NCAA imposes stiff penalties on Penn State

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | July 23, 2012 | Jeremy Roebuck

[bjorn14]

Yeah, just like Curley decided on his own that he was ‘uncomfortable’ calling the police after talking to Joe.

[bjorn14]

Oh yeah I’m sure Schultz forced Sandusky on Paterno for 10+ years after Paterno told him he was no longer the heir apparent after JoePa retired. If Joe wanted something done, it got done and if he didn’t it didn’t.

[Uncle Chip]

Yeah, just like Curley decided on his own that he was ‘uncomfortable’ calling the police after talking to Joe.

Curley certainly wasn't uncomfortable calling the police in 1998 when Sandusky's molestation went all the way to the District Attorney Ray Gricar who decided not to prosecute.

He never consulted Joe in 1998 and Sandusky was working for him then. Or if he did consult with him, Joe must have told him to call the police because that is what they eventually did.

What happened to Curley and the boyz between 1998 and 2001 -- did they lose the 911 number, their nerve, or their confidence in the DA???

[Twink]

Thank you for posting those links. Mamy won’t bother to look at/read them but those who want the truth or some semblance of the truth will. Thanks again.

[Amagi]

“For the next several years now, Penn State can focus on the work of rebuilding its athletic culture, not the next bowl game,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said.

Wow. Mark sounds like a very special guy.

The Big Ten will devote Penn State’s share of bowl proceeds over the next four years — estimated at $13 million — to endowments to address the issue in and around Big Ten schools.

What "issue" might that be? Have we just scratched the surface of the pedophilia issue in the Big Ten? One wonders where that $13 million, and indeed the $60 million, will ultimately come to rest.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Whining? Really? That's all you have? I wrote facts, sir, only facts. SC deserved sanctions. However, the punishment did not fit the crime. The penalties were worse than schools whose staff knowingly committed violations, including widespread cheating on tests across multiple sports, and other wrongdoings.

Fortunately the administration and coaching staff have handled the situation well and the Trojans are ready to kick ass again this season.

[bjorn14]

“What happened to Curley and the boyz between 1998 and 2001”

They started losing football games, JoePa’s first back to back losing seasons where he had a 4 year stretch of 26-37. People were started websites like FireJoePa.com. If this had come out he surely would have been gone.

[bjorn14]

“What happened to Curley and the boyz between 1998 and 2001”

They started losing football games, JoePa’s first back to back losing seasons where he had a 4 year stretch of 26-37. People were started websites like FireJoePa.com. If this had come out he surely would have been gone.

[Boogieman]

“He did too report them and the DA Ray Gricar failed to prosecute and then disappeared in 2005:”

That was the 1998 case, not the later incident that was covered up by Paterno and his cronies.

[Uncle Chip]

That was the 1998 case, not the later incident that was covered up by Paterno and his cronies.

You mean the later incident in 2001 that he passed upstairs to Curley, the same Curley who along with Spanier, Schultz, and Harmon had all been involved in the 1998 incident, the incident that the then District Attorney Ray Gricar refused to prosecute. What were all those people -- potted plants???

Are any of them still at the university??? Are they collecting their pensions??? If so, then just whose cronies were and are they???

[allmendream]

Some people can apparently justify anything to excuse a sick demented ignorant fanatic who thought football was more important that stopping child rape.

Disgusting.

[Boogieman]

“You mean the later incident in 2001 that he passed upstairs to Curley...”

Yes, that’s the one. The one that he failed to report to the police even though he knew this was a pattern of behavior at that point. The incident where he advised his cronies to be humane to Sandusky but didn’t express one shred of humanity towards Sandusky’s victim. That’s the one.

[Uncle Chip]

The incident where he advised his cronies to be humane to Sandusky but didn’t express one shred of humanity towards Sandusky’s victim.

Advising others to be humane is certainly not covering it up. The Colorado shooter is being treated humanely.

If he was not involved in the 1998 incident I can somewhat understand such a request, but it doesn't mean that the Athletic Director, the Finance Director, the President of the University, and Chief of the Penn State University Police, who were all involved in the 1998 incident, should accede to the request or give him any kind of pass. Paterno put the ball into their hands. What did they do with it???

