Brohamer of the Gods said:And for the Formula 409 used to clean the shower after Jerry.
Outstanding.
Brohamer of the Gods said:And for the Formula 409 used to clean the shower after Jerry.
This is a ridiculous statement. Penn St has a massive alumni base, including a huge number of people who do NOT support JoePa's legacy and whose experience at the school was not defined by football.soxfan121 said:Disgusting. I'd have burned my degree and stopped listing it on my resume out shame.
Do you still cringe?sfip said:As much as I respect SuePa and as much as I agree that there's a lot more truth that needs to be revealed (unlike the tl;dr but have learned summarized parts about Freeh report, which looks more and more to be predetermined B.S. that the BoT who hired him wanted it to say), the part about exonerating those 3 made me cringe.
You refer to blinders. Said the mule pulling the cart full of BS.BigSoxFan said:I went to the BC/Penn State bowl game and asked some PSU fans what they thought of the whole situation. Of my small sample size of about 10, about 8 said that it was completely unfair to Paterno and that he did all he could. I didn't push back very hard but it was helpful to get a sense of the mentality of this fan base who were quite pleasant otherwise. The blinders will never be removed for the majority of them.
So if your child (creating a hypothetical here), was arrested for intentially driving a car into a building and injuring/killing people AND your wife was wrongfully arrested for being a hooker, are you telling me you should not address the issue of your wife being wrongfully arrested for hooking?soxfan121 said:If Penn Staters had 1/100,000th the concern for Sandusky's living, breathing victims that they do for cold, dead JoePa....they'd be better human beings. But since it seems that the Penn State community is more interested in clearing the name of a dead man and celebrating his questionable legacy than they do about the victims of sexual abuse, the Penn State community can hit the showers AFAIC.
Disgusting. I'd have burned my degree and stopped listing it on my resume out shame. These assholes are putting "409" on the hockey team's helmets. What a bunch of clueless, self-absorbed degenerates.
Geo44 said:So if your child (creating a hypothetical here), was arrested for intentially driving a car into a building and injuring/killing people AND your wife was wrongfully arrested for being a hooker, are you telling me you should not address the issue of your wife being wrongfully arrested for hooking?
Wow, talk about being one dimensional.
Average Reds said:
Instead of hurling invective at others, why don't you come out and say what it is that you want to say?
Geo44 said:So if your child (creating a hypothetical here), was arrested for intentially driving a car into a building and injuring/killing people AND your wife was wrongfully arrested for being a hooker, are you telling me you should not address the issue of your wife being wrongfully arrested for hooking?
Wow, talk about being one dimensional.
The idea that Sandusky as a pedophile, the decisions of Paterno et. al, and the sanctions are a single issue that must be discussed collectively is lazy and counterproductive. The world is complex, and those offering simple answers to overarching problems strikes a particular, off-pitch chord with me.BigSoxFan said:The bottom line is that nobody can change what happened but there are plenty of people who can impact what will happen in the future. That's the kind of response most impartial observers wanted to hear, not the "poor Joe Paterno" sob fest. Football sanctions were literally the least important part of this story.
Fred in Lynn said:This will be disjointed...
The idea that Sandusky as a pedophile, the decisions of Paterno et. al, and the sanctions are a single issue that must be discussed collectively is lazy and counterproductive. The world is complex, and those offering simple answers to overarching problems strikes a particular, off-pitch chord with me.
Fred in Lynn said:This will be disjointed...
The idea that Sandusky as a pedophile, the decisions of Paterno et. al, and the sanctions are a single issue that must be discussed collectively is lazy and counterproductive. The world is complex, and those offering simple answers to overarching problems strikes a particular, off-pitch chord with me.
