tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post2949333356861593899..comments2024-03-07T02:17:34.434-08:00Comments on Tom In Paine: New findings demolish Freeh Report,Freeh himself,the NCAA, news media and Penn St. Board of Trustees.Marc Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-33296867705918844772014-10-28T05:56:41.378-07:002014-10-28T05:56:41.378-07:00I think you are all looking at the wrong point. Th...I think you are all looking at the wrong point. The real question is, taking the Freeh Report as an investigatory and research document, are the results (a) reliable and (b) replicable? In other words, if you took Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan's methodology and tried to repeat it, would you find the same sources or get the same results?<br />The answer is "no". The Freeh Report is what a lot of critics describe as a hatchet job, but what it really is, I'm convinced, is a thesis with cherry-picked evidence. It boasts of all the documents that were analyzed, but it does that from the filter of guilt; Freeh's group assumes the worst and sees it everywhere. No historicist techniques of analyzing historical documents were applied. It's just "this is what I think" research based on a prosecutor's assumptions of guilt.<br />I cannot say that I know if the Penn State four (Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno) are culpable or not, but Freeh's document does not persuade me of anything. I find it hard to believe these men were guilty as Freeh states. They exercised bad judgment, but I don't think the intent is there. Spanier specialized in deviant sexual behavior as a scholar, and he was abused as a boy himself. I can't believe Paterno understood pedophilia and Freeh underestimates how succesful pedophiles are good at fooling people. It's easy to say, "I'd have figure it out" after the fact. I hope the Board of Trustees some day chooses to investigate the report and its methodology. It is a classic example of poor research methodology, bias, and compromised ethics. Freeh has a history of this (see his work with FIFA).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-8814216414462775302014-10-05T08:35:14.214-07:002014-10-05T08:35:14.214-07:00"Is Mr. Freeh free to investigate another PA ..."Is Mr. Freeh free to investigate another PA sex scandal?<br /><br />The worst was Frank Noonan. At the time he was the most critical claiming that Paterno should have gone to him first effectively disparaging Campus Police and ignoring that one of Sandusky's victim's own mother went to Campus Police. And now ironically we learn that Mr. Noonan was the reciepient of over 300 pornographic emails indicating that even had Paterno gone to him he would've been too preoccupied to have done anything about it.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-10592577338074642692014-10-03T12:52:19.015-07:002014-10-03T12:52:19.015-07:00Is Mr. Freeh free to investigate another PA sex sc...Is Mr. Freeh free to investigate another PA sex scandal? <br /><br />Gov. Tom Corbett was attorney general when the exchange of emails containing pornography by former members of the attorney general's office were exchanged by members of his staff, forcing him to defend his management as he campaigns for a second term.<br /><br />Attorney General Kathleen Kane's office identified eight ex-employees who sent or received hundreds of pornographic images or videos in emails that were discovered during Kane's review of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse prosecution.<br /><br />Four of those officials followed Corbett from the attorney general's office into his gubernatorial administration. On Thursday, two of them resigned. <br /><br /><br />Corbett said he wishes he was made aware of the emails sooner.<br /><br />Right. Let's Mr Freeh find out when...exactly.John Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03782821874768706750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-20076885733979548502013-02-18T21:02:18.061-08:002013-02-18T21:02:18.061-08:00I understand the calculus that in order to defend ...I understand the calculus that in order to defend Paterno, you must destroy McQueary. But Rubin goes off the deep end of the pool when he insists "nothing" happened at Lasch. (His hysteria is very much like that of the "MSM' he obsesses about.) Sandusky was convicted on four counts (four) for that nothing, while even the Thornburgh report says there's "no doubt," a sexual assault occurred. Instead of trying to find grammatical errors in the arguments (as I'm sure will be his inclination with this one) why doesn't Mr. Rubin tell us what he thinks happened in that shower that night?Cogentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-51678034947954430862013-02-15T17:45:05.297-08:002013-02-15T17:45:05.297-08:00So glad I got out of Pennsyltucky. So glad I got out of Pennsyltucky. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-53490025190480970532013-02-13T13:54:17.184-08:002013-02-13T13:54:17.184-08:00"In their rebuttal, the Paternos' experts..."In their rebuttal, the Paternos' experts (NOT the Paterno family themselves) take the position (an ignorant, uninformed position, according to some) that McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Penn State shower."