Pages

Monday, June 18, 2012

Sandusky trial testimony further indicts news media for attacks on Joe Paterno.


Courtroom testimony in the trial of Jerry Sandusky on child sexual abuse allegations and the subsequent reporting of that testimony has further indicted the news media as a whole and specific media outlets in particular that collectively attacked Joe Paterno over "only" reporting the incident told to him in general terms by Mike McQueary to the Athletic Director of Penn State and Gary Schultz whose job title as described by a Penn State trustee was "head of Penn State Police Services".

 In his courtoom testimony the now 18 year old victim that McQueary saw in the shower with Sandusky in 2002, identified as Victim 2, testified that years before  the Sandusky incident at Penn State,  he told officials at his high school of the abuse he was enduring at the hands of Sandusky. And according to the now 18 year old witness, school officials didn't believe him. He testified that in 1998 one said, "Jerry's got a heart of gold, he'd never do that".

 As reported here months ago from various other sources, there were repeated complaints made against Sandusky years before the shower incident at Penn State by both the boy identified as Victim 2 and his mother, to officials at the boy's high school and the district attorney. There was even a sting in 1998 where a Penn State campus police detective, ( you know, the police agency that ESPN and their journalist collectively think is toy police department) overheard Sandusky all but confess to the boys mother. Nothing was done. And the complaints of the boy and his mother to officials and counselors at the boys high school were also completely ignored.

 They were ignored by  high school officials, ignored by the DA who declined to prosecute, ignored by the Attorney General, ignored by almost everyone with any knowledge of the complaints against Sandusky. But Joe Paterno became the target of choice for only one reason -- because for the news media, that's where the money was.And still is. Because even in reporting Victim 1's testimony and how his complaints were ignored by school officials at his high school, these officials are reported as just that -- "officials". No names, no titles. Just "officials". Because if the names have no star power, who cares?

 When the story first broke that Sandusky would be indicted and news of the incident McQueary had witnessed was being reported, the collective mob mentality in the news media went after Joe Paterno en masse for "only" reporting what he was told to two Penn State University officials within 24 hours and arranging for McQueary to tell what he had witnessed to the man whose job title was Head of Police Services.

But  at the same time, the mass media then, as it does now completely ignored the fact that Sandsusky had been investigated years before and nothing was done.

 Not only was nothing done, but while the media was chest thumping on their pseudo-moral high horse over Paterno "not doing enough" in terms of who he told, while Jay Bilas, Stuart Scott, Jemele Hill and others were busy making fools of themselves, they completely ignored the question of why no one at Penn State, no officials, no one at the DA's office and no police investigating agency at Penn State ever thought to inform Joe Paterno in 1998, four years before the shower incident,  that his defensive coordinator was being investigated for charges of child sexual abuse.

 No one, not the media or the Penn State trustees in their knee knocking cowardice ever considered that, aside from the fact that Paterno reported what he had been told within 24 hours, that perhaps had he been told four years earlier about the allegations against Sandusky and the investigation, that what he had been told by McQueary, even in sanitized form, might have taken on more urgency. So the real problem had nothing to do with what Joe Paterno told or others, but what others never told Joe Paterno.

 But taking on no name high school officials, a dead DA, and other's with no star power wasn't going to allow a collection of bottom feeding journalists like Sean Gregory, Jason Whitlock and a host of pontificating know nothings at ESPN to pretend moral superiority.

 Which is the biggest reason that then as now in reporting McQueary's recent testimony at Sandusky's trial, the media simply referred to these people as "officials". No names. Just "officials".

 The trial testimony made clear what anyone who had the facts already knew --  that it was the inaction of everyone but Joe Paterno that allowed the abuse to continue. In fact, a Penn State campus police detective who was involved in the case in 1998 testified he had no idea why Sandusky wasn't indicted at the time but that the DA declined.

 The other sordid truth is that the DA and the boys high school officials were simply not newsworthy enough to attack. They wouldn't ring the cash register or allow hypocrites in the news media their moment of phony moral superiority the way the name Joe Paterno would.  ESPN was not going to devote hours of programming where anchors could pontificate about the moral failings of a high school coach, assistant principal, DA or guidance counselor whose names no one knew. But Joe Paterno was gold.

