.

Who said it was "normal?" If it was considered "normal," Curley wouldn't have told JS that he was no longer to bring TSM kids to PSU and told JR about the incident. It was JR who thought it was "normal" enough to tell JS to wear swimtrunks and for Heim to allow JS to access his pool.

 

[AvgUser]

Is it normal to think the humane thing to do upon hearing that Jerry was diddling a kid in the shower ....

IF that were the case and it was witnessed, it surely isn't normal.

But...your star witness didn't tell anybody that is what happened. (Well, maybe not until 10 years later when he was trying to escape his own failures and shortcomings).

 

[Bob78]

That's a good question.

Forget Harrisburg - that would be the shitty Patriot-News.

Now, Philadelphia? I don't follow sports - so I don't know if anyone from here would pick up that thread and weave a story. I can tell you a few women and their editors at the Inquirer had a HUGE GUFFAW over McQ's latest "slapping sounds" smartphone stunt.

Another poster here commented about McQueary failing that Success With Honor creed. To think of it, McQ's stunningly erect penis and prurient mindset invited the NCAA to do the damage they did to the guys on the 2011/2012 squad.

I wonder what Mauti & Zordich and the rest of the guys would now have to say about it? Frank Bodani is one guy who I'll email thanking him for his viewpoint, and he responds with a nice acknowledgement - and I like John U. Bacon as well. They both might write on this topic, as they wrote about the 2011/2012 team.

Long, so feel free to skip over this....

I just cannot imagine that any of the guys I mentioned are ok with Tim facing prison time. Or really any such punishment. Unless they have evolved into true sociopaths over time.
- McQ knew Tim for at least his entire adult life if not longer. He stated that he thought Tim was a good guy and was concerned about him being named in the GJ indictment.
- Dandrea was a year behind Tim and a fraternity brother. They've known each other for over 40 years, and saw each other often at NLC and other PSU events.
- Paul Suhey was a local, and his family knew anyone connected with PSU athletics. Tim and Larry Suhey were within a year of each other in HS, played sports together, and I'm pretty certain the families knew each other very well for decades. Paul and Matt Suhey were in the same fraternity as Tim. Another 40+ year positive relationship.
- Joyner was another SC local and was a little ahead of Tim in HS and in the fraternity. But he was in close touch with the football and wrestling programs and knew Tim well for about 40 years.

I feel comfortable in saying that in each case, their relationship was positive, friendly, very social with spouses and families involved in many events. And the same is likely true with Schultz, except maybe for the college-and before years of knowing each other.

My point being - when they were so happily laying down or enabling the bs about the 2 PSU Admins who got thrown under the bus (we sort of know why some had it in for JVP, and Spanier was out of their control due to Corbett), did they actually foresee this result for this guy who they know to be an honest, straight-shooter who always strove to do things the right way? Did they think this crap could do in a good man to this extent? Did they care? And I'm not for one minute entertaining any bs about criminal charges changing the equation for them. They knew and know that Tim's actions, while not enough in hindsight, were prudent based on the information he had at the time.

Again, they've socialized with Tim and his wife quite often in the past, know Tim's kids, attended each others' family events, and certainly know they could have headed off this nightmare and redirected it back to Sandusky in the public's eye with more foresight and basic business PR prep.
(That redirection is important, imo, because the only reason the OAG hung on to the charges was for their own PR purposes.) I wonder just how morally-challenged these guys are, that if they really thought jail time - or even a conviction with probation - was a distinct possibility for their friend Tim, they would have allowed things to transpire as they did.

That's what I want some competent, fearless actual journalist(s) to ask of each of them. Not that I think any of them would have the guts to respond with 100% honesty. Do they have remorse for seeing how this played out? What would or could they have done differently? Why not have an aggressive PR play to direct the public to TSM?! (Again, the Pandora's box inference made by some on Twitter comes into play, we suspect).

Think about this in relation to your own life and your own long-time friends. We all know people who we consider friends who we believe to be of great character. We are happy and proud to call them friends. Would you throw them under a bus for the sake of convenience when trouble came down the street? Or would we ask some questions, slow things down, go to bat for these people? What if you were the one who could be easily tossed aside while friends who you've known for decades stood by and either did nothing, or threw wood on the fire at your feet... when you and they knew you had done nothing wrong based on what you knew at the time? And one of those watching you burn is the same person who gave you the info to work with, and didn't change that info for 10 years until the fire started?

Maybe I am clouded by the burden of empathy I have for Tim, a man I've known for over 40 years. I want to help somehow. (And yes, I've offered my help to him in whatever way he or his wife may need.) But how can any of these guys feel anything but a huge yoke of guilt themselves for allowing Tim to thrown into it this way, to this extent? Gotta be a sociopath to have known the man but to still feel ok after all this has gone down. And I have no doubt that each of them know, whether they would ever admit it or not, that what has fallen on Tim is completely unfair.

