Wetzel: Last-ditch effort to reframe Joe Paterno's legacy fizzles out

[francofan]

We don't need a jury. We don't need a judge. We don't need a prosecutor.

If you admit to being naked with a pre-pubescent boy, alone, in the shower, and find any reason to give him a bear hug or to lift him up to get the soap out of his hair, then you ARE A PEDOPHILE.

Every time. Each time. Without debate and without question.

You are welcome to you own opinions, but I don't believe you are well versed in the law. My understanding is that in order to be guilty of CSA offenses, there must be sex or sexual intent. I don't believe that sex or sexual intent has been conclusively shown in either the 1998 v6 incident or in the 2001 v2 incident.

 

[coveydidnt]

You are welcome to you own opinions, but I don't believe you are well versed in the law. My understanding is that in order to be guilty of CSA offenses, there must be sex or sexual intent. I don't believe that sex or sexual intent has been conclusively shown in either the 1998 v6 incident or in the 2001 v2 incident.

Interestingly, you believe Sandusky is probably innocent but ALSO believe TSM and Jack Raykovitz should have been investigated and possibly charged. Weird.

 

[L.T. Young]

Did MSU fire the women's gymnastics coach who was told by dozens of team members they were sexually assaulted by Nassar and did nothing?

Here's a third option: the Board accepts Paterno's resignation. No, instead they have to go full "the entire football program cares more about winning and nothing about kids, and everyone who ever attended school or a football game here are pedophile enablers."

Paterno wasn't going to resign. That's why he announced his retirement publicly.

 

[Zenophile]

Paterno wasn't going to resign. That's why he announced his retirement publicly.

Why would he resign?

 

[getmyjive11]

You only indirectly answered my question, but I take from your response that you agree that sometimes the juries get it wrong. I may be wrong, but I think you may now be understanding the difference between a fact and an opinion.

I didn't say that my doubt was unreasonable, that is what you said. I was just showing how you were trying to move the goalpost from when you first said that it was a fact that Sandusky was a serial pedophile without qualification and now you are stating it is fact that Sandusky is a serial pedophile beyond a reasonable doubt. This is still your opnion and not a fact. I believe that if Sandusky is fortunate to win a new trial that his attorneys will be able to demonstrate reasonable doubt in spades.

Juries can get it wrong, but not with 45 counts against 10 victims, 8 of which terstified against the criminal.

And your doubt is unreasonable.

 

[L.T. Young]

Why would he resign?

Ask the poster I replied to. He's the one suggesting it was a possibility rather than firing him.

 

[Zenophile]

Ask the poster I replied to. He's the one suggesting it was a possibility rather than firing him.

Roger that. And agreed that it wasn't an option.

That's not to say that Paterno wouldn't have been publicly supportive of an administrative leave option had the process been handled properly.

 

[francofan]

Juries can get it wrong, but not with 45 counts against 10 victims, 8 of which terstified against the criminal.

And your doubt is unreasonable.

You are welcome to your own opinions. Thank you for admiting that juries sometimes get it wrong.

I still believe it is possible for the jury have gotten it wrong in spite of having 8 accusers testifying at trial. V1 was the sole accuser for over 2 years and his accusations may have been manufactured. (see http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/06/manufactured-evidence-victim-no-1-in.html)

All of the other accusations only came after the alleged victims were aware of v1's accusations. IMO, if v1's accusations are suspicious then all of the other accusations are supisious. All of the accusers may have had financial incentives as on average they have each been awarded over $3 million each in settlements. There were no contemperaneous reports of sexual assaults by any of the victims and no physical evidence. All of the accuser's accusations have changed and grown over time. The Nov. 2011 Grand Jury Presentment was false (Mike McQueary did not witness an anal rape) and was extremely prejudicial. At the time of the Nov. 2011 GJP, only 2 accusers (v1 and v4) had alleged explicit sex acts and v4's only came after highly irregular suggestive questioning by investigators. The unjust firings by the PSU BOT of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier sealed Sandusky's fate in the court of public opinion IMO, as most people concluded that Sandusky must be guilty after Paterno and Spanier were fired irregardless of whether or not the firings were justified.

