Delreek wrote:

Ask Sandusky's victims how they feel about his boundry issues.  Your use of that word is an insult to all of them. The correct word is rape.

PiratesandPitt wrote:

BuffaloLion wrote:

PiratesandPitt wrote:

Man oh man. 

All I hear constantly from PSU people is that these sanctions are "unjust." The only people I really hear that from are PSU people.

All of this...giving a coach a raise to be the third highest paid coach in the big ten when football was supposed to be de-emphasized, the denial that PSU should have sanctions from the entire fan base, the crazy actions of Franco Harris, the immortalizing of a football team this year because they went through so much "hardship" (nevermind the actual victims...the players are the REAL victims) at least two of the victims have publically come out and said through their attorneys that they disagree with the NCAA's sanctions, the out of touch honoring of a LB who simply blew out his knee...didn't die, was not crippled, but had an injury countless other NCAA players have had, so now you even want to dictate how we thank our players??? and now the lawsuit by Corbett... good, you're finally seeing what an absolute piece of scum he really is. We've been telling you that for months. it all makes look PSU look out of touch with reality, and quite frankly, makes them look horrific. What's "horrific" is your piece of crap, slimy Governor and corupt Attorney General's Office using and protecting The Second Mile as a cash cow for the Republican Party all these years until he blew a gasket over a bitter political battle with Graham Spanier over funding for higher education in the State of Pennsylvania (which, by the way, would have negatively affected Pitt).

My god...I will be honest, I was harsh on OSU, USC, Miami, etc...any other team that violated the rules....I would be harsh on Pitt, and dissapointed, but this is so much another level what PSU did. The fact that the fan base tries to deflect to what happened at UNC is laughable....child rape vs academic violations. That comparison, that I see quite a bit, in and of itself shows the mass delusion that PSU folks have.

For god's sake, just accept the sanctions. This is a football matter... Why was it a football matter in 2001? Sandusky didn't work at Penn State. covering up this crime was in fact done to make sure harm did not come on the program. If they were covering up the crime, why were Schultz and Spanier so stupid that they had Curley report it to the CEO of an outside organization that was required by State Law to Report it to Child Youth Services?
If you don't like the sanctions. LEAVE THE NCAA! It is a voluntary organization. Get out...you will be doing everyone a favor. Especially Pitt.

Nice responses, because all they do is further strengthen my point that PSU is out of touch.

LMAO!!!!!!!! 
 

fuzzynut wrote:
Incorrect

Their Head Football Coach also served as the local Police Chief for decades hiding what he knew was going on in the facilities to protect the football program, their recruiting and their ability to get money from donors.

He chose football over children.

---------------------------------------------
--- msj56 wrote:

It's not that PSU doesn't deserve punishment, but the NCAA is not the organization that should be handing it out.

---------------------------------------------

indynittany wrote: 1) What if the only thing these supposed co-conspirators are guilty of is trying to send Sandusky a message that he needed to get help for his boundary issues? This is the reason they put a manditory reporter law on the books. They got sick of listening to intelligent people (like Spanier and Curley) make excuses about what they thought happened and why they didnt call the police. I dont care to hear excuses that include breaking the law. It is not, nor never was the PSU administration's responsibility to determine WHAT the issue may have been. It was their responsibility to report it to the police and let them handle it. They didnt do that. They tried to "send a message" to Jerry asking him not to do those things on the PSU campus. What they got in response was a big FU! And even after that, they didnt do anything.

2) And shouldn't they have had their day in court before the Freeh Report was finalized and before the NCAA took any action? I didnt commission the Freeh report. Neither did anyone outside of Penn State. Once they did, the NCAA ran with the findings. The findings that the retarded BOTs accepted as fact before they even read them. 
Once again, you have an administration problem. Not an NCAA problem and not a legal problem. Most of the same retards are still sitting on that Board. So I dont understand what Corbett is all bent out of shape for. He hasnt even got the guts to ****-can those worthless POS. Why should a judge or the public listen to him?

RJSimmons wrote: 

....Delay the trial until the co-conspirators have their day in court.....

unizan wrote:

Itvwas never up to PSU admin to investigate and see if Jerry was a sex preditor. Their job was to report it to the real police and let them look into it. Very simple. If they do that PSU is not in the place they are now even if the police can not charge Jerry.

indynittany wrote:

unizan wrote:

Itvwas never up to PSU admin to investigate and see if Jerry was a sex preditor. Their job was to report it to the real police and let them look into it. Very simple. If they do that PSU is not in the place they are now even if the police can not charge Jerry.

You're partly right, but you also miss the larger picture here.

I've argued this very point numerous times on this board and repeatedly said that Spanier did not have the luxury to allow anything other than the protection of PSU to cloud his judgment.  However, whatever was reported to them had to have been in some gray area. 

Curley obviously felt that if Sandusky admitted his behavior was inappropriate (not illegal) and understood why that he could change.  Schultz offered his support while recognizing the difficult nature of confronting Sandusky about such an uncomfortable topic.  Spanier agreed and said that approach was "more humane and reasonable". 

The bottom line is these men were trying to help Sandusky.  They were concerned by his behavior, but the plan was never to conceal a crime because they didn't believe one had occurred.