Paterno is a red herring if the goal is to understand why this occurred. He's just one of countless people who have been fooled, confused, or acted negligently in response to the actions of a groomer-style pedophile. Sandusky wasn't able to get away with molesting and raping kids because he was bad at creating an alternate perception of himself. He was skilled at fooling adults, adults who didn't think such a thing could happen, and had access to countless troubled children from which he could screen out the most vulnerable. The culture problem wasn't unique to Penn State (this is the typical moral shortcut in this conversation). It was unique to any place which isn't designed to have children present that has children present, and unbeknownst to those present, has a pedophile present. This is a common theme, be it Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, or a charity for troubled youth (it was a Second Mile problem that became a Penn State problem when children started coming onto their campus). Interestingly - and this has been the main practical takeaway for me as a parent - imprisoned groomer pedophiles that were interviewed by a researcher named Carla van Dam universally stated that the first and primary trait that eliminated a child from future consideration as a target was an inquisitive parent or guardian. Second Mile was for children with dysfunctional or non-existent parental situations, which explains it more and makes it more insidious and disturbing at the same time.
Sanctions: Playing football is so utterly less important than concern over raped children that it defies description. Alas, it's also utterly beside the point. Just stop doing it. The NCAA didn't acquiesce in the sanctions because they promised a dying friend. They backed off nearly in total because they were in foreign territory from the start. Despite a common belief, those who feel this way don't like to see children raped. Everything for a purpose. The NCAA to oversee competition of collegiate athletics, the legal system to enforce criminal acts. And please no more of the IC bullshit. Administrative controls like ICs are supplemental enforcement tools; no efficiently run enforcement body would ever use administrative controls alone to administer penalties, and I should know because I work for one and do this as part of my job. You need substantive evidence of violations of rules. The admin control violations become icing on the cake. Nobody eats icing alone. The NCAA never had a case, and they let the horror of the rape and molestation cloud their judgment. (I'll more or less skip the logic in most any sanctions the NCAA has issued over the years, as the primary recipients of their justice have been innocent parties.)
As a footnote on Paterno, I could really care less primarily because I don't know him. Taking away or restoring wins are both equal folly (I tried this with my kids when they got into trouble, I forming them that the beach trip we took in July didn't really happen). Paterno aside, I do think there's quite a bit of ambiguity in disseminating information that molestation may have occurred in any particular and the path of simply reporting it to be on the safe side is only safe if your suspicions are right. What if you were mistaken? You can't un-ring that bell, and someone's life is irreparably harmed in the process. If ever there were an issue that requires, pardoning the oxymoron, rapid deliberation and that ever-popular "awareness" as first-line tools, this is it.
What's the serious adult conversation I'm unable to have? If you have a problem with what I write, then I'm okay with that. I'm not sure why you're making it personal.Average Reds said:This is really the portion of the post that instigated my reply, because the reality is that most of us here are big boys and girls and can handle nuance. To place yourself majestically above the fray as if you are the only one capable of such insight would merely be insulting if you had not already provided evidence of your inability to have a serious adult conversation in this very thread.
Or one of many who acted negligently in response to the canny pedophile. That's what I wrote - acted negligently. I would have written that he acted criminally, but he wasn't charged with a crime.There are many reasons that Paterno acted as he did. (Or did not act, as the case may be.) And there's no question that history's initial (and very harsh) judgment of Paterno will be modified. But to pretend that Paterno was merely one of many who were duped by the canny pedophile is simply laughable.
They all knew about the 1998 investigation in 2001. Paterno testified of knowing this. Everyone knew. Gricar declined to file charges citing lack of evidence that a crime had been committed. It's in the AG fact-finding report. I don't think your view is the only possibility. The 2001 report by McQueary could have served to confuse matters. Rather than no previous information, they knew the police investigated the 1998 report (the one where he made the "I wish I were dead" statement) and had cleared Sandusky. The child himself in 1998 stated to police that nothing inappropriate happened. Sandusky was a known goof-ball, always screwing around. At the end of the day, such a scenario would be a moral dilemma that has a person either potentially ruining an adult's life or allowing a child to continue to be molested. It's an unpalatable situation, but we all know which one a person has to choose. They'll have to live with their choices.That doesn't mean that there isn't more than a small grain of truth to the possibility [that he was duped, in part]. We know that Sandusky was an exceptionally cagey operator who understood how to manipulate not only his prey, but those around him who enabled his behavior. But that should have come to a screaming halt after the 1998 investigation, which was known to the three amigos (Schultz, Curley and Spanier) and almost certainly to Paterno himself.