 It still remains that of all the people given information about Sandusky's behavior, Joe Paterno, with the least amount of information did more than anyone else involved in the whole sordid mess. He reported what he was told within 24 hours both to his immediate superior at Penn State and the head of the Penn State Campus police which was more than the pope or any cardinal or bishop ever did in response to mountains of evidence  of serial  sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests.

 So it should also be noted that in Philadelphia, as the trial of Monsignor William Lynn for failing to report child sexual abuse by Philadelphia priests goes to the jury, and using a defense that he was only following orders by then cardinal Bevilacqua to destroy the list of abusive priests he had compiled, the editors of the Philadelphia Daily News have yet to put his picture on the front of page with the word "Shame" as they did with Joe Paterno. Another abject lesson in news media cowardice and dishonesty and what they are really all about.










28 comments:

  1. You're still trying to paint the portrait of Joe Washington-Paterno crossing the Delaware on his high horse too free all the children hurt by Sandusky? All of your points that you so adamantly back with the same facts in each post portray Paterno as a guy who did something. Very few will argue that he did nothing, so we'll give you that. The question is did he do enough? Considering what Paterno knew, how powerful he was in that part of the country and how close Sandusky was allowed to the team until 2011, I would argue the answer is no.

    Schultz is the one you continuously use to show how responsible Paterno was. You keep referencing him like the guy was the head of the FBI. From NPR: "As the senior vice president for finance and business — which gives him oversight of university police — Schultz, 62, has been charged with covering up abuse allegations. He served as Penn State's senior vice president and treasurer from 1993 to 2009, when he retired."

    Schultz was a VP/business guy; not in any way, shape or form a police officer, deputy, chief, sheriff, or anyone with power to arrest or detain Sandusky.

    Either way, ESPN did not fire Paterno. The trustees had that power. I understand your side of the argument but what would you have done in their shoes? What mother or father of a HS senior is going to send their child to a Paterno-led football program amid those allegations? You cannot argue that Paterno rose to the occasion while not posting links regarding those who vilified his character and/or suggesting an alternative to his firing.

    "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The question is did he do enough? Considering what Paterno knew, how powerful he was in that part of the country and how close Sandusky was allowed to the team until 2011, I would argue the answer is no."

    youre argument completely falls apart as does the small group who think as you do because it is no only based on your own rank speculation and assumptions as opposed to facts, but you are guilty of the same thing as the other Paterno critics in the media -- you say did he do enough and like them do not say what "enough" is or what YOU would have done more than Paterno. The standard complaint comes from those who think Penn State campus police are not real police, which is just sheer ignorance. But instead of stating unequivocally what "enough" is, you make statements and assumptions about Paterno's "power" as a football coach which couldnt be more irrelevant to the entire set of circumstances. To whatever extent Sandusky was allowed access to Penn State when he shouldnt have been,the fault lies completely with everyone BUT Paterno since as was clearly pointed out, others knew about the allegations against Sandusky as far back as 1998. Paterno didnt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Patriot-News reported that former PSU Coach Dick Anderson testified today that it was common for PSU coaches to shower with boys in the PSU showers and that PSU coaches often showered with Jerry Sandusky and his victims. In light of this testimony, the issue is not what Joe Paterno knew or didn't know or even whether Spanier et al covered up. The issue is whether there was a pedophile-tolerant culture in the football program.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "youre argument completely falls apart as does the small group who think as you do because it is no only based on your own rank speculation and assumptions as opposed to facts, but you are guilty of the same thing as the other Paterno critics in the media -- you say did he do enough and like them do not say what "enough" is or what YOU would have done more than Paterno"

    I gave you facts because I know how much you hate everything else: he told the VP of business/finance. Must I really go into where that should rank on the "enough meter" when we are talking about the head of a football program and horrific things that occurred in his showers involving his coach/assistant and little boys?

    "The standard complaint comes from those who think Penn State campus police are not real police, which is just sheer ignorance."

    Stick to the facts. There is a difference between campus police and a finance VP. Also, I never said anything regarding the credibility of campus police. They are likely under paid and over worked.