<br /><br />Just so that YOU'RE clear : the Paterno family experts never investigated or re-investigated the incident in the shower, an incident for which Sandusky had already been acquitted. That was not their mandate nor task which is was SOLELY to review the Freeh Report and its contents and conclusions and issue their own report about that. You are badly mistaken and misinformed if you think their experts re-investigated the incident in the shower and came to some conclusion that a sexual assault took place when Sandusky had already been acquitted by a jury of that allegation. So again you are mistaken if you think that is a "position" they take. They are merely accepting the media accounts which were fallacious and, one more time, that incident in the shower was not part of what their experts were mandated to investigate, and did not. They only reviewed the Freeh Report so you are badly mistaken and uninformed.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-52796267930868926772013-02-13T13:25:27.193-08:002013-02-13T13:25:27.193-08:00"If you believe that the Paternos' expert..."If you believe that the Paternos' experts have done them a disservice, you can certainly point that out without calling a heartfelt defense of a beloved patriarch in any way "distorted".<br /><br />If you think I was attacking the Paterno family for offering "distortions" about Sandusky and the shower incident you have completely missed the point. It is the NEWS MEDIA I was attacking since there was no evidence any such attack took place from the beginning and now it is confirmed there was no assault in the shower.<br /><br />It is strictly the news media insisting on pushing the same untruth they always did that I was attacking. There is nothing to be gained by the Paterno family or their report in attacking that one aspect. It has nothing to do with the fallacies of the Freeh Report which hinges completely on Paterno knowing about the 1998 investigation for which there is not an iota of proof. I do not believe for one second that the Paterno family has any "heartfelt" belief that Sandusky assaulted a boy in the shower. They are simply accepting media accounts, extending sympathies to all the victims and there would be no reason in the world for any of their experts to examine whether or not there was an assault since it doesnt bear at all on the fallcies lies and distortions that victimized Paterno.<br /><br />Even if they had known that Victim 2, the boy in the shower has now stated on the record as an adult that there was no assault and not even any contact, it wouldnt change a thing as it relates to Freeh's distortions and dishonest conclusions about Joe Paterno.There was no reason for them to evaluate that at all,since all the effort went into evaluating the Freeh Report and in fact they made the point of saying their report was NOT going to re-investigate the incident at Penn State, only the Freeh Report itself and its truthfullness, its conclusions,valuations and value as an objective investigation that reported the truth. Which is that it did not.<br /><br />Just to be clear,nothing in the Paterno family's report had anything to do with investigating the incident in the shower. And the "distortions, lies and misrepresentations" were all directed at the news media,who keep perpetuating what is a complete fallacy and they do it because everything they wrote about Paterno, every attack, was based on what they thought happened in that shower. Once you know nothing happened and McQueary witnessed nothing, what exactly he told Paterno and what Paterno knew, becomes suspect and invalidates every word the news media ever wrote. <br /><br />Those characterizatons had nothing to do with anything the Paterno family said.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-62796470426653113832013-02-13T09:58:01.205-08:002013-02-13T09:58:01.205-08:00It's not fair to hold the Paterno family respo...It's not fair to hold the Paterno family responsible for every statement (or misstatement) in their rebuttal. I doubt whether the family has examined all of the evidence. Nobody would expect them to do so. That's why you hire experts!<br /><br />In their rebuttal, the Paternos' experts (NOT the Paterno family themselves) take the position (an ignorant, uninformed position, according to some) that McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Penn State shower. Some critics of the Paternos' experts characterize that position as a "distorted, factually inaccurate and indefensible position". The Paternos' experts had access to the same evidence as their critics (in fact, by virtue of their access to the Paterno family, these experts had MORE access than their critics). They simply came to a different conclusion than their critics on the basis of such evidence. It's a simple (and, I'm sure, honest) disagreement. <br /><br />If you believe that the Paternos' experts have done them a disservice, you can certainly point that out without calling a heartfelt defense of a beloved patriarch in any way "distorted". Savage their experts, if you must, but leave the family alone. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-7896768583663412212013-02-13T09:17:36.858-08:002013-02-13T09:17:36.858-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08543401650712270526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-47977934338936952582013-02-13T06:51:56.583-08:002013-02-13T06:51:56.583-08:00This is America and in spite of The many awards Th...This is America and in spite of The many awards The media doesn't get to decide whether Joe Paterno gets tried in the court of "Public Opinion"! They are entitled to their opinions, as are those people who want to know the truth about what happened and who is responsible for allowing these hideous actions to occur.<br /> <br />I have read the entire Paterno report and agree that it has a clear agenda, so did the Freeh report. The Freeh report was structured so the evidence would draw attention away from the school, BOT and the Governor of PA and place responsibility on two middle managers and an aging coach! While the Paterno report attempts to point out inaccuracies in the Freeh report and exonerate Joe Paterno. Frankly, if someone made inaccurate statements about any of their fathers, I believe they would do what they could to set the record straight!<br /> <br />Most of these reporters are very good writers and I enjoy their pieces! However, I think if professional news and sports writers want to comment on this situation, they should complete their own investigation first, then write their piece based on their OWN findings, not their opinions. I really could care less about their opinions, as I'm sure they care very little for mine.<br /> <br />I'm not even a Penn State fan and I smell something funny here. Now we all have discovered that PA's current governor, Tom Corbett, who was the Pennsylvania Attorney General involved in the initial investigation of these allegations, may have sat on information and/or allegations rather than vigorously continue the investigation in to these sexual abuse cases. By doing nothing, Governor Corbett may have jeopardized the lives of additional children. If he had vigorously investigated these allegations, perhaps additional children may have been spared the pain and humiliation of sexual abuse. As you may expect, I've waited for some well respected news and sports reporters, to pursue the Governor with the same vigor and indignation that they pursued Joe Paterno, but to my surprise there was only silence.<br /> <br />Joe Paterno, a football coach, was fooled by a master manipulator (who also fooled trained professionals and law enforcement) and immediately informed his superiors when he heard of the allegations, and everyone rushes to judgment that he should have done more and he gets fired!<br /> <br />Governor Corbett, an attorney and the AG at the time of the allegations, sat on this information, never arrested the alleged perpetrator who went on to commit more atrocities, and no one is screaming for his dismissal...<br /> <br />Where are all those talking heads on the news and sports shows who crusaded for the firing of Joe Paterno? Are they afraid to challenge the Governor of PA? Are they afraid to pursue Governor Corbett? Don't they want to know the complete story? Don't they want to report the complete story to their readers?<br /> <br />FOX Sports, ESPN and most major networks have egg on their faces and are now trying to deflect the questions posed by the Paterno report by more speculation. Fox Sports, ESPN and the major networks, should do their own, indebt investigation and set the record straight, once and for all. Even if they have to admit that they were wrong (and perhaps their not!!!), no one will ever know the truth except those idiots who challenge anyone who pursues the complete truth, and then makes accusations That anyone who challenges the Freeh Report, is supporting child molestation!<br /> <br />Stop following the music... Investigate and if Paterno is involved, he should be shamed! If he's not, eat crow and make your apologies. All of these news and sports outlets, talk about morality; if they believe that Joe Paterno traded his morality to save his football team, then they should do their due diligence, be better than Joe Paterno, do your job!<br /> <br />I don't expect any of these news and sports outlets to respond to this post because that's what Men do; cowards hide behind empty words and win awards by bringing down icons....<br /> <br /> Draw your own conclusions....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-19525189344706075812013-02-13T06:44:27.062-08:002013-02-13T06:44:27.062-08:00Reply III
"Again, the family's response ...Reply III<br /><br />"Again, the family's response states :<br /><br />"What McQUEARY WITNESSED was no doubt a grooming incident and A SEXUAL ASSAULT"<br /><br />Nothing regarding any sexual assault or contact ever took place in that shower and McQueary saw no such thing. Its why Victim 2 never testified to the grand jury,never came forward or testified at Sandusky's trial. That he was there at all with Sandusky given Sandusky's history is why Sandusky was convicted of a count of grooming the boy.