It's easy to dismiss all this as 'they deserved it' if you don't know the good people involved. If you know them, you cannot bring yourself to believe the jail time - or even probation - is warranted in any way. It hits close to home. It becomes personal.

Sorry for the outpouring of emotion. This is a good place to do some therapeutic writing, even if no one reads it! But right now I'm really struggling with this regarding Tim. I've been in touch with other friends of his, and that struggle is common to us all. I just hope the man survives prison intact and can get through the whole deal with good health until he can be free to re-establish his friendships. Thanks for indulging me if you have. And if you think I'm an idiot for having all these feels, I likely have you on ignore, so I won't get the pleasure of reading about my idiocy. (Except for you, bjf! Dis when ready!)

 

[WTNuke]

Long, so feel free to skip over this....

I just cannot imagine that any of the guys I mentioned are ok with Tim facing prison time. Or really any such punishment. Unless they have evolved into true sociopaths over time.
- McQ knew Tim for at least his entire adult life if not longer. He stated that he thought Tim was a good guy and was concerned about him being named in the GJ indictment.
- Dandrea was a year behind Tim and a fraternity brother. They've known each other for over 40 years, and saw each other often at NLC and other PSU events.
- Paul Suhey was a local, and his family knew anyone connected with PSU athletics. Tim and Larry Suhey were within a year of each other in HS, played sports together, and I'm pretty certain the families knew each other very well for decades. Paul and Matt Suhey were in the same fraternity as Tim. Another 40+ year positive relationship.
- Joyner was another SC local and was a little ahead of Tim in HS and in the fraternity. But he was in close touch with the football and wrestling programs and knew Tim well for about 40 years.

I feel comfortable in saying that in each case, their relationship was positive, friendly, very social with spouses and families involved in many events. And the same is likely true with Schultz, except maybe for the college-and before years of knowing each other.

My point being - when they were so happily laying down or enabling the bs about the 2 PSU Admins who got thrown under the bus (we sort of know why some had it in for JVP, and Spanier was out of their control due to Corbett), did they actually foresee this result for this guy who they know to be an honest, straight-shooter who always strove to do things the right way? Did they think this crap could do in a good man to this extent? Did they care? And I'm not for one minute entertaining any bs about criminal charges changing the equation for them. They knew and know that Tim's actions, while not enough in hindsight, were prudent based on the information he had at the time.

Again, they've socialized with Tim and his wife quite often in the past, know Tim's kids, attended each others' family events, and certainly know they could have headed off this nightmare and redirected it back to Sandusky in the public's eye with more foresight and basic business PR prep.
(That redirection is important, imo, because the only reason the OAG hung on to the charges was for their own PR purposes.) I wonder just how morally-challenged these guys are, that if they really thought jail time - or even a conviction with probation - was a distinct possibility for their friend Tim, they would have allowed things to transpire as they did.

That's what I want some competent, fearless actual journalist(s) to ask of each of them. Not that I think any of them would have the guts to respond with 100% honesty. Do they have remorse for seeing how this played out? What would or could they have done differently? Why not have an aggressive PR play to direct the public to TSM?! (Again, the Pandora's box inference made by some on Twitter comes into play, we suspect).

Think about this in relation to your own life and your own long-time friends. We all know people who we consider friends who we believe to be of great character. We are happy and proud to call them friends. Would you throw them under a bus for the sake of convenience when trouble came down the street? Or would we ask some questions, slow things down, go to bat for these people? What if you were the one who could be easily tossed aside while friends who you've known for decades stood by and either did nothing, or threw wood on the fire at your feet... when you and they knew you had done nothing wrong based on what you knew at the time? And one of those watching you burn is the same person who gave you the info to work with, and didn't change that info for 10 years until the fire started?

Maybe I am clouded by the burden of empathy I have for Tim, a man I've known for over 40 years. I want to help somehow. (And yes, I've offered my help to him in whatever way he or his wife may need.) But how can any of these guys feel anything but a huge yoke of guilt themselves for allowing Tim to thrown into it this way, to this extent? Gotta be a sociopath to have known the man but to still feel ok after all this has gone down. And I have no doubt that each of them know, whether they would ever admit it or not, that what has fallen on Tim is completely unfair.

It's easy to dismiss all this as 'they deserved it' if you don't know the good people involved. If you know them, you cannot bring yourself to believe the jail time - or even probation - is warranted in any way. It hits close to home. It becomes personal.

Sorry for the outpouring of emotion. This is a good place to do some therapeutic writing, even if no one reads it! But right now I'm really struggling with this regarding Tim. I've been in touch with other friends of his, and that struggle is common to us all. I just hope the man survives prison intact and can get through the whole deal with good health until he can be free to re-establish his friendships. Thanks for indulging me if you have. And if you think I'm an idiot for having all these feels, I likely have you on ignore, so I won't get the pleasure of reading about my idiocy. (Except for you, bjf! Dis when ready!)

It's only 2 or 3 months in prison, right? You think he can't survive a couple months in a minimum security prison?

 

[marshall23]

Long, so feel free to skip over this....