We know this because the case was investigated not by the State College police but by the PSU police. And Paterno was legendary for having the PSU police department wired - he was informed about anything that concerned his team immediately and all information flowed through him.
Do I have the hard documentation to prove this? No. But you really have to suspend disbelief to think that Paterno was unaware of the 1998 investigation. And if Paterno has knowledge of the 1998 investigation, his actions in 2001 - doing the bare minimum required by law and then washing his hands of it - are simply indefensible.
The legal system is the proper forum to settle criminal matters, so let it fly.I suspect we will learn if he did or did not have this knowledge when Spanier, Curley and Schultz go to trial. Because as I mentioned, those three can't claim ignorance - the PSU police department reported in through Gary Schultz. This makes their failure to report the second incident to the proper authorities an unforgivable offense. But instead of reporting it, they set up a legalistic fallback plan to portray Sanudsky as a former employee over whom they had little control. This plan sat on the shelf for more than a decade and was rolled out when the scandal broke in 2011. It fooled no one and they are getting precisely what they deserve for their shameful inaction.
Administrative tools as a stand-alone enforcement mechanism make for a weak case. The NCAA didn't back off entirely from one of the harshest sets of sanctions ever because they had a preponderance of evidence....I disagree...with your assertion that the NCAA had no jurisdiction to do anything and that the "IC" clause is merely an administrative tool and therefore "bullshit." I mean, that's your assertion. Nothing more, nothing less. And for someone who claims to hate analysis that is "lazy and counterproductive," this sure is lazy and counterproductive.
What you bolded I meant in terms of what a person might have to consider if they suspected someone of molesting a child, not what the people involved in this case may have encountered (note the "Paterno aside" beginning just before the text you bolded). The degree to which we would rush forward would depend a great deal on the circumstances of what we saw, how much we trusted the person, etc.I have two reactions to this.
The first is to point out that this rationalization only comes into play if you believe that 2001 was the first time that Paterno had ever heard of an allegation of molestation against Sandusky. You clearly believe this. (Or that we do not have enough evidence to conclude otherwise.) I do not, for the reasons I've already outlined.
But the bigger issue is that the laws on the books in 2001 don't allow for this sort of equivocation. Administrators like Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno aren't allowed to worry about what will happen to Sandusky. Their job is to follow the law and file a report. By not doing so, they enabled a predator to continue to roam free for the better part of a decade. So forgive me if I find your concerns about how "you can't un-ring that bell" to be hollow.
Fred in Lynn said:Administrative tools as a stand-alone enforcement mechanism make for a weak case. The NCAA didn't back off entirely from one of the harshest sets of sanctions ever because they had a preponderance of evidence.
I'm trying to say that administrative tools as a stand-alone enforcement mechanism make for a weak case. Do you disagree?WayBackVazquez said:
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, but it sounds like you're suggesting that because the NCAA lifted the sanctions as part of the settlement it means they couldn't prove they had the right to impose them. First, the NCAA didn't have to prove that; the burden was on the state. But more importantly, you seem to be under the impression that a settlement implies an admission of wrongdoing. I'm pretty certain the settlement included no such admission. Defendants settle cases all the time after conducting a thorough cost-benefit analysis, and those costs include not only just a pure financial cost of litigation (which in this case would be very significant), but also the softer costs of putting witnesses through the hassle of depositions, trial prep, etc, as well as the media distraction and public relations hassles. I have been instructed to settle numerous cases where we have felt that we had a better than 50% chance of winning. That's litigation.
