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

[coveydidnt]

What do you do for a living?

Probably same as you.

 

[Madsol]

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.

You've intentionally misrepresented his statement for going on 6 years and I guess you'll continue to do it long into the future. You know he meant "you have bigger things to worry about than me, like the freakin' University crumbling down around us!" Any thinking person knows what he meant, in the context of when he said it. But much like how "with the benefit of hindsight..." is twisted or forgotten to fit an agenda, so is his retirement statement.

And wasn't there a leaked NY Times story from the day before about how they were planning to fire him? So were they clairvoyant and knew what he was going to say the next day (Wednesday) when they had already decided to fire him the day before (Tuesday)?

 

[coveydidnt]

You've intentionally misrepresented his statement for going on 6 years and I guess you'll continue to do it long into the future. You know he meant "you have bigger things to worry about than me, like the freakin' University crumbling down around us!" Any thinking person knows what he meant, in the context of when he said it. But much like how "with the benefit of hindsight..." is twisted or forgotten to fit an agenda, so is his retirement statement.

And wasn't there a leaked NY Times story from the day before about how they were planning to fire him? So were they clairvoyant and knew what he was going to say the next day (Wednesday) when they had already decided to fire him the day before (Tuesday)?

Anyone who was following the story in REAL TIME that day would have had the same reaction as me. I cringed. I was a supporter. I knew he had just essentially fired himself.

If he had done almost anything else that day, he would not have been fired. He should have just taken a nap, or had some Netflix & Chill.

 

[didier]

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.

So how come the County DA didn't seem to understand this? Was he in the .001%?

 

[michnittlion]

You've intentionally misrepresented his statement for going on 6 years and I guess you'll continue to do it long into the future. You know he meant "you have bigger things to worry about than me, like the freakin' University crumbling down around us!" Any thinking person knows what he meant, in the context of when he said it. But much like how "with the benefit of hindsight..." is twisted or forgotten to fit an agenda, so is his retirement statement.

And wasn't there a leaked NY Times story from the day before about how they were planning to fire him? So were they clairvoyant and knew what he was going to say the next day (Wednesday) when they had already decided to fire him the day before (Tuesday)?

"Not spend a single minute discussing my status" is a DIRECT QUOTE. That's a misrepresentation?!?!?!?

One nice thing about written statements - you can take time, time you don't necessarily have when facing verbal questions. You can actually write EXACTLY what you want to say. Joe (or his sons) didn't write down "you have bigger things to worry about then me." He wrote down "not spend a single minute discussing my status."

I first heard that statement at about 10 AM that Wednesday on ESPN2, right at the end of Mike and Mike. This isn't revisionist history --- I knew then and there Joe was going to get fired. He said "F U" to his bosses and his bosses called him on it.

 

[Madsol]

Anyone who was following the story in REAL TIME that day would have had the same reaction as me. I cringed. I was a supporter. I knew he had just essentially fired himself.

If he had done almost anything else that day, he would not have been fired. He should have just taken a nap, or had some Netflix & Chill.

Well, I guess we can go round and round because I was following it in real time and I knew exactly what he meant. And again, your second paragraph is at odds with the fact that the BOT had decided to fire him the day BEFORE he made his statement. So maybe watching Netflix and chillin' wouldn't have been the cure all you're suggesting afterall.

 

[Madsol]

"Not spend a single minute discussing my status" is a DIRECT QUOTE. That's a misrepresentation?!?!?!?

I first heard that statement at about 10 AM that Wednesday on ESPN2, right at the end of Mike and Mike. This isn't revisionist history --- I knew then and there Joe was going to get fired. He said "F U" to his bosses and his bosses called him on it.

Uh, yes. I didn't say misquote, I said misrepresentation. You're representing it as an FU statement by Paterno and I think that's patently absurd.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Anyone who was following the story in REAL TIME that day would have had the same reaction as me. I cringed. I was a supporter. I knew he had just essentially fired himself.

If he had done almost anything else that day, he would not have been fired. He should have just taken a nap, or had some Netflix & Chill.

Because keeping quiet helped C/S, right?

 

[michnittlion]

Uh, yes. I didn't say misquote, I said misrepresentation. You're representing it as an FU statement by Paterno and I think that's patently absurd.

Fair enough. If you have a boss, I suggest you telling him/her to "not spend a single minute discussing my status." LMK how that goes.