What you, and so many others, are missing is the deliberate and highly suspect nature of the BOT's handling of all this.  Corbett is dirty to the core.  PSU brought in Lanny Davis and Louis Freeh, two of Washington's most notorious dirty trick experts.  For example, these people sacrificed Joe Paterno's legacy on purpose to cover their tracks.  Joe could have been so easily defended and they went in the complete opposite direction.  This isn't tin foil hat stuff.  It's real.  You just have to look at this from a different perspective and question the narrative that's been sold here.  There's still a huge story that remains untold.

indynittany wrote:

Delreek wrote:

Ask Sandusky's victims how they feel about his boundry issues.  Your use of that word is an insult to all of them. The correct word is rape.

No it's not.  Every one of Sandusky's victims was at one point "groomed".  The process is as methodical as it is disgusting.  It deliberately creates ambiguity and sends mixed messages.  Nothing about it is illegal.  That's what makes it so difficult to discern.  Coupled with Sandusky's public persona of this wonderful man who adopted six children and fostered dozens more while founding the largest charity in central PA to help disadvantaged youth, people didn't know what to think.  As Joe said, "Sandusky fooled a lot of people."

PiratesandPitt wrote:

Man oh man. 

All I hear constantly from PSU people is that these sanctions are "unjust." The only people I really hear that from are PSU people.

All of this...giving a coach a raise to be the third highest paid coach in the big ten when football was supposed to be de-emphasized, the denial that PSU should have sanctions from the entire fan base, the crazy actions of Franco Harris, the immortalizing of a football team this year because they went through so much "hardship" (nevermind the actual victims...the players are the REAL victims), the out of touch honoring of a LB who simply blew out his knee...didn't die, was not crippled, but had an injury countless other NCAA players have had, and now the lawsuit by Corbett...it all makes look PSU look out of touch with reality, and quite frankly, makes them look horrific.

My god...I will be honest, I was harsh on OSU, USC, Miami, etc...any other team that violated the rules....I would be harsh on Pitt, and dissapointed, but this is so much another level what PSU did. The fact that the fan base tries to deflect to what happened at UNC is laughable....child rape vs academic violations. That comparison, that I see quite a bit, in and of itself shows the mass delusion that PSU folks have.

For god's sake, just accept the sanctions. This is a football matter...covering up this crime was in fact done to make sure harm did not come on the program.

If you don't like the sanctions. LEAVE THE NCAA! It is a voluntary organization. Get out...you will be doing everyone a favor.

indynittany wrote:

unizan wrote:

Itvwas never up to PSU admin to investigate and see if Jerry was a sex preditor. Their job was to report it to the real police and let them look into it. Very simple. If they do that PSU is not in the place they are now even if the police can not charge Jerry.

You're partly right, but you also miss the larger picture here.

I've argued this very point numerous times on this board and repeatedly said that Spanier did not have the luxury to allow anything other than the protection of PSU to cloud his judgment.  However, whatever was reported to them had to have been in some gray area. 

Curley obviously felt that if Sandusky admitted his behavior was inappropriate (not illegal) and understood why that he could change.  Schultz offered his support while recognizing the difficult nature of confronting Sandusky about such an uncomfortable topic.  Spanier agreed and said that approach was "more humane and reasonable". 

The bottom line is these men were trying to help Sandusky.  And this is where they sewed their own poison and it ended up destroying them. When something is going on between a grown man and a child, YOU DONT CHOOSE TO HELP THE GROWN MAN!!They were concerned by his behavior, but the plan was never to conceal a crime because they didn't believe one had occurred.

What you, and so many others, are missing is the deliberate and highly suspect nature of the BOT's handling of all this.  Corbett is dirty to the core.  PSU brought in Lanny Davis and Louis Freeh, two of Washington's most notorious dirty trick experts.  For example, these people sacrificed Joe Paterno's legacy on purpose to cover their tracks.  Joe could have been so easily defended and they went in the complete opposite direction.  This isn't tin foil hat stuff.  It's real.  You just have to look at this from a different perspective and question the narrative that's been sold here.  There's still a huge story that remains untold.
Nobody is missing that but its a you problem. And if Joe or the rest of the gang had called the police, it would have removed all responsibility from their shoulders. Any one of them could have done the right thing, at any time in the 14 years in question. Now you want to get to the bottom of how these men were scapegoats? It doesnt wash, bro. You should really stop trying to convince us. Nothing short of a trial with all of the evidence presented will convince us. 
If that happens and the Gang of Conspirators are exonerated, along with charges being filed against Corbett and/or members of the BOT, feel free to come back and rub our noses in it.

msj56 wrote: It's not that PSU doesn't deserve punishment, but the NCAA is not the organization that should be handing it out.

fuzzynut wrote:
Incorrect

Their Head Football Coach also served as the local Police Chief for decades hiding what he knew was going on in the facilities to protect the football program, their recruiting and their ability to get money from donors.

He chose football over children.

---------------------------------------------
--- msj56 wrote:

It's not that PSU doesn't deserve punishment, but the NCAA is not the organization that should be handing it out.