Sandusky has consistently maintained his innocence from day 1. Pornography is a hallmark of a pedophile and no pornography of any kind has ever been found in Sandusky's possession. NCIS special agent John Snedden has stated that he is unawre of any pedophilia case where large caches of pornograaphy were not found. Snedden also said there was no sex scandal at Penn State, just a "Political Hit Job."

http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/04/federal-agent-no-sex-scandal-at-penn.html

 

[indynittany]

Something of a sexual nature.

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.

Don't twist Joe's words for your sick agenda.

 

[L.T. Young]

Roger that. And agreed that it wasn't an option.

That's not to say that Paterno wouldn't have been publicly supportive of an administrative leave option had the process been handled properly.

That's possible.

I'm sure those that resented him took advantage of the opportunity and pushed hard to fire him.

At a minimum they should have coordinated with the OAG after such a damaging leak. If their official position was Joe did everything right, which is the case, then you have something to lean on and don't have to be so hasty.

 

[getmyjive11]

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.

Don't twist Joe's words for your sick agenda.

I'm not going to go over this again. The world knows what Paterno testified to, it's not worth to rehash so that you can cry about it. Your interpretation is wrong, simple as that.

 

[indynittany]

I'm not going to go over this again. The world knows what Paterno testified to, it's not worth to rehash so that you can cry about it. Your interpretation is wrong, simple as that.

You're the one who's wrong. Joe clarified his testimony before he died.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I'm not going to go over this again. The world knows what Paterno testified to, it's not worth to rehash so that you can cry about it. Your interpretation is wrong, simple as that.

Just look at what he chooses to bold versus what is being said. The old finger in the ear routinely plays out here. It's comical at this point in time.

 

[jomouli23]

Just look at what he chooses to bold versus what is being said. The old finger in the ear routinely plays out here. It's comical at this point in time.

Things slow over on the idiot den? All of 33 comments by your clown pals. Fartner, Thompson and Micek did wonders in how to lose advertising. No one even bothers to refute you goofs anymore.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Things slow over on the idiot den? All of 33 comments by your clown pals. Fartner, Thompson and Micek did wonders in how to lose advertising. No one even bothers to refutes you goofs anymore.

Ummmm because they can't. You have nothing to say anymore pnny, we know why!!!! LOL, maybe you can blame the lying victims again. That was a brilliant approach.

 

[jomouli23]

Ummmm because they can't. You have nothing to say anymore pnny, we know why!!!! LOL, maybe you can blame the lying victims again. That was a brilliant approach.

No one has to. Your rubbish is known for what it is.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

No one has to. Your rubbish is known for what it is.

You are a known joke pnny and have been for years. Keep telling everyone Jerry is innocent!!!!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

What's the matter you're afraid to admit you think Jerry is innocent now? What happened? LOL

 

[Legion of Lions]

I'm not going to go over this again. The world knows what Paterno testified to, it's not worth to rehash so that you can cry about it. Your interpretation is wrong, simple as that.

GMJ....you are nothing if not consistent! The statement on which you base Paterno's "Admission of Sexual Guilt" is a stretch at best when considering ONLY that statement alone. It is so much easier for you and the OAG to create the illusion that Paterno "knew" when you take each item (testimony and allegation) and limit yourself to that alone.

This is NOT about the statement ALONE...it is about a 9 year old situation where the content of what was said can be "back-filled" to achieve any message you engineer. This is the case for EVERYTHING which is publicly known about this "Scandal".

If you want REALITY...You need to look at the TOTAL KNOWN evidence and you will see that the "message" you and the OAG assert is pure BS!!!

Today...you can not support MM's testimony - a cornerstone on which this legal case is built - because in 2001 NO ONE ACTED as if MM saw "ANYTHING". It was, at best, a meeting where MM reported Sandusky showering with a kid. With the benefit & context of a 2011 3 year State of PA investigation into Sandusky, you MAY be able to make a case for your "Joe Had to Know".

But that is not real world in 2001 - the only perspective that Paterno and PSU had to judge what MM reported and the only thing that provided justification for Penn State's appropriate next step handling was....it was a non-event. Even if you take a word-for-word evaluation of Patern's statement, you STILL can not be sure of the true content of what Paterno said.