 

[Zenophile]

What were the differences in their legal responsibilities?

Paterno's was to report.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/paterno_praised_for_acting_app.html

Penn State coach Paterno praised for acting appropriately in reporting Jerry Sandusky sex abuse suspicions
on November 05, 2011 at 12:25 PM, updated November 07, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno did the right thing and reported an eye-witness report of child sex abuse by Jerry Sandusky in the football locker room in 2002, according to the indictment released this morningby the state Attorney General.
A source close to the investigation tells The Patriot-News that Paterno will not be charged, and will be a prosecution witness who will testify.

Friday, Sandusky was charged with 40 counts of child sex crimes, and this morning athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz were charged with perjury and failure to report a crime.

The sources said the deputy state prosecutor handling the case said that Paterno did the right thing, and handled himself appropriately in 2002 and during the three-year investigation that ended Friday.​

Curly & Schultz had a duty to act on that report..

 

[michnittlion]

Well, I guess we can go round and round because I was following it in real time and I knew exactly what he meant. And again, your second paragraph is at odds with the fact that the BOT had decided to fire him the day BEFORE he made his statement. So maybe watching Netflix and chillin' wouldn't have been the cure all you're suggesting afterall.

That's not what the NYT article on the evening of Tuesday November 8 said. The words "fired" and "terminated" are used zero times in this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/s...-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html

Key quotes:

(1) "Joe Paterno’s tenure as the coach of the Penn State football team will soon be over, perhaps within days or weeks, in the wake of a sexual abuse scandal that has implicated university officials, according to two people briefed on conversations among the university’s top officials."

(2) "Discussions about how to manage his departure have begun, according to the two people."

Paterno (and possibly Scott and/or Jay) saw this and on Wednesday AM decided HE AND HE ALONE would "manage his departure." I'm retiring at the end of the season, and the BOT should "not spend a single minute discussing my status" further.

 

[Zenophile]

Probably same as you.

So you're just being obstinate?

 

[JmmyW]

Anyone who was following the story in REAL TIME that day would have had the same reaction as me. I cringed. I was a supporter. I knew he had just essentially fired himself.

If he had done almost anything else that day, he would not have been fired. He should have just taken a nap, or had some Netflix & Chill.

I cringed, too, when I read his statement. But I didn't know at the time that the board had refused to even talk to Paterno in those early days. That NYT times actually came out a half hour after the press conference was cancelled. It seems that Paterno's statement on Wednesday was to address that article. It's crazy to think that Paterno and the board were communicating through the media. That NYT article also had a pretty big mistake in it. I wrote a timeline on the early days of the scandal here: https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/when-the-scandal-broke-revisiting-november-2011/ And here's a brief synopsis:

RecappingEarly November 2011

On Saturday November 5, 2011, Sandusky was arrested and Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly publicly released the Grand Jury Presentment.

The presentment created the false implication that Mike McQueary saw an anal rape and reported that to Joe Paterno.

On Sunday November 6, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement attempting to correct that false implication stating, “It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report.”

On Monday November 7, 2011, Attorney General Linda Kelly held a press conference detailing the charges against Sandusky. She stated that Paterno was a cooperative witness and was not considered a target of the investigation. One reporter asked her about the implication in the presentment that Paterno was told explicitly of an anal rape. This presented her with an opportunity to correct the false implication; however, she chose to say she couldn’t share more than what appears in the presentment.

After Linda Kelly took questions from the media, and the press conference was over, Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan went back to where the reporters were gathered. He was asked about Paterno’s responsibility. Rather than stick to what the legal requirements were, Noonan chose to question Paterno’s morality.

On Tuesday November 8, 2011, roughly one hundred members of the media gathered for Paterno’s regularly scheduled press conference. The Penn State Board of Trustees cancelled it.

A half hour later the New York Times published an article citing two sources with information that the Penn State Board of Trustees was planning Paterno’s exit. (A former assistant managing editor at the New York Times was a member of the Penn State board.)

That same article also cites a source that claims Paterno was explicitly told of an anal rape, refuting Paterno’s denial two days prior.

By mid-afternoon Tuesday, ESPN’s coverage of the scandal finally found the right moral outrage, according to independent ombudsman Kelly McBride, one of the country’s leading voices on media ethics. She also wrote that the mob of normally vitriolic web commenters were “right to take up its virtual torches and pitchforks.”