That's barely even English. A weak "what" case? Do you even know what the claims at issue were?Fred in Lynn said:I'm trying to say that administrative tools as a stand-alone enforcement mechanism make for a weak case. Do you disagree?
What evidence do you find is used to establish that abuse has occurred? Do you just go into court and say "these are bad people who have abused children?"LeftyTG said:for what it is worth, I'm an attorney who handles administrative cases involving child abuse and neglect. I've read the exchange about "administrative tools" about ten times and I have no idea what you are saying.
Fred in Lynn said:Why do you think the NCAA backed off and settled the Corman case? Do you think the judge's determination that the case would not only go forward to determine the fate of the $60M, but also the legality of the sanctions had anything to do with it? Why would the NCAA back off its historic sanctions? Because a de facto defense of victims of child abuse was tired and old? Because they were concerned about legal fees and court costs that might go over 50%?
WayBackVazquez said:
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, but it sounds like you're suggesting that because the NCAA lifted the sanctions as part of the settlement it means they couldn't prove they had the right to impose them. First, the NCAA didn't have to prove that; the burden was on the state. But more importantly, you seem to be under the impression that a settlement implies an admission of wrongdoing. I'm pretty certain the settlement included no such admission. Defendants settle cases all the time after conducting a thorough cost-benefit analysis, and those costs include not only just a pure financial cost of litigation (which in this case would be very significant), but also the softer costs of putting witnesses through the hassle of depositions, trial prep, etc, as well as the media distraction and public relations hassles. I have been instructed to settle numerous cases where we have felt that we had a better than 50% chance of winning. That's litigation.
Of course not. I use exactly the evidence one would expect - interviews, physical evidence, etc.Fred in Lynn said:What evidence do you find is used to establish that abuse has occurred? Do you just go into court and say "these are bad people who have abused children?"
Fred in Lynn said:Why don't you just use your professional or personal experience to answer these questions, discount them on a technical basis, etc.? Nothing is stopping you from qualifying your responses with the fact that the case has been settled.
sfip said:Barron works for the Board of Trustees. The BoT hired Freeh to write the report, and they're the same people who fired Paterno. I have serious doubts they'll let him report an honest and genuine review, as much as I'd love to believe he will, but I'll wait and hear what he says.
Here's a clip of an interview with Bob Costas, who did a 180 after he reviewed the report. I don't know when this interview aired, but it was posted to YouTube in March 2013. I wish more people would listen to it and keep an open mind.
<Costas clip>
Penn State President: Freeh Acted Like Prosecutor
.
.
.
"I have to say, I'm not a fan of the report," Barron said during a half-hour interview in his office in Old Main, the school's administrative headquarters. "There's no doubt in my mind, Freeh steered everything as if he were a prosecutor trying to convince a court to take the case."
BigSoxFan said:And that was a much better response than Kevin Horne's, who couldn't resist the urge to get down on Keith Olbermann's level, which distracted me from some of the more valid points that he was making. The bottom line is that nobody can change what happened but there are plenty of people who can impact what will happen in the future. That's the kind of response most impartial observers wanted to hear, not the "poor Joe Paterno" sob fest. Football sanctions were literally the least important part of this story.
A judge has ruled that Louis Freeh's law firm must turn confidential documents to the estate of former Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno.
Attorneys for the Paterno estate have been fighting tooth-and-nail for months to subpoena the Pepper Hamilton law firm for an undisclosed number of documents gathered during Freeh's investigation into the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
Pepper Hamilton (which acquired Freeh’s law firm through a merger in 2012) fought just as hard to keep those documents out of Centre County court, appealing several of Judge John Leete's decisions that overturned the firm's objections. But Leete refused to put the case on hold for those appeals, and now he's issued an order directing Pepper Hamiltion to turn over the documents within the next 30 days.