    "But instead of stating unequivocally what "enough" is, you make statements and assumptions about Paterno's "power" as a football coach which couldnt be more irrelevant to the entire set of circumstances."

    "Enough" in this case can be closely compared to whatever the "more" was that Paterno referenced when asked later about whether he wished he handled the allegations differently. I really don't have a firm answer, Marc, but we both know going to Schultz and calling it a day did not qualify. Also, the power I reference couldn't be more relevant. I am not assuming anything. Is it not a fact that Paterno was one of the most powerful and influential persons in PA for decades? Am I missing something?

    "To whatever extent Sandusky was allowed access to Penn State when he shouldnt have been,the fault lies completely with everyone BUT Paterno since as was clearly pointed out, others knew about the allegations against Sandusky as far back as 1998. Paterno didnt"

    So your entire argument is this: Paterno should have never been fired because everyone else knew about the allegations for a little bit longer than he did and because he told the VP of finance. Marc - we are talking about the winningest coach in college history. The man was worshipped. He was the face of a university and football program. Guys get fired for calling a pass instead of a run on 4th down. We are talking about Paterno doing the bare minimum and having no issue with a child molester walking around his facilities for A DECADE. You can blame the news media all you want and pick one convenient piece of my post to respond to but the question remains: what should Penn State have done? What should the 45,000 student school have done to the guy who knew about the worst kind of crime and only reported it to the VP of finance?

    Paterno is not a terrible guy. He was probably a heck of a guy. He knew of sex abuse in his facilities by his coach and nothing came of it. Others failed as well. I just don't see what you're getting at. A clip vilifying Paterno or a credible NEWS (not opinion) article would be great. Otherwise your credibility, like your blog traffic, will remain low.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you want to understand why Joe was fired, particularly why he was fired over the phone late at night, you have to look at the context. Chancellor Perlman of Nebraska had not confirmed whether Nebraska would play PSU the following Saturday. If Perlman pulled the plug on that game, the rest of the Big Ten would have followed suit. PSU, not just the football team but the university itself, faced pariah status.

    The price of Nebraska getting on the plane to PSU : Paterno's firing. The deadline for firing : midnight. So what happened that night? The PSU BOT met into the night. Chancellor Perlman's office stood by with what were probably two drafts of press releases, one we get on the plane and one we don't. With the midnight deadline and Nebraska breathing down their necks, the BOT fired Joe and did so in the only manner time permitted. Minutes after the BOT press conference, Perlman's office issues the "we get on the plane" press release.

    If you doubt this scenario, ask yourself: How often has the BOT held a press conference in the middle of the night? How often has the Nebraska Chancellor's office issued a press release in the middle of the night? I'll tell you how often : once, the night of Joe's firing.

    The BOT faced an existential threat to PSU that night. They did what they were elected to do : they saved the university.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To "Anonymous".....you say "Schultz was a VP/business guy; not in any way, shape or form a police officer, deputy, chief, sheriff, or anyone with power to arrest or detain Sandusky."

    I ask you this question, why would Paterno arrange a meeting between McQueary (the witness), Curly (Joe's boss) and Schultz (VP of Finance)??? DUH??? Why would the VP of finance be asked to be there? Schultz was at that meeting as a representative and the person in charge of the campus police. The ONLY police force that has jurisdiction over crimes that occur on campus. A campus better known as the city of University Park and NOT State College. The campus police are a gun carrying trained full police force able to make arrest of anyone committing a crime in University Park. They even have their own SWAT type team.