Late Tuesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees issued its first statement on the scandal, and “aligned itself with the anger the public is expressing over this incident.” They committed to forming a committee to conduct a “full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report,” and, “to determine what failures occurred.”

On Wednesday, November 9, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement in the morning expressing his sorrow and announcing his retirement effective at the end of the season. A source close to Paterno said it was the coach’s decision to retire and that he has had no contact with the board of trustees.

Late Wednesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees met behind closed doors before holding a press conference where they announced Paterno was fired.

The board fired Joe Paterno without ever speaking to him. When questioned, Vice Chairman John Surma justified the firing “in consideration of all the facts,” which he said amounted to nothing more than what was in the grand jury presentment and whatever the media had written.

 

[BobPSU92]

PLEASE. TAKE. THIS. OPPORTUNITY. TO. USE. THE. IGNORE. FEATURE.

 

[bjf1991]

I cringed, too, when I read his statement. But I didn't know at the time that the board had refused to even talk to Paterno in those early days. That NYT times actually came out a half hour after the press conference was cancelled. It seems that Paterno's statement on Wednesday was to address that article. It's crazy to think that Paterno and the board were communicating through the media. That NYT article also had a pretty big mistake in it. I wrote a timeline on the early days of the scandal here: https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/when-the-scandal-broke-revisiting-november-2011/ And here's a brief synopsis:

RecappingEarly November 2011

On Saturday November 5, 2011, Sandusky was arrested and Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly publicly released the Grand Jury Presentment.

The presentment created the false implication that Mike McQueary saw an anal rape and reported that to Joe Paterno.

On Sunday November 6, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement attempting to correct that false implication stating, “It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report.”

On Monday November 7, 2011, Attorney General Linda Kelly held a press conference detailing the charges against Sandusky. She stated that Paterno was a cooperative witness and was not considered a target of the investigation. One reporter asked her about the implication in the presentment that Paterno was told explicitly of an anal rape. This presented her with an opportunity to correct the false implication; however, she chose to say she couldn’t share more than what appears in the presentment.

After Linda Kelly took questions from the media, and the press conference was over, Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan went back to where the reporters were gathered. He was asked about Paterno’s responsibility. Rather than stick to what the legal requirements were, Noonan chose to question Paterno’s morality.

On Tuesday November 8, 2011, roughly one hundred members of the media gathered for Paterno’s regularly scheduled press conference. The Penn State Board of Trustees cancelled it.

A half hour later the New York Times published an article citing two sources with information that the Penn State Board of Trustees was planning Paterno’s exit. (A former assistant managing editor at the New York Times was a member of the Penn State board.)

That same article also cites a source that claims Paterno was explicitly told of an anal rape, refuting Paterno’s denial two days prior.

By mid-afternoon Tuesday, ESPN’s coverage of the scandal finally found the right moral outrage, according to independent ombudsman Kelly McBride, one of the country’s leading voices on media ethics. She also wrote that the mob of normally vitriolic web commenters were “right to take up its virtual torches and pitchforks.”

Late Tuesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees issued its first statement on the scandal, and “aligned itself with the anger the public is expressing over this incident.” They committed to forming a committee to conduct a “full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report,” and, “to determine what failures occurred.”

On Wednesday, November 9, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement in the morning expressing his sorrow and announcing his retirement effective at the end of the season. A source close to Paterno said it was the coach’s decision to retire and that he has had no contact with the board of trustees.

Late Wednesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees met behind closed doors before holding a press conference where they announced Paterno was fired.

The board fired Joe Paterno without ever speaking to him. When questioned, Vice Chairman John Surma justified the firing “in consideration of all the facts,” which he said amounted to nothing more than what was in the grand jury presentment and whatever the media had written.

TY JW

The fact that this University's governing Board (the BOT) - the folks with ultimate responsibility and duty of governance - at no time, pulled the "interested and relevant" parties (at least all the parties who were employees of the University) together into a room and so much as asked:

"OK, WTF is going on?"

Says all one can say about the utter disengaged cluster-f$ck that has "governed" this University for a long, long time.

That simple, basic, fundamental act - an act that would have been undertaken by even a low-functioning Board - would have, despite all of the other outside influences that were fanning the flames, mitigated the fallout of the last six years by a factor of 99% (fallout that will likely continue to impact the University for a generation or more).


