Penn State Scandal Thread

knapplc said:
greggdoyelcbs Gregg Doyel

I have 2 students telling me they were told by PSU profs that Joe Pa statue will go down. Is that "news"? No. It's me, relating what I heard

greggdoyelcbs Gregg Doyel

Last update: PSU professors have told students it's a done deal: Paterno statue going down over Thanksgiving
Click to expand...
Yeah I heard the same. Schools trying to prevent against protest. I sure there will be some but I don't think it will be anything like what happened the night he was fired. As those kids watched the reports, read the Newspapers, and listened to the radio they has to be some realization how stupid they looked. Knapplc, I feel like there is more to the story than we are hearing. Family members in NJ are saying this far from over. Everyday you have more thing coming out about it, more people resigning. Just yesterday I heard that at the home of the the DA that they find the these three terms where searched on his home computer before he went missing.

How to wreck a hard drive?

How to fry a hard drive?

Water damage to a notebook computer.

 
Four month before the scandal broke Paterno sold his home to his wife. They both owned the house before the sale.

Lawrence A. Frolik, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said that he had “never heard” of a husband selling his share of a house for $1 to his spouse for tax or government assistance purposes.

Frolik said he didn't see any tax advantages. can’t see any tax advantages,

He also added “If someone told me that, my reaction would be, ‘Are they hoping to shield assets in case if there’s personal liability?’ ” He added, “It sounds like an attempt to avoid personal liability in having assets in his wife’s name.”

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/sports/ncaafootball/in-july-paterno-transferred-ownership-of-home-to-his-wife-for-1.html

 
That's exactly what it sounds like, and it's not fooling anyone. JoePa knew which way the wind was blowing LONG ago. Well before he did this with the house.

 
Looks like Fridays SI delivery is a keeper, I think my grandchild will appreciate this one 20 years from now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He said he talked to police about the incident..... but now CNN is reporting that a police report was never filed. Wow. These guys must really be living in caves out in State College.

Just listening to the reports out of PA these last few days and today's CNN Anderson Cooper report where they show how no one at PSU is talking about anything and telling media to turn off camera's, etc...... has me wondering about the parallels between the Mormon cult with Warren Jeffs and PSU-State College. A lot of parallels.... secrecy... denial....

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/16/us/pennsylvania-sandusky-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 
This caught my eye from SI.com today.

lol.png

There are so many contradictory claims in this whole thing...we've covered the terrific job Bob Costas did in his interview, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i have a theory about the Sandusky/Costa interview. Not a single legal expert in the world will say that it is a good idea for a defendant to go public and do an interview--there is simply no benefit to it whatsoever--so why would he do it--why would his attorney allow it?

Here is my theory--he is borrowing a page from the Michael Jackson defense playbook. Prior to this trial, I did not meet a SINGLE person who did not think MJ was guilty of molesting little boys--the evidence was overwhelming--how could he deny the sleepovers--but MJ goes on tv and says 'Yeah, I sleep with little boys, but that is all we did was sleep-I have a special relationship with them, etc, etc and that was the end of it. By saying that, he sort of difused the situation--it was poor judgment, but hardly criminal and he was aquitted because there was no real physical evidence--just the testimony of boys ( and their families likely had a financial agenda)

So Sandusky, who is probably throwing up a hail mary here, decides to do the same thing---he admits to showering, he will admit to horsing around in the pool and cracking their back and will admit to enjoying their company, but will end up saying the criminal allegations are all made up--there is no physical evidence---and they can even say the families are only doing this for the money and surely PSU has deep pockets. How does he dismiss the eyewitness account---he can say that were goofing around and McQ was unclear what he saw--the FACT that McQ did not try to stop it--actually helps Sandusky-he can say, hey, what full grown man in their right mind would not stop a kid from being raped---I was washing his back or something--

anyway, just a theory

 
Wish we could all slow down the conclusions and kinda stick to what we know. McQueary intimates in his leaked email that he talked to the police. It would have to have been someone in the campus police department that would record what he said and file it. The term "talked to" is rather vague and could mean anything from ranting at the police to a whisper in the dark of night that something was not right with a former coach.

. And lives and reputations are at stake. Same is true for Joe Pa. Saying he wished he had done more doesn't give us much to go on as to what he actually said and did at critical time(s). It is very hard to understand how he didn't wake up some morning at 2:00 AM and say to himself, "There are kids at risk. I need to do something to protect them."