Add to that that you are looking at PA State "testimony" records - something without audio backup to corroborate the accuracy of what was said and you have fundamentally nothing. This is the problem with this situation...if what was legal TRUTH in the public "Story" presented by the OAG & Freeh, then why the 6+years of continuous sequestering of key details which would either prove or disprove what you and the OAG promote???? Remember...this is the same case where two counts of Perjury by PA investigators goes untouched!!!

Until you find a way to get around the need of the State to HIDE EVIDENCE....you have what is reality - this continues to be a CRIMINAL ABUSE of the Legal Process and what is nothing short of Criminal conspiracy by a group within the PA State government.

I realize that "Conspiracy Theories" are not a popular way to look at this...YET, based on the known facts OVERALL and the kind of suspicious behaviors by PA, Freeh and the OGBOT....Face it...The SHOE FITS!!! No other rational conclusion!

 

[BobPSU92]

Roger that. And agreed that it wasn't an option.

That's not to say that Paterno wouldn't have been publicly supportive of an administrative leave option had the process been handled properly.

Joe wanted to speak with the university "leadership" in November 2011, but they chose not to speak with him.

 

[BobPSU92]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

Folks, you are arguing with a troll. This troll argues the same points over and over and over again. He has been arguing the same points since the start of this mess, and you guys continue to argue your same points over and over and over again. Let's not pretend that by stating the facts, you are going to get the troll to realize he is wrong and stop his arguing. He is a troll. He argues with his inane points intentionally because he knows he will get the same rise out of the same people. Why do you so easily take the bait?

It's not even that you engage this troll with just one response. He posts something ridiculous, the same nonsense he has posted in other threads here before. You respond with the facts. He twists the story, as he has many times before, and you respond. He twists, you respond. He twists, you respond. This goes on and on and on in a given thread. Then it repeats in another thread.

If you were to search for the troll's posts, you would find the same good posters arguing the same facts with him over and over again in many threads. Just stop.

Put the troll on your Ignore List and focus on better discussions.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

Folks, you are arguing with a troll. This troll argues the same points over and over and over again. He has been arguing the same points since the start of this mess, and you guys continue to argue your same points over and over and over again. Let's not pretend that by stating the facts, you are going to get the troll to realize he is wrong and stop his arguing. He is a troll. He argues with his inane points intentionally because he knows he will get the same rise out of the same people. Why do you so easily take the bait?

It's not even that you engage this troll with just one response. He posts something ridiculous, the same nonsense he has posted in other threads here before. You respond with the facts. He twists the story, as he has many times before, and you respond. He twists, you respond. He twists, you respond. This goes on and on and on in a given thread. Then it repeats in another thread.

If you were to search for the troll's posts, you would find the same good posters arguing the same facts with him over and over again in many threads. Just stop.

Put the troll on your Ignore List and focus on better discussions.

How would you know if you ignored someone? Nevermind searching for their history. Sad they let you foil wearing freaks go that far down the rabbit hole. You just keep up your fake outrage Bob. Just keep your fingers in your ears and saying it was all a bad dream. It's been great for 6 years now Bob.

 

[gohigh79]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

Folks, you are arguing with a troll. This troll argues the same points over and over and over again. He has been arguing the same points since the start of this mess, and you guys continue to argue your same points over and over and over again. Let's not pretend that by stating the facts, you are going to get the troll to realize he is wrong and stop his arguing. He is a troll. He argues with his inane points intentionally because he knows he will get the same rise out of the same people. Why do you so easily take the bait?

It's not even that you engage this troll with just one response. He posts something ridiculous, the same nonsense he has posted in other threads here before. You respond with the facts. He twists the story, as he has many times before, and you respond. He twists, you respond. He twists, you respond. This goes on and on and on in a given thread. Then it repeats in another thread.

If you were to search for the troll's posts, you would find the same good posters arguing the same facts with him over and over again in many threads. Just stop.

Put the troll on your Ignore List and focus on better discussions.

If the back-and-forth discussion of the different viewpoints of the "scandal" wasn't wanted at this message board, it would be very easy for the moderators to delete all the related posts as they came up (as almost every other Penn State football discussion site on the internet has done).