I just cannot imagine that any of the guys I mentioned are ok with Tim facing prison time. Or really any such punishment. Unless they have evolved into true sociopaths over time.
- McQ knew Tim for at least his entire adult life if not longer. He stated that he thought Tim was a good guy and was concerned about him being named in the GJ indictment.
- Dandrea was a year behind Tim and a fraternity brother. They've known each other for over 40 years, and saw each other often at NLC and other PSU events.
- Paul Suhey was a local, and his family knew anyone connected with PSU athletics. Tim and Larry Suhey were within a year of each other in HS, played sports together, and I'm pretty certain the families knew each other very well for decades. Paul and Matt Suhey were in the same fraternity as Tim. Another 40+ year positive relationship.
- Joyner was another SC local and was a little ahead of Tim in HS and in the fraternity. But he was in close touch with the football and wrestling programs and knew Tim well for about 40 years.

I feel comfortable in saying that in each case, their relationship was positive, friendly, very social with spouses and families involved in many events. And the same is likely true with Schultz, except maybe for the college-and before years of knowing each other.

My point being - when they were so happily laying down or enabling the bs about the 2 PSU Admins who got thrown under the bus (we sort of know why some had it in for JVP, and Spanier was out of their control due to Corbett), did they actually foresee this result for this guy who they know to be an honest, straight-shooter who always strove to do things the right way? Did they think this crap could do in a good man to this extent? Did they care? And I'm not for one minute entertaining any bs about criminal charges changing the equation for them. They knew and know that Tim's actions, while not enough in hindsight, were prudent based on the information he had at the time.

Again, they've socialized with Tim and his wife quite often in the past, know Tim's kids, attended each others' family events, and certainly know they could have headed off this nightmare and redirected it back to Sandusky in the public's eye with more foresight and basic business PR prep.
(That redirection is important, imo, because the only reason the OAG hung on to the charges was for their own PR purposes.) I wonder just how morally-challenged these guys are, that if they really thought jail time - or even a conviction with probation - was a distinct possibility for their friend Tim, they would have allowed things to transpire as they did.

That's what I want some competent, fearless actual journalist(s) to ask of each of them. Not that I think any of them would have the guts to respond with 100% honesty. Do they have remorse for seeing how this played out? What would or could they have done differently? Why not have an aggressive PR play to direct the public to TSM?! (Again, the Pandora's box inference made by some on Twitter comes into play, we suspect).

Think about this in relation to your own life and your own long-time friends. We all know people who we consider friends who we believe to be of great character. We are happy and proud to call them friends. Would you throw them under a bus for the sake of convenience when trouble came down the street? Or would we ask some questions, slow things down, go to bat for these people? What if you were the one who could be easily tossed aside while friends who you've known for decades stood by and either did nothing, or threw wood on the fire at your feet... when you and they knew you had done nothing wrong based on what you knew at the time? And one of those watching you burn is the same person who gave you the info to work with, and didn't change that info for 10 years until the fire started?

Maybe I am clouded by the burden of empathy I have for Tim, a man I've known for over 40 years. I want to help somehow. (And yes, I've offered my help to him in whatever way he or his wife may need.) But how can any of these guys feel anything but a huge yoke of guilt themselves for allowing Tim to thrown into it this way, to this extent? Gotta be a sociopath to have known the man but to still feel ok after all this has gone down. And I have no doubt that each of them know, whether they would ever admit it or not, that what has fallen on Tim is completely unfair.

It's easy to dismiss all this as 'they deserved it' if you don't know the good people involved. If you know them, you cannot bring yourself to believe the jail time - or even probation - is warranted in any way. It hits close to home. It becomes personal.

Sorry for the outpouring of emotion. This is a good place to do some therapeutic writing, even if no one reads it! But right now I'm really struggling with this regarding Tim. I've been in touch with other friends of his, and that struggle is common to us all. I just hope the man survives prison intact and can get through the whole deal with good health until he can be free to re-establish his friendships. Thanks for indulging me if you have. And if you think I'm an idiot for having all these feels, I likely have you on ignore, so I won't get the pleasure of reading about my idiocy. (Except for you, bjf! Dis when ready!)

I don't know Tim, but I know people very well who had nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for him. If they can send people like Tim Curley to prison in Pa., everyone should be frightened.
Shame on Paul Suhey, Dave Joyner and the rest. There is a special place in hell for them.

 

[Bob78]

It's only 2 or 3 months in prison, right? You think he can't survive a couple months in a minimum security prison?

ONLY 2 or 3 months in prison. Wow. You want to give it shot, Nuker? Of course, your name hasn't been in the news for over 5 years associated with CSA, so maybe they'd give you a pass based on your BWI name, because it is pretty cool, I admit.

And I don't know that it is a minimum security prison. I thought it was a county or state case, and the prison associated with that.

I think he's a 63 year old man who has no street cred with crime, who has been battling cancer for 5 years, and who has a target on him in the public eye.

But let's be cavalier about it, sure.