<br /><br />You are factually wrong on every count, and being without facts you try and drag in the Paterno family with what you say they "believed" about the shower incident when they themselves had no facts either, just the lies and distortions in the media accounts, and is about as cheap a way to try and defend your distorted, factually inaccurate and indefensible position and the factually inaccuratge media accounts as there is when you know full well the Paterno family had no idea factually about what went on in that shower, neither did Joe Paterno, and as it turns out neither did Mike McQueary. It's what makes you the poster child for all the dishonest media accounts and those who are not as smart as they think they are, or think they know more than they actually know and think they are morally superior when they were none of those things to begin with. <br /><br />Add to that your lack of understanding of what "grooming" is and why the jury saw taking the boy to the showers as a grooming incident as part of a pattern that went on for years previously, again either shows how little understanding you have about what you pontificate about or how desperate you are to try and defend what you cant defend factually.<br /><br />So yes, "here we go again" as the defenders of Freeh, perhaps the Board of Trustees and the media desperately try and claw their way out of the deep hole they put themselves in, but hopefully, the Thornburgh report will put an end to it and we wont have to do this again.<br /><br /><br />Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-38418786714751959892013-02-13T06:42:11.872-08:002013-02-13T06:42:11.872-08:00"Second, even the Paterno family believes tha..."Second, even the Paterno family believes that MM witnessed an assault.."<br /><br />Reply II:<br /><br />Your point about the jury convicting Sandusky on a count based on "grooming" in the shower incident to bolster your argument is also asinine. Grooming, if you understood the concept, is not a one time occurrence. It is a pattern of behavior and given that Sandusky was convicted of 43 other counts of sexual abuse and that the prosecution was able to show a pattern of grooming that went on for years, the jury saw Sandusky taking the boy to Penn State and then showering with him as part of that pattern of grooming. That did not in any way even imply there was any sexual contact between Sandusky and the boy even though the media still reports that there was.<br /><br />But there IS proof that shows how wrong and ignorant you and the media that continues to print those fallacies are. And while I don't expect you to have every shred of information and wont criticize you for not knowing what you think you know and don't, that you would try and defend your point of view in the flimsy way you have is bad enough.<br /><br />The someone who does know exactly what went on in that shower besides Sandusky is the boy who was in the shower with Sandusky, the boy who is described as Victim 2.<br /><br />The boy, now a man, in his early 20's and who was 10 or 11 years old at the time of the incident that you claim McQueary "saw", was interviewed on the record by Sandusky's defense lawyers at their law offices. And Victim 2, now a man described in that interview what went on.<br /><br />McQueary said he heard "slapping sounds" coming from inside the shower and jumped to the conclusion that it was the sound of Sandusky having anal sex, or some kind of sexual contact, skin to skin with the boy even though he backed off those assertions later( why McQueary who supposedly had no idea of Sandusky's proclivities would jump to that conclusion just from sounds is something McQueary needs to explain). What Victim 2 said on the record is that when he was in the shower with Sandusky he was running back and forth from one end of the shower to the other, from one wall to the other, back a number of times.<br /><br />The Penn State athletic showers are long, as most of those kinds are, designed to accommodate many people showering at once. The sound McQueary said he heard according to Victim 2's statement was the sound of his bare feet hitting the wet tiles on the shower floor, running back and forth the length of the shower a few times, playing around.<br /><br />There will be a video posted on this site in the near future which will show and confirm this interview and Victim 2's on the record statement of what went on in the shower. <br /><br />Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-60555207307161851342013-02-13T06:40:06.947-08:002013-02-13T06:40:06.947-08:00Here we go again. First of all, thr jury convicted...Here we go again. First of all, thr jury convicted Jerry of "Indecent Assault in connection with the shower incident SOLELY on the basis of MM's testimony. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?<br /><br />Second, even the Paterno family believes that MM witnessed an assault. That's why their expert stated the following in the family's response ..."<br /><br /><br />Here we go again is right. You are the poster child for all those pointed out in the article, those who think they are smart but aren't, who think they have the facts but don't, who think they are being moralists when they show just how immoral or amoral they can be in trying to defend themselves, Freeh and the media, so allow me to take your argument and points apart and destroy them and I will do it in two parts since its too lengthy to be in one reply.<br /><br />First for you to sink so low as to try and bolster your argument by what the Paterno family said they believed shows just how low and deceitful those desperate to defend their indefensible position are willing to go.