---------------------------------------------

unizan wrote:

Itvwas never up to PSU admin to investigate and see if Jerry was a sex preditor. Their job was to report it to the real police and let them look into it. Very simple. If they do that PSU is not in the place they are now even if the police can not charge Jerry.

unizan wrote:
As usual your spin fails. The protection of PSU is why they are in trouble and gray areas do not matter it was not up to them to decide if Jerry did anything illegal.

unizan wrote:
As usual your spin fails. The protection of PSU is why they are in trouble and gray areas do not matter it was not up to them to decide if Jerry did anything illegal.

indynittany wrote: To protect PSU and cover their butts they would have thrown Sandusky under the bus.  That was their first inclination after speaking with Paterno.  That attitude changed after McQueary met with Curley and Schultz. 

According to Spanier's letter to the BOT, at the meeting held between Curley, Schultz and Spanier, Curley expressed concern that Sandusky would disagree with their directive for him to stop bringing Second Mile kids around.  You need to let that sink in.  If they suspected that Sandusky had committed a crime, a) why would Curley even care whether Sandusky disagreed with their directive?; b) why would that even be on the table?; c) wouldn't it be more likely that Curley would be livid?

Moreover, the amended plan made not contacting DPW contingent upon Sandusky admitting what he did.  If you are to accept the narrative put forth by the Freeh report, that would mean they had decided not to report Sandusky if he did admit to sexually abusing a boy on PSU property and contact DPW if Sandusky denied sexually abusing a boy on PSU property.  That makes absolutely zero sense.  Doesn't my interpretation make more sense?  If Sandusky admitted and understood that his behavior was inappropriate and had to change, then there was no reason to report to DPW.  However, if he denied same, that would be an indication of a more deeply rooted problem and they would have no choice but to report him.

It's easy to look back now (with the benefit of hindsight) and say they should have contacted DPW (that informing the Second Mile wasn't enough).  But if what was reported to them was not criminal and not sexual, as they claim, then taking a "more humane and reasonable" approach seemed like the right thing to do at the time.  Right or wrong, it was hardly to protect PSU or the football program.

unizan wrote:
As usual your spin fails. The protection of PSU is why they are in trouble and gray areas do not matter it was not up to them to decide if Jerry did anything illegal.

Every once in a while, it is necessary to review exactly what transpired, because certain folks tend to want to cloud the issues. I got so tired of typing and re-typing this, I actually saved it so when the time arises I can just copy and paste.

It's really this simple. Forget Freeh and his conclusions. Forget the apologists. Just follow the evidence:


2/10/11 - MM reports something disturbing to JVP. Won't argue about what was said exactly, but JVP testified before the GJ that it was something of a "sexual nature". He also testified that this is what he told Curley.


2/11/01 - Paterno informs Curley of meeting with MM, waited a day so as not to ruin everyone's weekend.


2/12/01 - Curley, Schultz and Spanier meet and formulate a plan - part one of the plan was to review the 1998 incident; then, Curley was to advise JVP that TMC was going to meet with JS on Friday (the 16th). If JS did not confess, they were going to inform DPW.

<interjection - at this point, they had not spoken to MM. Why would they think that a lack of confession would necessitate that they inform DPW if JVP had not told them that something sexual had taken place?>


Some time after this (Schultz' estimate is 7-10 days, so it is between 2/19 and 2/22/01, Curley and Schultz meet with McQueary.

2/25/01 Plan is to tell DPW, the chair of 2nd mile and tell JS not to bring any children to Lasch

<interjection - this was AFTER they met with MM - the plan had not changed, so whatever MM told JVP who told TMC was consistent with what MM told TMC/Schultz>

2/26/01 email from Schultz to Curley confirms plan from handwritten notes on the 25th

2/26/01 Curley has discussion with JVP about the plan <base on Curley's email after that meeting it is unreasonable to conclude that they discussed anything else>

2/27/01 Curley emails Schultz and says "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps; I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved."  Without quoting the rest, Curley wants to talk to Sandusky. Schultz says this is ok, actually expressing his admiration for Curley's willingness to do this and that it was the "humane" thing to do. Spanier agreed  and states that 'The only downside for us is if the message isn't "heard" and acted upon and and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it."

Some have argued that MM was unclear in what he told JVP. Whatever he told JVP which was then conveyed to Curley, it was clear enough that if JS didn't confess when confronted they were going to call DPW before they ever spoke to MM.

If Schultz and Curley were never told it was sexual by JVP, why would they plan on reporting the incident to DPW? Report what?

If Schultz and Curley were never told it was sexual by MM, why would they continue to plan on reporting the incident to DPW? Report what?

Schultz testified 10 years later at his preliminary hearing that he believed it had been reported to DPW.  If they did not hear that anything sexual had taken place, what did he believe was reported?

I took these notes straight from the preliminary hearing transcript and the evidence exhibits in the Freeh report, not from its conclusions.

Based on this reading of the evidence, it is clear the 5 of them knew something reportable had happened that night. It is also clear that at least 4 of them decided not to report it even though they knew they should and there would be a problem if not reporting ever came to light.  To argue otherwise is simply to ignore the plain facts.