It is also true, that given what we all kinda know about organizations, their scuttlebutt channels, what Switzer said, it is pretty hard to think there wasn't a lot of information about Sandusky and his proclivities. Horrible thought!

 
KeithWassung said:
i have a theory about the Sandusky/Costa interview. Not a single legal expert in the world will say that it is a good idea for a defendant to go public and do an interview--there is simply no benefit to it whatsoever--so why would he do it--why would his attorney allow it?

Here is my theory--he is borrowing a page from the Michael Jackson defense playbook. Prior to this trial, I did not meet a SINGLE person who did not think MJ was guilty of molesting little boys--the evidence was overwhelming--how could he deny the sleepovers--but MJ goes on tv and says 'Yeah, I sleep with little boys, but that is all we did was sleep-I have a special relationship with them, etc, etc and that was the end of it. By saying that, he sort of difused the situation--it was poor judgment, but hardly criminal and he was aquitted because there was no real physical evidence--just the testimony of boys ( and their families likely had a financial agenda)

So Sandusky, who is probably throwing up a hail mary here, decides to do the same thing---he admits to showering, he will admit to horsing around in the pool and cracking their back and will admit to enjoying their company, but will end up saying the criminal allegations are all made up--there is no physical evidence---and they can even say the families are only doing this for the money and surely PSU has deep pockets. How does he dismiss the eyewitness account---he can say that were goofing around and McQ was unclear what he saw--the FACT that McQ did not try to stop it--actually helps Sandusky-he can say, hey, what full grown man in their right mind would not stop a kid from being raped---I was washing his back or something--

anyway, just a theory
Click to expand...
The difference is MJ had the fact that everyone in the world thought he was a "weird" guy who was still emotionally a kid. Even till the day that he died therapists were saying the abuse he suffered left him "child like" emotionally.

Sandusky just looks like even more of a pedophile.

 
DelK said:
Wish we could all slow down the conclusions and kinda stick to what we know. McQueary intimates in his leaked email that he talked to the police. It would have to have been someone in the campus police department that would record what he said and file it. The term "talked to" is rather vague and could mean anything from ranting at the police to a whisper in the dark of night that something was not right with a former coach.

. And lives and reputations are at stake. Same is true for Joe Pa. Saying he wished he had done more doesn't give us much to go on as to what he actually said and did at critical time(s). It is very hard to understand how he didn't wake up some morning at 2:00 AM and say to himself, "There are kids at risk. I need to do something to protect them."

It is also true, that given what we all kinda know about organizations, their scuttlebutt channels, what Switzer said, it is pretty hard to think there wasn't a lot of information about Sandusky and his proclivities. Horrible thought!
Click to expand...
Story on MSN mobile this morning was pretty good. Talked about how the whole investigation came to light from a Penn State message board talking about a rumor of a coach seeing Sandusky rape a kid. They had narrowed it to MM and investigators then tracked him down to see if there was any truth to it. It also then talked about how many more people are coming forward and alluded to being forced to keep quite about it. I would guess there will be the smoking gun here shortly that says JoePa and PSU officials told people to keep it under raps.

 
DelK said:
Wish we could all slow down the conclusions and kinda stick to what we know.
Click to expand...
What we know? Like the fact that JoePa let an accused predator have access to his campus and facilities for more than a decade without performing the due diligence of reporting and allowing an investigation to come to a conclusion? That kind of fact?

What other facts do you need to come to a conclusion that, at the very least, this was badly mishandled by Penn State, and specifically by Paterno? :dunno

 
More facts are continuing to come out. And none of them are good for Sandusky, Paterno or Penn State.

Exclusive: Jerry Sandusky interview prompts long-ago victims to contact lawyer

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Jerry Sandusky’s primetime television interview Monday led several potential victims to come forward and consider sharing their story, according to two State College attorneys.

Hearing his voice and his words proclaiming no wrong — while admitting he showered innocently with young boys — was a trigger for some who say they were abused by the former Penn State defensive coordinator. One said it went back to the 1970s, around the time Sandusky founded the charity that prosecutors say was his axis for finding victims.

10223840-large.jpg


“They’re literally processing it right in front of us,” attorney Andy Shubin said. “They have kept it from their families, moms, brothers and sisters. ... The folks we talked to are largely folks in their 20s, who in a lot of cases have never told their story before.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top