 

[mn78psu83]

ONLY 2 or 3 months in prison. Wow. You want to give it shot, Nuker? Of course, your name hasn't been in the news for over 5 years associated with CSA, so maybe they'd give you a pass based on your BWI name, because it is pretty cool, I admit.

And I don't know that it is a minimum security prison. I thought it was a county or state case, and the prison associated with that.

I think he's a 63 year old man who has no street cred with crime, who has been battling cancer for 5 years, and who has a target on him in the public eye.

But let's be cavalier about it, sure.

@psu7113 stated in another thread something to the effect that Dauphin County Prison is no walk in the park.

 

[bjf1991]

Long, so feel free to skip over this....

I just cannot imagine that any of the guys I mentioned are ok with Tim facing prison time. Or really any such punishment. Unless they have evolved into true sociopaths over time.
- McQ knew Tim for at least his entire adult life if not longer. He stated that he thought Tim was a good guy and was concerned about him being named in the GJ indictment.
- Dandrea was a year behind Tim and a fraternity brother. They've known each other for over 40 years, and saw each other often at NLC and other PSU events.
- Paul Suhey was a local, and his family knew anyone connected with PSU athletics. Tim and Larry Suhey were within a year of each other in HS, played sports together, and I'm pretty certain the families knew each other very well for decades. Paul and Matt Suhey were in the same fraternity as Tim. Another 40+ year positive relationship.
- Joyner was another SC local and was a little ahead of Tim in HS and in the fraternity. But he was in close touch with the football and wrestling programs and knew Tim well for about 40 years.

I feel comfortable in saying that in each case, their relationship was positive, friendly, very social with spouses and families involved in many events. And the same is likely true with Schultz, except maybe for the college-and before years of knowing each other.

My point being - when they were so happily laying down or enabling the bs about the 2 PSU Admins who got thrown under the bus (we sort of know why some had it in for JVP, and Spanier was out of their control due to Corbett), did they actually foresee this result for this guy who they know to be an honest, straight-shooter who always strove to do things the right way? Did they think this crap could do in a good man to this extent? Did they care? And I'm not for one minute entertaining any bs about criminal charges changing the equation for them. They knew and know that Tim's actions, while not enough in hindsight, were prudent based on the information he had at the time.

Again, they've socialized with Tim and his wife quite often in the past, know Tim's kids, attended each others' family events, and certainly know they could have headed off this nightmare and redirected it back to Sandusky in the public's eye with more foresight and basic business PR prep.
(That redirection is important, imo, because the only reason the OAG hung on to the charges was for their own PR purposes.) I wonder just how morally-challenged these guys are, that if they really thought jail time - or even a conviction with probation - was a distinct possibility for their friend Tim, they would have allowed things to transpire as they did.

That's what I want some competent, fearless actual journalist(s) to ask of each of them. Not that I think any of them would have the guts to respond with 100% honesty. Do they have remorse for seeing how this played out? What would or could they have done differently? Why not have an aggressive PR play to direct the public to TSM?! (Again, the Pandora's box inference made by some on Twitter comes into play, we suspect).

Think about this in relation to your own life and your own long-time friends. We all know people who we consider friends who we believe to be of great character. We are happy and proud to call them friends. Would you throw them under a bus for the sake of convenience when trouble came down the street? Or would we ask some questions, slow things down, go to bat for these people? What if you were the one who could be easily tossed aside while friends who you've known for decades stood by and either did nothing, or threw wood on the fire at your feet... when you and they knew you had done nothing wrong based on what you knew at the time? And one of those watching you burn is the same person who gave you the info to work with, and didn't change that info for 10 years until the fire started?

Maybe I am clouded by the burden of empathy I have for Tim, a man I've known for over 40 years. I want to help somehow. (And yes, I've offered my help to him in whatever way he or his wife may need.) But how can any of these guys feel anything but a huge yoke of guilt themselves for allowing Tim to thrown into it this way, to this extent? Gotta be a sociopath to have known the man but to still feel ok after all this has gone down. And I have no doubt that each of them know, whether they would ever admit it or not, that what has fallen on Tim is completely unfair.

It's easy to dismiss all this as 'they deserved it' if you don't know the good people involved. If you know them, you cannot bring yourself to believe the jail time - or even probation - is warranted in any way. It hits close to home. It becomes personal.

Sorry for the outpouring of emotion. This is a good place to do some therapeutic writing, even if no one reads it! But right now I'm really struggling with this regarding Tim. I've been in touch with other friends of his, and that struggle is common to us all. I just hope the man survives prison intact and can get through the whole deal with good health until he can be free to re-establish his friendships. Thanks for indulging me if you have. And if you think I'm an idiot for having all these feels, I likely have you on ignore, so I won't get the pleasure of reading about my idiocy. (Except for you, bjf! Dis when ready!)

LOL

I don't think your an idiot - - - not even a little bit


I think 90% of the opinions/thoughts you expressed in the above post are highly likely to be "not correct"...... but that DOESN'T mean you're not entitled to have them.
And it surely isn't hurting anyone to have them.