    I ask you again, why would Paterno and Curley want the VP of finance to be at that meet? I’ll answer that one for you, because he was also head of the Campus Police.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous says: "Enough" in this case can be closely compared to whatever the "more" was that Paterno referenced when asked later about whether he wished he handled the allegations differently. I really don't have a firm answer, Marc, but we both know going to Schultz and calling it a day did not qualify."
    -Your argument completely falls apart right there; even YOU don't know what more Paterno should have done. If you're going to say Paterno didn't do enough, then you have to say what more exactly he should have done. Referencing Paterno's statement that more was "what Paterno referenced when asked later about whether he wished he handled the allegations differently" is a complete cop-out. Paterno was Monday morning quarterbacking; I would presume every single person who knew Sandusky wishes they had done more, knowing what we now know. But the fact is, Paterno couldn't have done anything more because PA reporting laws did not allow for him to do so. The agent in charge (Schultz, Curley, Spanier) is the ONLY person (aside from an eyewitness, aka McQueary) who can call ChildLine to report an allegation and have it investigated. Had Paterno called ChildLine himself, they would have done nothing. Even if your claim that "Paterno was one of the most powerful and influential persons in PA for decades" was true, he did not have the power to get a state agency to circumvent the law. I would hope you'd think this a good thing.

    You say that reporting it to Schultz, who is in charge of the police isn't enough? Schultz may not be a sworn police officer but since he's in charge of them, reporting to him is analogous to reporting to the chief.

    As to the other anonymous poster who claims the Big 10 would have pulled the plug on PSU had Paterno not been fired, there is not a shred of evidence to support that. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's true. That means the Trustees allowed themselves to be bullied and threatened into firing their longest-standing employee without giving him due process? They allowed themselves to be told what to do by Nebraska's Chancellor and Jim Delaney? If that's true, they are even more incompetent than we thought and they should be fired for that "failure of leadership".

    ReplyDelete
  8. What was the BOT thinking when they put the future of the Penn State pre-med applying to med school with her soon-to-be toxic Penn State BS ahead of the reputation of the head football coach? How could they be more concerned with the financial security of kids whose Penn State dad has to put a tainted Penn State BA on his resume over the good name of an octagenarian in a sweatsuit? How dare they?

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8114416/report-former-penn-state-officials-exchanged-emails-jerry-sandusky-allegations-2001

    Schultz, Curley and Spanier wanted to go to authorities. They decided not to after talking to Joe. Notice how I used the term "authorities"? That's because Schultz was not one.

    Keep the responses coming. Your arguments get weaker and weaker by the day.

    Joe was paid to be a leader. He was a great one with his student athletes. He was a terrible one when he allowed Sandusky to roam the facilities knowing what he did and not going to authorities. His firing was 100% justified.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "You say that reporting it to Schultz, who is in charge of the police isn't enough? Schultz may not be a sworn police officer but since he's in charge of them, reporting to him is analogous to reporting to the chief"

    "I ask you again, why would Paterno and Curley want the VP of finance to be at that meet? I’ll answer that one for you, because he was also head of the Campus Police."

    Please, please post a link to something where Schultz is referred to as the head or chief of police or anything to that effect. I used NPR and an ESPN article from a CNN report saying he was the senior vice president for finance and business. He wanted to go to "authorities" because he was not one.

    ReplyDelete
  11. One more and I'll let you guys get back to defending this awful group of "leaders":

    "No one ever reported the 2001 shower incident. A decade later, a 2011 grand jury found no Pennsylvania law enforcement or child welfare agency was ever told."

    But oh yea, the "head/chief of police" was who Paterno went to...

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Please, please post a link to something where Schultz is referred to as the head or chief of police or anything to that effect."

    Please please stop expecting other people to do your research for you. Schultz has been referred to as "head of campus police" or "head of Penn State police services" so many times you must not know how to do a Google search or youre not reading 1/10th of the articles pertaining to the subject. Try reading todays article on the CNN site about the emails between Curley, Schultz and Spanier ( fairly damning for all 3) in Schultz is referred to as head of campus police.And regardless of what you think, that is in fact his title,McQueary described him as such in his grand jury and trial testimony and is referred to that way in grand jury testimony. Youre ignorance of who and what Schultz was changes nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "One more and I'll let you guys get back to defending this awful group of "leaders":

    "No one ever reported the 2001 shower incident. A decade later, a 2011 grand jury found no Pennsylvania law enforcement or child welfare agency was ever told."

    But oh yea, the "head/chief of police" was who Paterno went to..."