It is truly a stunning level of incompetence / corruption / self-interest / fiduciary failure / and confliction. .
Even more stunning is the fact that the Board is at least as disengaged and "cluster-f$cked" today, as it was 6 years ago.

 

[boddyebsen]

I cringed, too, when I read his statement. But I didn't know at the time that the board had refused to even talk to Paterno in those early days. That NYT times actually came out a half hour after the press conference was cancelled. It seems that Paterno's statement on Wednesday was to address that article. It's crazy to think that Paterno and the board were communicating through the media. That NYT article also had a pretty big mistake in it. I wrote a timeline on the early days of the scandal here: https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/when-the-scandal-broke-revisiting-november-2011/ And here's a brief synopsis:

RecappingEarly November 2011

On Saturday November 5, 2011, Sandusky was arrested and Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly publicly released the Grand Jury Presentment.

The presentment created the false implication that Mike McQueary saw an anal rape and reported that to Joe Paterno.

On Sunday November 6, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement attempting to correct that false implication stating, “It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report.”

On Monday November 7, 2011, Attorney General Linda Kelly held a press conference detailing the charges against Sandusky. She stated that Paterno was a cooperative witness and was not considered a target of the investigation. One reporter asked her about the implication in the presentment that Paterno was told explicitly of an anal rape. This presented her with an opportunity to correct the false implication; however, she chose to say she couldn’t share more than what appears in the presentment.

After Linda Kelly took questions from the media, and the press conference was over, Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan went back to where the reporters were gathered. He was asked about Paterno’s responsibility. Rather than stick to what the legal requirements were, Noonan chose to question Paterno’s morality.

On Tuesday November 8, 2011, roughly one hundred members of the media gathered for Paterno’s regularly scheduled press conference. The Penn State Board of Trustees cancelled it.

A half hour later the New York Times published an article citing two sources with information that the Penn State Board of Trustees was planning Paterno’s exit. (A former assistant managing editor at the New York Times was a member of the Penn State board.)

That same article also cites a source that claims Paterno was explicitly told of an anal rape, refuting Paterno’s denial two days prior.

By mid-afternoon Tuesday, ESPN’s coverage of the scandal finally found the right moral outrage, according to independent ombudsman Kelly McBride, one of the country’s leading voices on media ethics. She also wrote that the mob of normally vitriolic web commenters were “right to take up its virtual torches and pitchforks.”

Late Tuesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees issued its first statement on the scandal, and “aligned itself with the anger the public is expressing over this incident.” They committed to forming a committee to conduct a “full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report,” and, “to determine what failures occurred.”

On Wednesday, November 9, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement in the morning expressing his sorrow and announcing his retirement effective at the end of the season. A source close to Paterno said it was the coach’s decision to retire and that he has had no contact with the board of trustees.

Late Wednesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees met behind closed doors before holding a press conference where they announced Paterno was fired.

The board fired Joe Paterno without ever speaking to him. When questioned, Vice Chairman John Surma justified the firing “in consideration of all the facts,” which he said amounted to nothing more than what was in the grand jury presentment and whatever the media had written.

Additionally, no doubt out of fear of being named in a suit, the Trustees admitted Joe had done nothing wrong, there was no failure on his part, and no "lack of leadership".

 

[getmyjive11]

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.

Not to mention that there was nothing forcing Jerry to shower with the boy. If he really, really wanted to shower there and not at home, why did Jerry not let the boy shower first and then he could shower after? Or, why not let the boy shower, take him home and then shower from home? It's because Pedo Jerry couldn't help himself. He just HAD to shower with the boy. He just HAD to stand right up against him.

This whole defending Jerry stuff is just a sick joke.

 

[gohigh79]

PLEASE. TAKE. THIS. OPPORTUNITY. TO. USE. THE. IGNORE. FEATURE.

These discussions are the lifeblood of this message board and, from what I can tell, the last source of defense of the truth of this "scandal". The only way we'll get to the truth is if these discussions continue and keep the truth in the light.

Please do not use the ignore feature. Please keep fighting the good fight (and detractors of the truth, please continue showing your inanity).

 

[Zenophile]

TY JW

The fact that this University's governing Board (the BOT) - the folks with ultimate responsibility and duty of governance - at no time, pulled the "interested and relevant" parties (at least all the parties who were employees of the University) together into a room and so much as asked:

"OK, WTF is going on?"