Idiot?
No

Naive? Overly-"optimistic"? Somewhat blinded from the myopia of your personal situation/relationships?
I would guess "probably".


Unfortunately - unlike your expressions - we have a TON of folks with naïveté/ myopia/ conflictions that ARE having a hugely detrimental impact.
Those situations are a real problem.
But that's another issue...... and it certainly doesn't involve you

 

[WTNuke]

ONLY 2 or 3 months in prison. Wow. You want to give it shot, Nuker? Of course, your name hasn't been in the news for over 5 years associated with CSA, so maybe they'd give you a pass based on your BWI name, because it is pretty cool, I admit.

And I don't know that it is a minimum security prison. I thought it was a county or state case, and the prison associated with that.

I think he's a 63 year old man who has no street cred with crime, who has been battling cancer for 5 years, and who has a target on him in the public eye.

But let's be cavalier about it, sure.

To be fair, I'm pretty cavalier about everything.

 

[Bob78]

LOL

I don't think your an idiot - - - not even a little bit


I think 90% of the opinions/thoughts you expressed in the above post are highly likely to be "not correct"...... but that DOESN'T mean you're not entitled to have them.
And it surely isn't hurting anyone to have them.


Idiot?
No

Naive? Overly-"optimistic"? Somewhat blinded from the myopia of your personal situation/relationships?
I would guess "probably".


Unfortunately - unlike your expressions - we have a TON of folks with naïveté/ myopia/ conflictions that ARE having a hugely detrimental impact.
Those situations are a real problem.
But that's another issue...... and it certainly doesn't involve you

I think 90% of the opinions/thoughts you expressed in the above post are highly likely to be "not correct"...... but that DOESN'T mean you're not entitled to have them.
And it surely isn't hurting anyone to have them.

Naive? Overly-"optimistic"? Somewhat blinded from the myopia of your personal situation/relationships?
I would guess "probably".

Enlighten me:
Thoughts and opinions incorrect? Always a possibility. But do you mean regarding Tim's relationships with the people specifically mentioned? Their feelings one way or another? Don't have to go through all 90% of 'em, just hit a couple of highlights. I'm always open to hearing something other than my own stuff! (within reason, of course!)

Optimistic? (Yeesh! From that post?!)

 

[Bob78]

To be fair, I'm pretty cavalier about everything.

Apparently.

 

[wensilver]

If you don't mind - can I send your most excellent thoughts to Will Hobson at the Washington Post?

Or you can - I know he is working on a story & I think this meshes well with his topic, last I spoke with him.

will.hobson@washpost.com

Or give him a call : +1 (202) 334-5206

( I have some other posters on Ignore - so I'm not sure what else might have been included in your entire post.)

Long, so feel free to skip over this....

I just cannot imagine that any of the guys I mentioned are ok with Tim facing prison time. Or really any such punishment. Unless they have evolved into true sociopaths over time.
- McQ knew Tim for at least his entire adult life if not longer. He stated that he thought Tim was a good guy and was concerned about him being named in the GJ indictment.
- Dandrea was a year behind Tim and a fraternity brother. They've known each other for over 40 years, and saw each other often at NLC and other PSU events.
- Paul Suhey was a local, and his family knew anyone connected with PSU athletics. Tim and Larry Suhey were within a year of each other in HS, played sports together, and I'm pretty certain the families knew each other very well for decades. Paul and Matt Suhey were in the same fraternity as Tim. Another 40+ year positive relationship.
- Joyner was another SC local and was a little ahead of Tim in HS and in the fraternity. But he was in close touch with the football and wrestling programs and knew Tim well for about 40 years.

I feel comfortable in saying that in each case, their relationship was positive, friendly, very social with spouses and families involved in many events. And the same is likely true with Schultz, except maybe for the college-and before years of knowing each other.

My point being - when they were so happily laying down or enabling the bs about the 2 PSU Admins who got thrown under the bus (we sort of know why some had it in for JVP, and Spanier was out of their control due to Corbett), did they actually foresee this result for this guy who they know to be an honest, straight-shooter who always strove to do things the right way? Did they think this crap could do in a good man to this extent? Did they care? And I'm not for one minute entertaining any bs about criminal charges changing the equation for them. They knew and know that Tim's actions, while not enough in hindsight, were prudent based on the information he had at the time.

Again, they've socialized with Tim and his wife quite often in the past, know Tim's kids, attended each others' family events, and certainly know they could have headed off this nightmare and redirected it back to Sandusky in the public's eye with more foresight and basic business PR prep.
(That redirection is important, imo, because the only reason the OAG hung on to the charges was for their own PR purposes.) I wonder just how morally-challenged these guys are, that if they really thought jail time - or even a conviction with probation - was a distinct possibility for their friend Tim, they would have allowed things to transpire as they did.