    One of these days someone still holding out to the earth is flat and Paterno is guilty of something will actually come up with a fact to back them up. Paterno set up a meeting between McQueary and Schultz before meeting with Schultz himself and McQueary in both grand jury testimony,trial testimony and public statements called that "going to the police" and no one has ever contradicted that. McQueary reporting it to Schultz as "going to the police" was good enough for the grand jury,attorney general and DA,not to mention his father and family advisor especially since campus police was the law enforcement authority with jurisdiction. Which is why it was Penn State campus police who investigated Sandusky in 1998 and turned over the results to Ray Vicar, the DA at the time who did nothing. But oh yeah, it was Paterno who knew nothing of any of this who was supposed to, what? investigate and prosecute Sandusky himself?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Schultz, Curley and Spanier wanted to go to authorities. They decided not to after talking to Joe. Notice how I used the term "authorities"? That's because Schultz was not one. "

    To call this assumption brain dead is to give it more credit than its due. ive read the characterization of all the emails ( the actual emails have not been given to reporters) and there is not the slightest evidence to suggest anything you claim. what is there is that Curley decided after a conversation with Paterno NOT to report it to "everyone" as "we had agreed". There is not the slightest implication that Paterno had anything to do with Curley changing his mind but there is a ton of grand jury and trial testimony by Paterno himself, McQueary, Curley and Schultz that no such conversation involving Paterno and any decision not to report it ever took place. Your fantasies are no subsitute for facts and evidence. What the emails do suggest however is that Paterno had every reason to believe that Curley and Schultz were going to take some action on McQueary's allegation,and that Curley Schultz and Spanier decided against it. The fact that they decided this and reversed their decisions after Curley's conversation with Paterno in no way shows Paterno was part of that decision and again for the terminally misinformed, all the testimony and evidence shows the opposite -- that Paterno fully expected Curley and Schultz to take action. If that wasnt the case Paterno would have been charged with perjury.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Youre ignorance of who and what Schultz was changes nothing."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/tim-curley-george-schultz-penn-state-abuse-scandal-resign_n_1079093.html

    From that: Gary Schultz, vice president for finance and business

    I don't care what your sources (who you won't link, even after I ask) refer to him as. VP of Finance and Business iwas his title. Stop going after posters with your righteousness and facts without citing your source, Marc.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Paterno set up a meeting between McQueary and Schultz before meeting with Schultz himself and McQueary in both grand jury testimony,trial testimony and public statements called that "going to the police" and no one has ever contradicted that."

    You post this in response to something that says a grand jury found no law enforcement agent was ever told of the 2001 shower incident? Really? I am contradicting whatever situation you described above. Notice how even you used quotes referring to Schultz as police.

    "One of these days someone still holding out to the earth is flat and Paterno is guilty of something will actually come up with a fact to back them up."

    What are the facts here? Paterno knew sexual abuse took place in his facilities at the hands of one of his staff members. Nothing happened for a decade. Is that not it in a nutshell? College coaches get fired for bad seasons. Sandusky is certainly the villain here but Paterno is guilty of knowing about one of the worst crimes known to man. Say what you will about what you would have done, hindsight, whatever; those are the facts and Paterno lost his own job.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "There is not the slightest implication that Paterno had anything to do with Curley changing his mind but there is a ton of grand jury and trial testimony by Paterno himself, McQueary, Curley and Schultz that no such conversation involving Paterno and any decision not to report it ever took place. Your fantasies are no subsitute for facts and evidence."

    I can't even tell if you are serious or not. You are using the claims of men who are awaiting trial for PERJURY, aka lying, to back your claims. And where did I imply that Joe is the one who talked them out of going to authorities? My post was more about Schultz having zero police authority than your brain dead assumption. But thanks for reading into it that way.

    Here is where my "fantasies" come from: Curley allegedly writes: "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps."

    More "fantasies": Records show no authorities were ever contacted and Sandusky was eventually charged with having sexual contact with four more boys after the 2001 incident. On June 22, Sandusky was convicted of abusing 10 boys over 15 years.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/30/justice/penn-state-emails/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The fact that they decided this and reversed their decisions after Curley's conversation with Paterno in no way shows Paterno was part of that decision and again for the terminally misinformed, all the testimony and evidence shows the opposite -- that Paterno fully expected Curley and Schultz to take action."