Says all one can say about the utter disengaged cluster-f$ck that has "governed" this University for a long, long time.

That simple, basic, fundamental act - an act that would have been undertaken by even a low-functioning Board - would have, despite all of the other outside influences that were fanning the flames, mitigated the fallout of the last six years by a factor of 99% (fallout that will likely continue to impact the University for a generation or more).


It is truly a stunning level of incompetence / corruption / self-interest / fiduciary failure / and confliction. .
Even more stunning is the fact that the Board is at least as disengaged and "cluster-f$cked" today, as it was 6 years ago.

Do you remember their argument for not meeting with Joe? There were too many media around for them to meet with him. That any member of the board would have been instantly recognized & swarmed by reporters.

And their solution to this conundrum was to send a little unknown up-&-comer by the name of Fran Ganter to Joe's house (where the media had been camped out since the weekend).

 

[didier]

So how come the County DA didn't seem to understand this? Was he in the .001%?

Btw this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm curious what Coveys thoughts are on the 1998 investigation.

 

[bjf1991]

Do you remember their argument for not meeting with Joe? There were too many media around for them to meet with him. That any member of the board would have been instantly recognized & swarmed by reporters.

And their solution to this conundrum was to send a little unknown up-&-comer by the name of Fran Ganter to Joe's house (where the media had been camped out since the weekend).

Of course....they shoulda' / coulda' / woulda' (if they were not the most incompetent / corrupt / self-interested / conflicted / fiduciary failures in the history of governance):
....... met with JVP, AND TCur, AND GSch, AND GSpan, AND THarm, AND MMc, AND whomever else.......
........LONG BEFORE November 9th 2011.

 

[coveydidnt]

So how come the County DA didn't seem to understand this? Was he in the .001%?

Btw this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm curious what Coveys thoughts are on the 1998 investigation.

Hmm. Are you saying that Jerry was warned prior to the 1998 investigation? Why don't you share what you know?

 

[michnittlion]

Do you remember their argument for not meeting with Joe? There were too many media around for them to meet with him. That any member of the board would have been instantly recognized & swarmed by reporters.

And their solution to this conundrum was to send a little unknown up-&-comer by the name of Fran Ganter to Joe's house (where the media had been camped out since the weekend).

What's your point? 99% of Penn State football fans (much less the national media, most of them non-sports fans) couldn't pick Fran Ganter out of a police lineup.

 

[didier]

Hmm. Are you saying that Jerry was warned prior to the 1998 investigation? Why don't you share what you know?

You think Gricar hadn't heard about Jerry before? ADA since 1981 I think? DA since 1985. A suggestion police were involved around 1984? I don't think this came out of the blue for him. He was no fool.

Do you know something?

 

[Zenophile]

What's your point? 99% of Penn State football fans (much less the national media, most of them non-sports fans) couldn't pick Fran Ganter out of a police lineup.

How many trustees could you recognize by name prior to December 2011?

 

[coveydidnt]

You think Gricar hadn't heard about Jerry before? ADA since 1981 I think? DA since 1985. A suggestion police were involved around 1984? I don't think this came out of the blue for him. He was no fool.

OK Jockstrap J!! I don't post on 80's criminal law boards. I'm focused on this millennium, Chief.

 

[coveydidnt]

How many trustees could you recognize by name prior to December 2011?

Why don't you dial the rage down a notch? Joe knew for sure this was going to blow up. He'd seen the newspaper. He testified himself. He went so far as to sell his family home to his wife, so concerned was he about personal liability. (July 2011). He had months and months to talk to the BoT. He didn't want to.

 

[Zenophile]

Why don't you dial the rage down a notch? Joe knew for sure this was going to blow up. He'd seen the newspaper. He testified himself. He went so far as to sell his family home to his wife, so concerned was he about personal liability. (July 2011). He had months and months to talk to the BoT. He didn't want to.

Joe had no business contacting the board of trustees until they assumed Spanier's role in November of 2011.

 

[didier]

OK Jockstrap J!! I don't post on 80's criminal law boards. I'm focused on this millennium, Chief.

I don't understand this response. I'm not JJ.

I should add I'm not trying to be confrontational or facetious. I'm curious what your thoughts are about why that investigation went the way it did.

 

[SmithtonLion]

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.

Correct. I don't need a judge, I don't need a jury. Once you say that you're showering naked and alone with a boy AND lift him up by the waist to "get the soap out of his hair", you are a pedophile.