Leete's order is the latest twist in the legal fight between the Paterno estate and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
The plaintiffs in the suit -- which includes the Paterno estate, former Penn State assistant football coaches Jay Paterno and William Kenney and former university trustee Al Clemens -- first filed their suit against the NCAA in May 2013. They argue that the NCAA overstepped its authority in the aftermath of the Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, ultimately decreasing the value of the Paterno estate and making it more difficult for Jay Paterno and Kenney to find work.
Pepper Hamilton is entangled in the case because it acquired the law firm of Freeh, Sporkin and Sullivan in 2012. Freeh and his team of investigators were hired by Penn State in 2011 to determine what actions or inactions allowed the Sandusky scandal to unfold. The Freeh Report was released in 2012, and ultimately formed the basis for the NCAA's punitive sanctions against Penn State.
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/05/court_filing_says_joe_paterno.htmlA new bombshell dropped in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal Thursday.
It came in the form of a single line in a court order on a related insurance coverage case involving Penn State, and its full ramifications can't immediately be gauged.
But that line was eye-popping in itself.
The line in question states that one of Penn State's insurers has claimed "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky."
The order also cites separate references in 1987 and 1988 in which unnamed assistant coaches witnessed inappropriate contact between Sandusky and unidentified children, and a 1988 case that was supposedly referred to Penn State's athletic director at the time.
All, the opinion states, are described in victims' depositions taken as part of the still-pending insurance case, but that, according a PennLive review of the case file, are apparently under seal.
Oh… It gets worse…. Much worse..GJGE, JoePa supporters.
As many as six assistant coaches at Penn State witnessed "inappropriate behavior" between Jerry Sandusky and boys, stretching as far back as the 1970s, NBC News has learned.
It is unclear if any of the men reported what they saw to higher-ups at Penn State before the sex-abuse scandal erupted in 2011.
The information, which comes from court documents and multiple sources with direct knowledge of legal proceedings, raises new questions about how long the abuse went on, why no one stopped it and whether there could be even more victims than previously known.
Sandusky — who worked in the football program at Penn State under legendary head coach Joe Paterno for three decades — is serving 30 to 60 years in prison after being convicted of molesting 10 boys he met through a charity starting in 1994.
But sources told NBC News that one former Penn State assistant coach witnessed an incident in the late 1970s. Three other coaches — who have gone on to work in the NFL and at Division I colleges — allegedly saw inappropriate conduct between Sandusky and boys in the early and mid-1990s.
"You won't believe what I just saw," one of those three coaches blurted out after bursting into a room filled with Penn State football staff, according to sources who spoke to a person who was in that room.
A lawyer for one of the three '90s coaches denied his client had seen anything. A second coach declined to comment. A third could not be reached, and the name of the fourth was not disclosed to NBC News.
Bolstering the sources' account, Sandusky's adopted son, Matt, who says he also was molested, told NBC News that investigators informed him a football program employee witnessed what he believed to be a sex act between Matt and Sandusky in a locker room in the early 1990s.
In addition to the four assistants detailed by sources, court papers made public this week point to two more coaches who allegedly witnessed what was described as "inappropriate" or "sexual" contact between Sandusky and children in 1987 and 1988.
Those same documents also revealed that a child allegedly told Joe Paterno he was molested by Sandusky in 1976 — 25 years earlier than Paterno acknowledged hearing about Sandusky in a shower with a child.
Those papers are tied to a legal dispute between Penn State and an insurance company over who should pay the university's share of $60 million in settlements to 26 victims, and the court was not required to verify the allegations.
Asked about the four coaches detailed by NBC's sources, Penn State released a written statement.
"The university is facing and has faced a number of litigation matters and claims related to the Sandusky events. Allegations of various kinds have been made, and will likely continue to be made," it said.
"The university does not speculate publicly or hypothesize about individual allegations. These are sensitive matters, and we want to be respectful of the rights of all individuals involved. It would be inappropriate to do otherwise."
Sandusky, 72, recently petitioned for a new trial.