    So Paterno should have been off the hook and he should have never been fired by ESPN because he expected guys to take action and they didn't? I'm honestly trying to see your viewpoint here. Are you saying he should have kept his job even though he let Sandusky run free on campus for another decade?

    ReplyDelete
  19. And one more from that CNN link that leaves out Schultz's apparent chief of police or sheriff title you guys are claiming: "This is a more humane and upfront way to handle this,' Gary Schultz, who was a university vice president at the time, allegedly wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear Anonymous: Since you're too lazy to research on your own and are relying on ESPN (Really? Bernie Fine molestation tapes? What did they do with those again? Oh right, nothing) and CNN (even though they reported that the individual mandate of the Health Care Reform Act had been struck down and reported today that singer Gotye killed himself but he's still alive and kicking). Even though CNN has never seen the emails - selected parts were read to them OVER THE PHONE- here's the information you've been demanding. (Links follow all quotes and information.)

    1. A quote describing Schultz's position as head of the police: Gary Schultz is the third person charged in the Penn State, “Second Mile” charity scandal today. Gary Schultz, investigators tell news, is a Senior Vice President for Finance and Business at Penn State University. In that position, Gary Schultz was RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSIGHT OF THE PENN STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THAT DUTY IS WHAT TRIGGERED GARY SCHULTZ'S ARREST TODAY.
    (Link: http://news.lalate.com/2011/11/05/gary-schultz-arrested-in-penn-state-second-mile-scandal-2011/)

    2. Here's a quote about Schultz's job description from 2007: This position will oversee the direct reporting relationships in the areas of auxiliary and business services; corporate controller for the College of Medicine/Milton S. Hershey Medical; Office of the Physical Plant; University Budget Office; Office of Investment Management; Commonwealth Operations; UNIVERSITY POLICE; and Human Resources.

    (Link: http://www.fandb.psu.edu/fandb/newsletters/upload/May-June-2007.pdf)

    And lest you think the Penn State police are just glorified campus security officers:

    The University Police is governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers.

    The Penn State University Police provides all law enforcement and security services to the University Park campus. We employ: 46 full-time armed officers, Six traffic and parking officers, Five police dispatcher/recorders, Approximately 200 students as auxiliary officers and escorts.

    (Link: http://www.police.psu.edu/aboutus/)

    ReplyDelete
  21. For that LA Late story, I don't see anything there that disproves my argument. From that story:

    "Attorney General Linda Kelly tells news today that “rather than reporting the matter to law enforcement, [Tim] Curley and Schultz agreed that Sandusky would be told he could not bring any Second Mile children into the football building.”"

    Rather than reporting the matter to law enforcement... Hmmm. I thought Schultz WAS law enforcement?

    One more from that link:

    "But after the matter was reported to Schultz, he didn’t report it to police and allegedly did nothing about it at Penn State."

    He didn't report it to police... I thought he was the head of police?

    It goes on to say Sandusky basically was free to roam any part of PSU's facilities he wanted. How does that make me lazy or discredit my argument in the least?

    As for the link you posted from fandb, Schultz is referred to twice exactly how I referred to him in every comment on this post, as the VP of finance and business.

    Look at the little blue section in the bottom right of that link and you'll find this: Stephen G. Shelow, Director of University Police. Was that ever Schultz's title or do you think, as a VP, he oversaw the director of police?

    Also, I never tried to discredit the PSU campus police. I believe that is something you or Marc assumed. I have said before that I respect them. They are more than likely underpaid and overworked. Schultz was probably the opposite and in no way an officer of the law. Your first two links support my claims perfectly.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wrong again, Anonymous. The fandb page are discussing the job description for the VP of Finance & Business. Schultz was the VP of Finance and Business in which capacity he oversaw the University Police. Ergo, every article that you cite referring to Schultz as the VP of F & B in fact proves my point. Though I know you didn't do so intentionally, I thank you for proving my point even more emphatically.

    Per Freeh's suggestion, Penn State has created the position that Steven Shelow now occupies.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Classic response. You are basically saying "I'm not wrong, you are wrong" without bringing anything new to the argument. Way to go. No need to respond to any of the quotes I took from your articles to disprove your point...