That this is not done shows that the discussion is not only allowed, but encouraged and desired. I, frankly, think it's very useful for these discussions to remain up to show the outright absurdity of those who are firmly against the truth of this whole ordeal.

 

[getmyjive11]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

Folks, you are arguing with a troll. This troll argues the same points over and over and over again. He has been arguing the same points since the start of this mess, and you guys continue to argue your same points over and over and over again. Let's not pretend that by stating the facts, you are going to get the troll to realize he is wrong and stop his arguing. He is a troll. He argues with his inane points intentionally because he knows he will get the same rise out of the same people. Why do you so easily take the bait?

It's not even that you engage this troll with just one response. He posts something ridiculous, the same nonsense he has posted in other threads here before. You respond with the facts. He twists the story, as he has many times before, and you respond. He twists, you respond. He twists, you respond. This goes on and on and on in a given thread. Then it repeats in another thread.

If you were to search for the troll's posts, you would find the same good posters arguing the same facts with him over and over again in many threads. Just stop.

Put the troll on your Ignore List and focus on better discussions.

I have been consistent for several years now because everything that has played out has supported my point of view of this scandal. You all have had to find new excuse after new excuse as time progressed because things did not turn out as you had hoped. Now, the narrative that you created would only be possible if at every turn, a multitude of people (most with little connection to each other) decided that they wanted to screw PSU, CSS and Paterno. Addotionally, you would need to believe that CSS and Paterno were the most naive and gullible leaders on any college campus.

Or, you accept the simple scenario which is that those men made a mistake and failed. Maybe it was more than a mistake... at the end of the day it doesn't matter, so I will give them the benefit of a doubt. They made a big mistake and now they and PSU had to pay the price.

 

[Zenophile]

Joe wanted to speak with the university "leadership" in November 2011, but they chose not to speak with him.

The board's handling of that situation isn't on the Mount Rushmore of botched employment issues. It is the Mount Rushmore.

Those in the Business & Industry faction of the board knew or should have known how to correctly deal with an employment matter, and for reasons that are still unclear chose not to do so.

 

[voltz99]

Joe had no legal responsibility to call the police. The 2014 ncaa guidelines would not have Joe call the police. Joe was given a vague account 12+ hours after the incident, and mcqueary did not know the identity of the boy.

Once again, Drs. Dranov and McQueary learned of the incident the night it happened, and they didn't call the police. They didn't tell mike to call the police.

Joe acted appropriately.

Joe was not charged. How about MORAL obligation? Did they do anything to id the boy and contact his parents?

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Joe was not charged. How about MORAL obligation? Did they do anything to id the boy and contact his parents?

you mean besides informing TSM?

 

[jomouli23]

Joe was not charged. How about MORAL obligation? Did they do anything to id the boy and contact his parents?

There is no such thing under the Law. You follow the Law or you don't. Joe followed the Law. "Moral obligation" is a politician and troll invention.

 

[voltz99]

There is no such thing under the Law. You follow the Law or you don't. Joe followed the Law. "Moral obligation" is a politician and troll invention.

This is not a court of law. This is the court of public opinion.



Did Joe follow the law or a flawed university policy? What did he do different than Curly and Shultz?

 

[Zenophile]

Joe was not charged. How about MORAL obligation? Did they do anything to id the boy and contact his parents?

you mean besides informing TSM?

I'm also interested in the reply to this.

 

[Zenophile]

Did Joe follow the law or a flawed university policy? What did he do different than Curly and Shultz?

Can you make the distinction between the football coach and the Athletic Director & Administrative Vice President?

 

[coveydidnt]

The board's handling of that situation isn't on the Mount Rushmore of botched employment issues. It is the Mount Rushmore.

Those in the Business & Industry faction of the board knew or should have known how to correctly deal with an employment matter, and for reasons that are still unclear chose not to do so.

That's wrong of course, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mis-remember the order of events.

Joe's regular press conference was cancelled.
He was told not to speak to the press.
The press had spent two days travelling to State College and were encamped in town.
Joe issued a statement to the press, that he would not retire, and saying that the BoT had better things to do than worry about him. Also that he'd retire at the end of the year. Essentially, he went all-in, and all but DARED the BoT to fire him. When somebody does that, there's a chance they are gonna get fired.