That's what I want some competent, fearless actual journalist(s) to ask of each of them. Not that I think any of them would have the guts to respond with 100% honesty. Do they have remorse for seeing how this played out? What would or could they have done differently? Why not have an aggressive PR play to direct the public to TSM?! (Again, the Pandora's box inference made by some on Twitter comes into play, we suspect).

Think about this in relation to your own life and your own long-time friends. We all know people who we consider friends who we believe to be of great character. We are happy and proud to call them friends. Would you throw them under a bus for the sake of convenience when trouble came down the street? Or would we ask some questions, slow things down, go to bat for these people? What if you were the one who could be easily tossed aside while friends who you've known for decades stood by and either did nothing, or threw wood on the fire at your feet... when you and they knew you had done nothing wrong based on what you knew at the time? And one of those watching you burn is the same person who gave you the info to work with, and didn't change that info for 10 years until the fire started?

Maybe I am clouded by the burden of empathy I have for Tim, a man I've known for over 40 years. I want to help somehow. (And yes, I've offered my help to him in whatever way he or his wife may need.) But how can any of these guys feel anything but a huge yoke of guilt themselves for allowing Tim to thrown into it this way, to this extent? Gotta be a sociopath to have known the man but to still feel ok after all this has gone down. And I have no doubt that each of them know, whether they would ever admit it or not, that what has fallen on Tim is completely unfair.

It's easy to dismiss all this as 'they deserved it' if you don't know the good people involved. If you know them, you cannot bring yourself to believe the jail time - or even probation - is warranted in any way. It hits close to home. It becomes personal.

Sorry for the outpouring of emotion. This is a good place to do some therapeutic writing, even if no one reads it! But right now I'm really struggling with this regarding Tim. I've been in touch with other friends of his, and that struggle is common to us all. I just hope the man survives prison intact and can get through the whole deal with good health until he can be free to re-establish his friendships. Thanks for indulging me if you have. And if you think I'm an idiot for having all these feels, I likely have you on ignore, so I won't get the pleasure of reading about my idiocy. (Except for you, bjf! Dis when ready!)

 

[bjf1991]

I think 90% of the opinions/thoughts you expressed in the above post are highly likely to be "not correct"...... but that DOESN'T mean you're not entitled to have them.
And it surely isn't hurting anyone to have them.

Naive? Overly-"optimistic"? Somewhat blinded from the myopia of your personal situation/relationships?
I would guess "probably".

Enlighten me:
Thoughts and opinions incorrect? Always a possibility. But do you mean regarding Tim's relationships with the people specifically mentioned? Their feelings one way or another? Don't have to go through all 90% of 'em, just hit a couple of highlights. I'm always open to hearing something other than my own stuff! (within reason, of course!)

Optimistic? (Yeesh! From that post?!)

I probably shouldn't have said anything ........ and so I won't say much more

But - in answer to your question - I felt that the general tener of you post was that folks like Dicky D, Suhey, Lubert etc would likely possess the level of capacity for "guilt" or altruism or introspection or whatever other positive human characteristics would be congruent with the premises of your post (or what I interpreted those premises to be)

They don't possess those traits - IMO - and I feel confident enough in those opinions (based on an avalanche of evidence and examples) that I can't even imagine what new information would have to come to light in order for me to alter those opinions.


A lot of people basically just suck.
And a decent slice (and it is over-represented among certain groups) not only "suck"...... but they are so unmitigatingly self-absorbed and self-obsessed as to be fairly labeled as downright evil. Certainly incapable of feeling what we would call "guilt" or "remorse".
Truly and purely incapable.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say (about one of the players in this tragic opera) - - "How do they sleep at night?" My answer? They probably sleep like a baby - - - I doubt if their actions cause them one moment of remorse.

I think we have all had the misfortune to run into scads of those folks along the way over the last 6 years

Anyway - maybe that helps explain what I was getting at..... maybe not.


That - and that folks like Suhey and Joyner are small potatos in this entire ordeal (less than small potatos, actually. More like a hash brown)

 

[Bob78]

If you don't mind - can I send your most excellent thoughts to Will Hobson at the Washington Post?

Or you can - I know he is working on a story & I think this meshes well with his topic, last I spoke with him.

will.hobson@washpost.com

Or give him a call : +1 (202) 334-5206

( I have some other posters on Ignore - so I'm not sure what else might have been included in your entire post.)

Thank you, Wendy, for the compliment on my stream of consciousness. There was nothing else included that you missed. We may have some of the same folks on that special ignore list!

Yes, please send to him if you think that diatribe is worthy of his time and perhaps gives him a thought-starter or two. Since you have established a relationship of sorts with him, it is probably more effective coming from a known source than a new one.
As I reread it, I see I have a couple of typos in the form of missing words, so feel free to clean them up if you're inclined.

And thank you for for asking for my ok - I appreciate that.

 

[wensilver]

Thank you, Wendy, for the compliment on my stream of consciousness. There was nothing else included that you missed. We may have some of the same folks on that special ignore list!