    What are the facts here?

    - Schultz was the Vice President for Finance and Business

    - With that title, as YOUR link notes, Schultz oversaw eight different departments

    - One of those was the campus police

    - Schultz was not in any way an officer of the law and had as much authority to execute the law in that role as he had ability to practice medicine in his role overseeing the college of medicine. In fact, he chose NOT to go to the POLICE or AUTHORITIES, a claim your sources back.

    - Marc uses terms like "head of the Penn State Campus police" and "Head of Police Services" multiple times to describe the title of Schultz, the person Paterno talked to about the shower incident.

    - He is using that deceiving and incorrect title and the testimony of others who are on trial for perjury to back his claim that Paterno was demonized by the media and that he actually rose to the occasion.

    - New e-mails show that a decision was made to not go to police or authorities (even though the "Head of Police Services" was part of those e-mails/meetings) after a talk with Joe. What happened in that meeting is still up in the air but Joe certainly wasn't "rising to the occasion" if that claim turns out to be true.

    - Jerry Sandusky roamed PSU's campus for decades after the incident and had no limitations in terms of where he could go or what he could do. That is also from your link, GK.

    If you guys see that as rising to the occasion and want to keep pointing fingers at the news media, go ahead. I still don't see a definitive piece of evidence that would suggest Paterno should have kept his job after all this. The facts continue to pile up against PSU leadership, including Paterno. Pointing fingers at high school officials and blah blah blah does not take away from the fact that Paterno and this group of criminals kept facts from law enforcement. The ones who are still alive today are going to pay for keeping that secret and allowing a child molester to run free in Happy Valley.

    ReplyDelete
  24. So it's okay for you to say my argument is wrong and yours is right but I can't do the same? It doesn't matter because you have once again proven me correct in again acknowledging that Schultz was the head of the police. The fact that Schultz did not open an investigation is not Paterno's fault; that blame falls on Schultz, Spanier, and Curley.

    Now of course you're using the emails to say that Paterno made sure there was no investigation done. There are multiple flaws with that reasoning. First, by their own admission, CNN has not seen any emails at all - "CNN does not have the e-mails, but the alleged contents were made available to CNN" - so no conclusions can be drawn from leaked portions of alleged emails. You can make assumptions but you have no facts to back it up.

    Second, if Paterno's intention was to cover it up, why would he arrange for McQueary to meet with Curley and Schultz at all? By your reasoning, Paterno held all the power so he could have simply said to McQueary, "Don't worry about it. I'll take care of it from here," and McQueary would have obeyed and the story dies there. Instead, Paterno called Curley less than 24 hours later and arranged for the meeting. If you're planning on covering something up, it would be a completely asinine move to go out of your way to alert at least 2 others to the situation and then have to make sure they follow along with your cover up plan.

    But for argument's sake, let's assume the alleged emails are accurate sections of longer conversations. We'll also assume that CNN did not fabricate the dates of the alleged emails and that the Curley email did come after the emails between him and Schultz. The following scenario is far more likely than your cover up conspiracy in which more people are added to the cover up than are necessary: Curley mulls over the situation and having known Sandusky and family his whole life, he worries about the ramifications of a false allegation or wonders if there's enough evidence to support an arrest; he doesn't think McQueary is lying but he also isn't sure about what McQueary really saw so he decides to ask Paterno what McQueary said to him (Paterno) to see if there's any discrepancies (however small) between what Paterno heard and what McQueary told Curley & Schultz that give him better insight. Paterno tells Curley what McQueary said to him (which McQueary testified was a watered-down account) and which for Curley is perhaps a less serious version (I still don't know what to believe as to what McQueary told Curley/Schultz - the perjury trials should illuminate that). Curley mulls it over some more and sends his email the next day where he references both his thought process ("After giving it more thought") and his talk with "Joe" and then says "I am uncomfortable", not "We're (meaning him and Joe) uncomfortable". In other words, the conversation with Paterno DID influence Curley's decision but not because Paterno told him to cover it up but because Curley chose to take a different course of action. Curley's motives could be willful ignorance in not wanting to believe what he'd heard, worry about what would happen to The Second Mile, worry about fall-out for Penn State, combination of those, etc. Without the FULL (VERIFIED) emails, everyone is just guessing or worse, assuming.