Let me ask you something. Over 60 years, how many times did Joe say to a player or coach, "Don't do this thing!" When the player or coach does that thing, and then does not even apologize, but instead said to Joe "You have better things to worry about than my behavior. Just worry about your job & I'll do my own thing."

I would guess that anyone who ever did that to Joe was not around the next gameday. \

And when Joe did it to the BOT, he wasn't either. He overplayed his hand.

 

[voltz99]

Can you make the distinction between the football coach and the Athletic Director & Administrative Vice President?

Sure.

Your turn. What did Joe do different than Curly and Shultz?

 

[michnittlion]

That's wrong of course, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mis-remember the order of events.

Joe's regular press conference was cancelled.
He was told not to speak to the press.
The press had spent two days travelling to State College and were encamped in town.
Joe issued a statement to the press, that he would not retire, and saying that the BoT had better things to do than worry about him. Also that he'd retire at the end of the year. Essentially, he went all-in, and all but DARED the BoT to fire him. When somebody does that, there's a chance they are gonna get fired.

Let me ask you something. Over 60 years, how many times did Joe say to a player or coach, "Don't do this thing!" When the player or coach does that thing, and then does not even apologize, but instead said to Joe "You have better things to worry about than my behavior. Just worry about your job & I'll do my own thing."

I would guess that anyone who ever did that to Joe was not around the next gameday. \

And when Joe did it to the BOT, he wasn't either. He overplayed his hand.

We agree here --- the Wednesday AM statement was 100% a reason to be fired in itself. Using verbology like "not spend a single minute discussing my status" was unnecessarily arrogant. It was basically saying "F U" to the BOT (his bosses) without actually using the 4-letter cuss word.

The more interesting question --- which of Jay and Scott (or perhaps both) actually wrote that? I seriously doubt that was Joe alone.

 

[coveydidnt]

You are welcome to you own opinions, but I don't believe you are well versed in the law. My understanding is that in order to be guilty of CSA offenses, there must be sex or sexual intent. I don't believe that sex or sexual intent has been conclusively shown in either the 1998 v6 incident or in the 2001 v2 incident.

99.999% of the population would disagree. Showering naked and alone with a boy that isn't your son (and maybe even if he is), when you've been warned not to, is always CSA.

Always.

No "yeah but ..."

No "the intent isn't proven..." -- No! It really really is proven.

Always. In every case. Showering naked and alone with a boy that isn't your son (and maybe even if he is), when you've been warned not to, is CSA.

 

[boddyebsen]

This is not a court of law. This is the court of public opinion.



Did Joe follow the law or a flawed university policy? What did he do different than Curly and Shultz?

Then it means absolutely nothing. In fact, it's less than worthless.

 

[Zenophile]

Sure.

Your turn. What did Joe do different than Curly and Shultz?

Your question would seem to imply that you can't make the distinction. Joe's moral/ethical/legal/organizational responsibilities were & are fundamentally different than Curly & Schultz's.

 

[Zenophile]

That's wrong of course, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mis-remember the order of events.

Joe's regular press conference was cancelled.
He was told not to speak to the press.
The press had spent two days travelling to State College and were encamped in town.
Joe issued a statement to the press, that he would not retire, and saying that the BoT had better things to do than worry about him. Also that he'd retire at the end of the year. Essentially, he went all-in, and all but DARED the BoT to fire him. When somebody does that, there's a chance they are gonna get fired.

Let me ask you something. Over 60 years, how many times did Joe say to a player or coach, "Don't do this thing!" When the player or coach does that thing, and then does not even apologize, but instead said to Joe "You have better things to worry about than my behavior. Just worry about your job & I'll do my own thing."

I would guess that anyone who ever did that to Joe was not around the next gameday. \

And when Joe did it to the BOT, he wasn't either. He overplayed his hand.

What do you do for a living?

 

[voltz99]

Your question would seem to imply that you can't make the distinction. Joe's moral/ethical/legal/organizational responsibilities were & are fundamentally different than Curly & Schultz's.

What were the differences in their legal responsibilities?

 

[bwifan]

What were the differences in their legal responsibilities?

You're still not answering his question and continue deflecting ... let's ask you to answer the question for the third time ...