<br /><br />The Paterno family wasn't in the shower were they? Joe Paterno wasn't in the shower either was he? The Paterno family has no more of an idea of what went on in that shower than anyone and clearly neither do you. <br /><br />And to use what the Paterno family had to say in public statements and ignoring the facts as they exist, shows how desperate you are. It should have been clear to you as it is to most people that the Paterno family would in no way want to be seen as defending Sandusky and even today expresses sympathy for Sandusky's victims. So for you to ignore all the facts to try and bolster your point by trying to say what the Paterno family "believed" when they would in no way publicly challenge media reports of what they say McQueary said he saw no matter how wrong they were, shows how low those trying to defend the Freeh Report are willing to go.<br /><br />No attack or assault of any kind took place in that shower. Period. Not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any shadow of a doubt. And in every statement McQueary made except to the grand jury, he used the words " horsing around" to describe what he THOUGHT was going on because he SAW nothing and finally had to admit he saw nothing. But there is someone who does know exactly what went on in that shower and we will get to that in a minute.<br /><br />Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-27804699401883994362013-02-13T03:37:36.623-08:002013-02-13T03:37:36.623-08:00Anonymous...by continuing to do what you're do...Anonymous...by continuing to do what you're doing on the limited knowledge that you have about the situation you ironically prove the author of this article to be fully justified in everything he said. It's beautiful!Billynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-59559423011412319562013-02-12T22:32:48.489-08:002013-02-12T22:32:48.489-08:00Joe pa admitted he wished he did more u psu people...Joe pa admitted he wished he did more u psu people can't accept the fact that your school messed up and your beloved joe pa messed up, keep blaming others ie espn, freeh, second mile, the public, etc. its time to own up and accept the fact your school and the people in charge screwed up, if the same thing happened with bowden in fsu u people would be crucifying bobbyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-15762825576523768332013-02-12T20:20:23.743-08:002013-02-12T20:20:23.743-08:00The American public condemned Paterno long before ...The American public condemned Paterno long before the Freeh Report was issued. This condemnation was based on Paterno's testimony before the Grand Jury, i.e., that he knew of an alleged sexual incident between Sandusky and a child. The Freeh Report as well as the Paterno Family Rebuttal did not (indeed, could not) change Paterno's words "It was a sexual nature".<br />You can refute every word of the Freeh Report and it still changes nothing as far as Paterno's reputation is concerned. Paterno's own words convict him. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-58486366049434230952013-02-12T19:51:25.336-08:002013-02-12T19:51:25.336-08:00The fact that Sandusky was convicted of indecent a...The fact that Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault of Victim 2 is irrelevant to the point of the discussion, which is that the Freeh Report findings are not supported by the laws or the evidence. <br /><br />I will release an analysis of the relevant chapters of the report that deal with the NCAA sanctions which concludes -- based on laws and evidence -- that only 5 of Freeh's 50 findings re: the NCAA sanctions are substantiated or partially substantiated by the evidence. That's 10%. <br /><br />Moreover, the findings which are supported - few that they are -- pertain to compliance with the conduct of criminal background checks and Clery Act reporting. Those findings have no relevance to the 2001 or 1998 incidents. PSU did not implement Clery Act reporting outside the police department until 2007. Thus, Freeh's allegation that McQueary, Curley, and Paterno violated the Clery act is not only unsubstantiated, but is dishonest and malicious.Ray Bleharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-639814687891977112013-02-12T16:21:47.143-08:002013-02-12T16:21:47.143-08:00Thank you Marc Rubin! I can always count on you t...Thank you Marc Rubin! I can always count on you to nail down the truth. Penn State's board is a joke. Louis Freeh is a joke. ESPN is a joke. This isn't about hero worship, statues, trophies or wins on a football field. This is about the truth! This is about how the children of THE SECOND MILE were failed by THE SECOND MILE and PA child welfare agencies. The truth is on the horizon for those people and they will have to answer for their incompetencies, perhaps their crimes. The damage done to Joe Paterno's good name may be irreversible but you can bet your sweet ass that Penn Staters will not rest until the truth is told, the board resigns and PA's children are safer (in fact, I'm pretty sure it's the entire country that needs a child welfare make over). Thank you again!Linda Berklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03605500542366863244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-64819476557959596202013-02-11T19:43:19.293-08:002013-02-11T19:43:19.293-08:00Excuse