    Curley, Schultz, and Spanier failed to do what they were legally required to do, which was to report to ChildLine. Their reasons for not doing so are still the subject of speculation. So you can continue to claim that they were covering up because Paterno told them to, but the fundamental fallacy is why would Paterno have even told them in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "It doesn't matter because you have once again proven me correct in again acknowledging that Schultz was the head of the police. The fact that Schultz did not open an investigation is not Paterno's fault"

    I honestly don't see where you are getting this from. I acknowledged that Schultz was the VP of Business and Finance. According to your link, 8 departments reported to him. Nowhere has it or will it ever state that he was "head of the police". Overseeing 8 departments is different from actually being the head of one of those departments. I posted in several places that news outlets, grand juries, etc. found that no "police" or "authorities" were ever told of the shower incident. Yet you still try to spin it as though Schultz was "the head of police"?

    "Now of course you're using the emails to say that Paterno made sure there was no investigation done."

    Where did I say this? I said the following to disprove the idea that Schultz was head of police and you/Marc read into it as though I "brain dead"-edly assumed Joe ran in there and said "STOP, WE CANNOT GO TO THE POLICE!": Schultz, Curley and Spanier wanted to go to authorities. They decided not to after talking to Joe. Notice how I used the term "authorities"? That's because Schultz was not one. I would join you in saying YOU have no facts to back it up but you are making things up to back up anyways. What's the use?

    "If you're planning on covering something up, it would be a completely asinine move to go out of your way to alert at least 2 others to the situation and then have to make sure they follow along with your cover up plan."

    Again, I did not make this assumption. That murky situation will sort itself out when the full e-mails are released. Honestly, I hope they don't condemn Paterno. That would be a shame. What we know today is that a meeting happened but no authorities were contacted. Is that not true?

    As for your long scenario and claims that I made conspiracy theories, I will let my previous comments speak for themselves. I never assumed anything; I merely said what has been reported and that authorities were never contacted.

    "So you can continue to claim that they were covering up because Paterno told them to, but the fundamental fallacy is why would Paterno have even told them in the first place?"

    Please post where I state that they covered things up because Paterno told them to. I cannot find it myself. I did say that Paterno "rising to the occasion" is certainly a stretch at this point.

    Do you have any responses for the facts I laid out or are you going to continue to put words in my mouth?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anything from GK or Marc refuting my points above? Will you choose to display more self consciousness and attack me instead of my post? I am betting on the latter.

    A few thoughts after today:

    "The standard complaint comes from those who think Penn State campus police are not real police, which is just sheer ignorance."

    Are we still calling Schultz "police"? Has anyone pointed out where this rent-a-cop assumption came from?

    "To whatever extent Sandusky was allowed access to Penn State when he shouldnt have been,the fault lies completely with everyone BUT Paterno since as was clearly pointed out, others knew about the allegations against Sandusky as far back as 1998. Paterno didn't"

    We now know this is 100% false. Paterno knew in '98. This is why trusting a blogger who provides zero sources is, in Marc's terms, "brain dead".

    ReplyDelete
  27. What is great is now history will remember Barry Switzer and Jackie Sherrill as being more ethical than Joe Fraud.

    I heard Dave Bliss got PISSED when someone said his name with Joe Fraud's--hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  28. I wish I could shake your hand for writing this blog. The press has been quick to judge Joe Paterno going by the obviously tainted Freeh report findings. Why is it that we can't let due process run it's course before judging someone in this country? Why was Joe never allowed to make a statement before his death so he could answer these baseless allegations? He trusted the justice system would work things out and that the truth would be found. It's shameful that the Board of Trustees and the PSU administration used him as a scapegoat. Blame the dead man, the man they knew was dying of cancer and wouldn't be strong enough to defend himself. Well, I hope and pray that the Paterno family fight to clear his good name. I have considered myself, and will forever say "I am, JoePa".

    ReplyDelete