Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[SirMario66]

Didn't see this posted:

In an exchange of messages from February 26-28, 2001, Spanier allegedly acknowledges Penn State could be "vulnerable" for not reporting the incident, according to two sources with knowledge of the case.

"The only downside for us is if the message (to Sandusky) isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier purportedly writes.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/30/justice/p ... =allsearch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That might be the worst part. No remorse. No concern for the actual VICTIM. Yep the only downside would be getting caught.

[canaan]

i don't think that there's any PSU alum that will say there was no cover-up. I think it's quite obvious there was.

I wish that were true, but Twitter is a minefield of stupid...

that goes for any topic under the sun, though.

[Samsdog]

i don't think that there's any PSU alum that will say there was no cover-up. I think it's quite obvious there was.

I wish that were true, but Twitter is a minefield of stupid...

that goes for any topic under the sun, though.

That's factual but doesn't change the underlying point.

[count2infinity]

the underlying point is that there are a few out there that aren't smart enough to see what happened, so they therefor speak for the whole community?

[Samsdog]

the underlying point is that there are a few out there that aren't smart enough to see what happened, so they therefor speak for the whole community?

Ah the leaps of logic. Never said that they speak for the community or even implied it. The point being that there are still people that think there was no cover-up and hopefully this leads those to wise up.

[Rocco]

the underlying point is that there are a few out there that aren't smart enough to see what happened, so they therefor speak for the whole community?

Ah the leaps of logic. Never said that they speak for the community or even implied it. The point being that there are still people that think there was no cover-up and hopefully this leads those to wise up.

There are also people who believe the moon landing was fake.

[count2infinity]

the underlying point is that there are a few out there that aren't smart enough to see what happened, so they therefor speak for the whole community?

Ah the leaps of logic. Never said that they speak for the community or even implied it. The point being that there are still people that think there was no cover-up and hopefully this leads those to wise up.

you certainly implied it, but that's a matter of opinion i suppose. so what exactly are you trying to say? there are still people out there that believe PSU did not actively cover this up? If that's the case, then they are few and far between. I highly doubt anyone on this board with PSU connections does not believe there was some level of a cover-up.

[canaan]

the underlying point is that there are a few out there that aren't smart enough to see what happened, so they therefor speak for the whole community?

Ah the leaps of logic. Never said that they speak for the community or even implied it. The point being that there are still people that think there was no cover-up and hopefully this leads those to wise up.

joe paterno can rise from the grave, give a 48 minute interview with barbara walters on 20/20 saying that there was a cover up, and some people wont believe it. It doesnt matter what the vocal minority believe. any rational human being, penn stater or not, knows that there was some level of complicity. i dont understand what point you are trying to make.

[Samsdog]

What's implied and what's inferred are two entirely different things. I know people with PSU ties that are generally very rational people that up to this point thought that cover up didn't actively occur or that complicity stopped with Curley and Schultz. In this case, those generally rational people are turning a blind eye in a way that is frankly baffling to me. With this new evidence, I hope those sorts of people, being generally rational, will begin to rethink that opinion. That is all I meant. Whole point of what I was saying.

[SirMario66]

This does NOT paint all Penn State fans as idiots. But there are STILL so many blind followers of Paterno. Go read the Penn State message board Blue and White Illustrated. You've got to be kidding me. And honestly, if it were any other school with any other figure, there's no way there would be this many blind cultists.

Let's say the same exact situation happened with the Pens (Penn State) and Mario Lemieux (Paterno). I like to think that Letsgopens would be ABSOULTELY CRUCIFYING Mario and the Penguins for letting something like this happen.

[KennyTheKangaroo]

now that this email is out, the real cultists are switching to a "this isnt a penn state issue, this is a handful of bad apples making bad decisions." Which is of course, b.s. because the reason that curley, spanier, paterno, etc all looked the other way was to protect the image of penn state football and continue to glorify themselves with their "grand experiment" baloney.

[CBear3]

now that this email is out, the real cultists are switching to a "this isnt a penn state issue, this is a handful of bad apples making bad decisions." Which is of course, b.s. because the reason that curley, spanier, paterno, etc all looked the other way was to protect the image of penn state football and continue to glorify themselves with their "grand experiment" baloney.