me anonymous. You say Joe Paterno looks ba...Excuse me anonymous. You say Joe Paterno looks bad because a sexual assault occured. MM stated he did not give Joe any details about what he saw, his information was vague. Joe, noting how disturbed MM was about it stated he believed it was sexual in nature. So coach Paterno did what was prescribed by PSU procedures and PA law, he contacted his superior AD Curley and asked him to look into the matter. Comments seem to indicate that Joe made sure MM met with Curley and/or Schultz. At that point Joe had met his responsibility, BY LAW, to report what he was told to the PSU authorities required to look into the matter further. More than one person I know in the teaching profession has told me that in PA that is standard practice. Obviously the other administrators were not convinced by MM an assult had taken place. The Freeh report uses incomplete information to infer that Joe Paterno participated in some grand coverup, even though many persons outside of PSU were made aware of the incident. If the AD and others that Joe trusted did not deem this incident worth following up on, WHY SHOULD HE QUESTION THEM!!! Again MM was very vague in his description to Joe and the report put together by the family's experts points this out. How does the Freeh report manage to conclude that Joe Paterno conspired to deceive others about what he was told. I would also like to note that in his statement dismissing the Paterno family report Mr. Freeh says that Joe Paterno declined to be interviewed for his report. However in the report itself, it is noted that Paterno agreed to speak with his commission but died before he could be interviewed. Which was it Mr. Freeh??? Jim Kramer Jr.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-32742736225345658812013-02-11T17:50:27.362-08:002013-02-11T17:50:27.362-08:00Excellent article. Well done. Buckeye Fan here, ho...Excellent article. Well done. Buckeye Fan here, hoping JoePa and his legacy are vindicated, restored and that his family gets the apology they deserve. Penn State should be removed from sanctions and the NCAA should be sued.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-4891739536820542302013-02-11T17:02:55.470-08:002013-02-11T17:02:55.470-08:00A culture of elitistsA culture of elitistsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-30023536123193916672013-02-11T17:00:17.953-08:002013-02-11T17:00:17.953-08:00"My goodness Anonymous - when confronted with..."My goodness Anonymous - when confronted with a basic fact that you screwed up you change your argument. Moving the goalposts to use a football expression is a classic rhetorical fallacy."<br /><br />There was no movement of "goal posts" . Marc states that MM witnessed "nothing at all much less an assault" in the shower. Marc did not limit his denial to "sexual" assaults. The jury found that MM witnessed an Indecent Assault (which the statute defines as "sexual" in nature). Only in the minds of Joe's supporters does anything short of penetration constitute "nothing at all". <br /><br />Marc set the "goal posts" at "assault" (actually, he set them at "nothing", but let's ignore that silliness). Indecent assault doesn't move Marc's goal posts. You have to pay more attention to the statement which is being refuted. In any case, it's good that you, like the Paternos, acknowledge that an "assault" took place. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-43748731855371187522013-02-11T16:21:59.847-08:002013-02-11T16:21:59.847-08:00My goodness Anonymous - when confronted with a bas...My goodness Anonymous - when confronted with a basic fact that you screwed up you change your argument. Moving the goalposts to use a football expression is a classic rhetorical fallacy.Jeff Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13745348951119063296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-91260031719783685302013-02-11T11:41:53.940-08:002013-02-11T11:41:53.940-08:00I doubt whether that terrifed boy in the shower wa...I doubt whether that terrifed boy in the shower was as dismissive of Jerry's sexual contact (the words used in the Indecent Assault statute) as Joe's supporters seem to be. Joe's family certainly believes that the boy was sexually assaulted in the shower. They say so REPEATEDLY in their rebuttal. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-64949227772254926912013-02-11T11:12:29.356-08:002013-02-11T11:12:29.356-08:00Sandusky was convicted of Indecent Assault, not se...Sandusky was convicted of Indecent Assault, not sexual assault, which was a misdemeanor and not a felony. He was not convicted of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse. He was not convicted of it because he did not see anything remotely like that and the jury did not believe it. Even though the state AG made sure she said it in her GJ Presentment television appearance. None of the other people McQueary told at the time had that opinion either, including his father's MD friend, a mandated reporter; who did not report it. While I am offended that Paterno receives irrational, unjust accusation; I am more offended that the real culprits in this story - state agencies and The Second Mile - are currently off the hook.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com