Yes, please send to him if you think that diatribe is worthy of his time and perhaps gives him a thought-starter or two. Since you have established a relationship of sorts with him, it is probably more effective coming from a known source than a new one.
As I reread it, I see I have a couple of typos in the form of missing words, so feel free to clean them up if you're inclined.

And thank you for for asking for my ok - I appreciate that.

Emailed him the link to your post. We shall see. I'll let you know if he gets back to me.

 

[PSUPride1]

Long, so feel free to skip over this....

I just cannot imagine that any of the guys I mentioned are ok with Tim facing prison time. Or really any such punishment. Unless they have evolved into true sociopaths over time.
- McQ knew Tim for at least his entire adult life if not longer. He stated that he thought Tim was a good guy and was concerned about him being named in the GJ indictment.
- Dandrea was a year behind Tim and a fraternity brother. They've known each other for over 40 years, and saw each other often at NLC and other PSU events.
- Paul Suhey was a local, and his family knew anyone connected with PSU athletics. Tim and Larry Suhey were within a year of each other in HS, played sports together, and I'm pretty certain the families knew each other very well for decades. Paul and Matt Suhey were in the same fraternity as Tim. Another 40+ year positive relationship.
- Joyner was another SC local and was a little ahead of Tim in HS and in the fraternity. But he was in close touch with the football and wrestling programs and knew Tim well for about 40 years.

I feel comfortable in saying that in each case, their relationship was positive, friendly, very social with spouses and families involved in many events. And the same is likely true with Schultz, except maybe for the college-and before years of knowing each other.

My point being - when they were so happily laying down or enabling the bs about the 2 PSU Admins who got thrown under the bus (we sort of know why some had it in for JVP, and Spanier was out of their control due to Corbett), did they actually foresee this result for this guy who they know to be an honest, straight-shooter who always strove to do things the right way? Did they think this crap could do in a good man to this extent? Did they care? And I'm not for one minute entertaining any bs about criminal charges changing the equation for them. They knew and know that Tim's actions, while not enough in hindsight, were prudent based on the information he had at the time.

Again, they've socialized with Tim and his wife quite often in the past, know Tim's kids, attended each others' family events, and certainly know they could have headed off this nightmare and redirected it back to Sandusky in the public's eye with more foresight and basic business PR prep.
(That redirection is important, imo, because the only reason the OAG hung on to the charges was for their own PR purposes.) I wonder just how morally-challenged these guys are, that if they really thought jail time - or even a conviction with probation - was a distinct possibility for their friend Tim, they would have allowed things to transpire as they did.

That's what I want some competent, fearless actual journalist(s) to ask of each of them. Not that I think any of them would have the guts to respond with 100% honesty. Do they have remorse for seeing how this played out? What would or could they have done differently? Why not have an aggressive PR play to direct the public to TSM?! (Again, the Pandora's box inference made by some on Twitter comes into play, we suspect).

Think about this in relation to your own life and your own long-time friends. We all know people who we consider friends who we believe to be of great character. We are happy and proud to call them friends. Would you throw them under a bus for the sake of convenience when trouble came down the street? Or would we ask some questions, slow things down, go to bat for these people? What if you were the one who could be easily tossed aside while friends who you've known for decades stood by and either did nothing, or threw wood on the fire at your feet... when you and they knew you had done nothing wrong based on what you knew at the time? And one of those watching you burn is the same person who gave you the info to work with, and didn't change that info for 10 years until the fire started?

Maybe I am clouded by the burden of empathy I have for Tim, a man I've known for over 40 years. I want to help somehow. (And yes, I've offered my help to him in whatever way he or his wife may need.) But how can any of these guys feel anything but a huge yoke of guilt themselves for allowing Tim to thrown into it this way, to this extent? Gotta be a sociopath to have known the man but to still feel ok after all this has gone down. And I have no doubt that each of them know, whether they would ever admit it or not, that what has fallen on Tim is completely unfair.

It's easy to dismiss all this as 'they deserved it' if you don't know the good people involved. If you know them, you cannot bring yourself to believe the jail time - or even probation - is warranted in any way. It hits close to home. It becomes personal.

Sorry for the outpouring of emotion. This is a good place to do some therapeutic writing, even if no one reads it! But right now I'm really struggling with this regarding Tim. I've been in touch with other friends of his, and that struggle is common to us all. I just hope the man survives prison intact and can get through the whole deal with good health until he can be free to re-establish his friendships. Thanks for indulging me if you have. And if you think I'm an idiot for having all these feels, I likely have you on ignore, so I won't get the pleasure of reading about my idiocy. (Except for you, bjf! Dis when ready!)

Bob, do you think Tim or gary or spanier (I've talked to him extensively) will ever speak out publicly, perhaps in an interview setting. Tim has been shredded for six years. Does he have any interest in giving his side of the story, for example after his stint in prison. Thanks.

 

[kgilbert78]

Don't insinuate that I, and every other Penn State alum, put football ahead of children's welfare and then come ask me for money.

Indeed.