True, but while we single out PSU remember that there are plenty of other schools with just as crazy fanbases, and just as lofty images to maintain. Not that this would happen anywhere else in the country, but that it could because the same pressures that existed at PSU exist elsewhere. It's as much an indictment on the culture of college football in America as it is PSU itself.

Spoken from a guy with no ties to PSU.

[Factorial]

It's the lack of accountability and giving too much power to one individual (JoePa in this case). He was the football coach for Pete's sake and these administrators were afraid to go against his wishes. As an alumni, this is sickening.

[columbia]

Someone texting into da Fan saying that there is no way that the emails are real, because there's no way that they could have survived after 11 years.

[shmenguin]

Someone texting into da Fan saying that there is no way that the emails are real, because there's no way that they could have survived after 11 years.

i think at plenty of companies, the life span of e-mails from creation to absolute deletion is only a couple years at most. but it's more than possible for a place like PSU to save them for that long.

[columbia]

but it's more than possible for a place like PSU to save them for that long.

Definitely. I took a staff job at my alma mater, six years after graduating....They gave me the same email address, that was 10 years old at that point.

[shmenguin]

but it's more than possible for a place like PSU to save them for that long.

Definitely. I took a staff job at my alma mater, six years after graduating....They gave me the same email address, that was 10 years old at that point.

i run our company's mail server. since i don't have time to guide everyone in setting up Exchange with Outlook, most people still use a pop3 connection. for most people, their messages get deleted from the server every time they check mail.

[mac5155]

Someone texting into da Fan saying that there is no way that the emails are real, because there's no way that they could have survived after 11 years.

i think at plenty of companies, the life span of e-mails from creation to absolute deletion is only a couple years at most. but it's more than possible for a place like PSU to save them for that long.

In our Infosec class we actually had PSUs email admin come in. If memory serves me, they are stored for 15 years. I believe Officers have longer shelf lives to boot.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

So the email that everyone is pointing to as implicating Paterno in a cover up allegedly states "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." The email is supposed to be from Schultz to Curley.

So from that email everyone is assuming two things: That Curley is refering to Joe Paterno and that Paterno convinced Curley to change his original course of action. How can anyone for certain state that Joe is Joe Paterno and not someone else? Also Curley states that he gave it more thought and talked it over, which means he might have been thinking about not reporting it before talking with "Joe". Also none of the emails state that "Joe" forced anyones hand in not reporting the situation further. It appears that the final decision not to report was made by Spanier after his emails with Schultz and Curley.

I am not saying that Paterno was not involved in any manner, just saying that everyone is jumping to conclusions based on this one email. There might be additional evidence that implicates Paterno further, but until that evidence comes out, it seems people are rushing to judgement.

[Pavel Bure]

Good lord. You really think the Joe in the e-mail isn't Joepa? Really? All of them were involved in this. Joepa is not bullet proof he actively participated in the coverup of child rape.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Good lord. You really think the Joe in the e-mail isn't Joepa? Really? All of them were involved in this. Joepa is not bullet proof he actively participated in the coverup of child rape.

I don't know if it was Joe Paterno or not. How do you know it was?

[MRandall25]

Good lord. You really think the Joe in the e-mail isn't Joepa? Really? All of them were involved in this. Joepa is not bullet proof he actively participated in the coverup of child rape.

I don't know if it was Joe Paterno or not. How do you know it was?

Are there any other "Joes" implicated in this trial?

Thought so.

[skullman80]

I find it hard to believe that anyone could honestly think that email referred to a Joe other than Paterno. It would make no logical sense.

[Pavel Bure]

Good lord. You really think the Joe in the e-mail isn't Joepa? Really? All of them were involved in this. Joepa is not bullet proof he actively participated in the coverup of child rape.

I don't know if it was Joe Paterno or not. How do you know it was?

I'm completely baffled you think there's a chance that there's some mystery Joe they would be talking about. Joe was involved with this just like the others.

[count2infinity]

the Joe is definitely Joe Paterno. who else would it be?