Every time. There is no "opinion". This is fact.

Law - don't need. Definition of sexual - don't need. If you do that, you are a pedophile.

 

[SmithtonLion]

Btw this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm curious what Coveys thoughts are on the 1998 investigation.

I think they knew he was a pedophile, but believed they could not prove it in a court of law.

That's why I think my course of action was the best - cops/DA had a moral obligation in 1998 to inform C/S/S and Paterno that they had a suspected pedophile on their hands, and to inform them immediately upon any suspect activity by JS. Had they done that, Sandusky would have been stopped in 2001.

 

[didier]

I think they knew he was a pedophile, but believed they could not prove it in a court of law.

That's why I think my course of action was the best - cops/DA had a moral obligation in 1998 to inform C/S/S and Paterno that they had a suspected pedophile on their hands, and to inform them immediately upon any suspect activity by JS. Had they done that, Sandusky would have been stopped in 2001.

I can understand that but Gricar knew Jerry was around boys all the time...and he admitted he showered with other boys. To me you find those kids and interview them...and personnel at TSM. Or you convene a grand jury and await further evidence. He didn't do that...he just dropped it, without interviewing anybody involved. Incredible.

 

[francofan]

zz

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.

You are welcome to your own opinion. I believe you are exaggerating the % of the population that would agree with your percentage. I don't believe that intent has been demonstrated.

It is not clear to me that he was warned not to shower with minors. Sandusky has said that he was told in 1998 only not to shower with v6 any more and after the incident in 1998 he never did. Sandusky was not indicated in 1998, the Centre County DA investigated and Sandusky was cleared and not charged with any offenses. After the v2 incident in 2001, Sandusky was told not to bring Second Mile kids on campus and after the incident he never did.

 

[bdgan]

zz


You are welcome to your own opinion. I believe you are exaggerating the % of the population that would agree with your percentage. I don't believe that intent has been demonstrated.

It is not clear to me that he was warned not to shower with minors. Sandusky has said that he was told in 1998 only not to shower with v6 any more and after the incident in 1998 he never did. Sandusky was not indicated in 1998, the Centre County DA investigated and Sandusky was cleared and not charged with any offenses. After the v2 incident in 2001, Sandusky was told not to bring Second Mile kids on campus and after the incident he never did.

It was routine for adults to shower with kids in the locker room when I was a kid so I give him a break on that part. My first problem is that TSM allowed him to be 1 on 1 with troubled youth. My second problem is that he continued to do it after 1998. That incident should have scared him to death.

 

[francofan]

It was routine for adults to shower with kids in the locker room when I was a kid so I give him a break on that part. My first problem is that TSM allowed him to be 1 on 1 with troubled youth. My second problem is that he continued to do it after 1998. That incident should have scared him to death.

TSM protocols were clearly lacking. There is no way TSM should have permitted 1 on 1 unsupervised interactions between troubled youth and the adults who looked after them. This is to protect the troubled youths as well as the adults who supervise them.

I am not as bothered by the 2001 incident as you seem to be. I believe it was a non-incident. Mike McQueary did not witness sexual activity and everybody that Mike mentioned it to treated it as something that didn't need to be reported to CYS/law enforcement at the time in 2001. Furthermore, the only person who has made a credible claim of being v2 (AM) stated that it was just horsing around.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You're in denial. Palm to the glass to Jerry, big tear too!!!

 

[francofan]

I don't think your command of just exactly what has happened is as clear as you think it is.

If Sandusky is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I believe some of the things that people have come to believe will be shown to be wrong.

 

[michnittlion]

I don't think your command of just exactly what has happened is as clear as you think it is.

If Sandusky is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I believe some of the things that people have come to believe will be shown to be wrong.

The thing is ....

Even if Sandusky were completely innocent of everything,

Spanier & Curley STILL had a legal obligation in 2001 to report to law enforcement. They still would be guilty of what they were found guilty (or pled) to.

 

[francofan]

Please remind me of just what Spanier and Curley would have been found guilty of.

IMO Spanier's conviction will be overturned on appeal and the charges against Curley should have never been filed in the first place.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I don't think your command of just exactly what has happened is as clear as you think it is.

If Sandusky is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I believe some of the things that people have come to believe will be shown to be wrong.

Says the guy who visited Jerry in prison.