 

[PSUPride1]

I used to love Penn State and pretty much everything about it. I was part of something that gave me great pride, and I wanted to give back to that institution and encourage others to go there to obtain an education. The Sandusky situation exposed that positive feeling about the institution as being a sham. Personally, I feel that a significant portion of my identity has been damaged because of this. I wonder if others on this board feel the same way.

Not because of Sandusky himself--even within great institutions, you will find horrible people who do horrible things. It is how an institution deals with such a crisis that reveals its true character. When the leadership of that institution attempts to tear down some of the very people and things that made it great as a means of self-protection, I am done. Don't insinuate that I, and every other Penn State alum, put football ahead of children's welfare and then come ask me for money.

I was no fan of Spanier, but he didn't deserve this. I was a great fan of Joe, and certainly he didn't deserve this either. When Penn State threw them under the bus, they threw all Penn State alums under the bus.

Now the only thing I care about in regard to Penn State is football. The rest of the university is dead to me.

I hear you brother. Just remember Penn State is guys like you and me and the great people we have on this board and in our community. I love those people. Unfortunately when we needed strong leadership during a period of crisis we had absolute cowards and scumbags running the place but those losers are not Penn State. Don't ever give them that power.
When you go to games that community is Penn State. And I've been following Penn State football for a long time and now I want to win more than ever.

 

[indynittany]

Evidently you think it's normal to shower alone at night in deserted buildings with children.

But don't let that cloud your...err, thinking...either.

I don't recall anyone suggesting it was normal and I seem to recall C/S/S taking specific steps to see that it didn't happen again.

If you can tell the board what law that's breaking, you can argue that they should have called the police. None the less, Jack Raykovitz was informed and, unlike C/S/S, he was also a mandatory reporter.

Do you think his suggestion that Jerry wear swim trunks in the shower was sound coming from a licensed child psychologist?

 

[Bob78]

Bob, do you think Tim or gary or spanier (I've talked to him extensively) will ever speak out publicly, perhaps in an interview setting. Tim has been shredded for six years. Does he have any interest in giving his side of the story, for example after his stint in prison. Thanks.

As much as I hope any or all of them do, I don't have any confidence that they will.

I have not talked with Tim about that, so I don't know his thoughts. I always had the impression - based on nothing specific - that he was going to be content with letting the court case play out, and the results would speak for themselves. Obviously something changed since I had that impression. And maybe that changes what he will decide to do. Hopefully he gets through the upcoming ordeal, and maybe he'll then take time to reassess what he wants to do next. Or maybe they'll just move to the Caribbean. I would certainly consider that if it were me.

And if anything ever comes from the Freeh review that helps his story, that may help make up his mind.

 

[Nellie R]

One thing I'm confused by. It sounded like C&S accepted plea deals thinking that they would get probation and no jail time. It also sounded like the prosecutor was upset by their testimony.

I'm very naive here but I thought with most plea deals the accused agreed to testify to something and the prosecutor would in return ask the judge for a more lenient sentence. In this case the prosecutor went for the jugular. WTF kid of plea deal was that? Did C&S have a change of heart ans soften their testimony? Or did the prosecutor renege on his promise? I'm missing something here.

Yes, you are. This is my take on the possible strategy: They pled in order to actually be character witnesses for Spanier, when the ridiculous Feb 1 Order by Boccabella came out allowing NEW ex post facto and out of SOL charges .

At that point they all knew this new judge was placed to crush them and they had no chance except to spend a couple more years in Superior Court and hope Mary Jane Bowes would be the Judge writing the Opinion and do what she did before. Follow the laws a judge should.

Meanwhile, back at the corrupt PA judiciary ranch, unfortunately, the PA Supreme Court created foolish "new law or precedent " in the concurrent Monsignor Lynn case that allowed the dirtbags to go back to court and add these other fake charges. After all that, the "victim" in that case admitted to lying, but the LAW and precedents stay on the books. What a clusterfark!

Schultz gave Dirtbag Ditka* a tiny little bit of "what they wanted" in his testimony.

*Sorry but with this last stunt in the sentencing document that woman proved she is one helluva dirtbag and doesn't give a flip about children in PA, and it takes an awful lot of proof for me to name-call. Ditto for Boccabella. These ppl are shameful creatures.

Perhaps get yourself a copy of the transcripts if you haven't read the copies WS purchased and shared with us here. I haven't checked to see if Centre Country was honest enough on their "media" page to post all of it yet and it's been long past due for them to do so.

 

[Nellie R]

[QUOTE="SmithtonLion, post: 2817108, member: 77397]
Frankly, I have always viewed the first e-mail as Curley doing some potential covering his ass. He knows that "after talking with Joe" will look good for him, should the whole thing go sideways.


Yes, it reads like a cya email. Let's be honest. that is the type of email you see from management types who are very unsure of themselves, barely competent, and totally unable to make their own decisions.

Who let the dogs in? Everyone who knows Curley for a large part of his life has called him out of all of the characters in this saga THE BOY SCOUT. He would never "CYA". What an ignorant set of statements.