[Boogieman]

“Advising others to be humane is certainly not covering it up.”

It is when you use “humane” as a euphemism for not reporting them to the police.

“Paterno put the ball into their hands. What did they do with it???”

Nothing, they all decided to do nothing together.

[Uncle Chip]

It is when you use “humane” as a euphemism for not reporting them to the police.

I have heard the word used all the time but never as that euphemism. Freeh will have to do better than that.

“Paterno put the ball into their hands. What did they do with it???”Nothing, they all decided to do nothing together.

By "all" you mean Curley, Spanier, and Schultz who he handed the ball off to, right??? And surely they atleast took it to the Chief of the Penn State University Police, right??? They did contact the Chief of the University Police as they did in 1998, didn't they??? Here's a refresher:

The victim's mother reported the 1998 incident to campus police. According to the Freeh report, then-Police Chief Thomas Harmon told University Vice President Gary Schultz: "We're going to hold off on making any crime log entry. At this point in time I can justify that decision because of the lack of clear evidence of a crime."

In 2001, graduate assistant Mike McQueary saw the sexual assault and told football coach Joe Paterno, who told Athletic Director Tim Curley, who subsequently consulted with Schultz and university President Graham Spanier. No one ever went to police.

"Paterno, Curley and McQueary were obligated to report the 2001 Sandusky incident to the University Police Department for inclusion in Clery Act statistics and for determining whether a timely warning should be issued to the University community. No record exists of such a report," the Freeh report said.

http://news.yahoo.com/penn-state-could-incur-steep-penalty-probe-unreported-223637830--nfl.html

The fact that no record of such a report exists doesn't mean that the report was never made to the Chief of the University Police. That's Freeh's euphemism for "they were made but we can't find them". See the darkened area above for proof.

Funny how reports are never be made in the first place and records just happen disappear, like those of the District Attorney in the 1998 investigation along with himself in 2005.

[Boogieman]

“I have heard the word used all the time but never as that euphemism. Freeh will have to do better than that.”

It’s got nothing to do with Freeh. The emails, which were released before the Freeh report, and which contain no comment from Freeh, show that Paterno et al used that as their own euphemism.

“By “all” you mean Curley, Spanier, and Schultz who he handed the ball off to, right???”

No, I mean Paterno, Curley, Spanier, Schultz, etc. All of the people at Penn State who were involved in the decision to cover-up, Paterno INCLUDED.

“The fact that no record of such a report exists doesn’t mean that the report was never made to the Chief of the University Police. That’s Freeh’s euphemism for “they were made but we can’t find them”. See the darkened area above for proof.”

The “darkened area” contains no such proof, that I can see, unless you are conflating the 1998 and 2001 incidents. Why would people assume the report wasn’t made when there is no report to be found? Maybe it’s because we have their emails where they are engaged in a criminal conspiracy not to make that report? That might have something to do with it.

[Uncle Chip]

The “darkened area” contains no such proof, that I can see, unless you are conflating the 1998 and 2001 incidents. Why would people assume the report wasn’t made when there is no report to be found?

Let me assist you:

"The victim's mother reported the 1998 incident to campus police. According to the Freeh report, then-Police Chief Thomas Harmon told University Vice President Gary Schultz: "We're going to hold off on making any crime log entry. At this point in time I can justify that decision because of the lack of clear evidence of a crime."

Did the mother contact the university police???

Yes.

Did Schultz meet with the Chief of the University Police??

Yes

Did the Chief of the University Police say that he was not going to make a record of the incident even after being notified by the mother and meeting with Schultz???

Yes

A report to and a meeting with the university police and still no record down on paper. Just because a record wasn't made BY the Chief of the University Police didn't mean that a report wan't made TO the Chief of the University Police, does it???

So what's to say the same thing didn't happen in 2001 ???

Freeh's words "No record exists" do not mean that "No report was made".

What evidence is there that the Chief of the University Police was not contacted in 2001??? Is the only evidence of "no contact" that "No record exists" or was the Chief contacted in 2001 as he was in 1998 and simply made no record of it in 2001 as he made no record of it in 1998 even after a report was made and a meeting was held???

[Boogieman]

First, I don’t think you can extrapolate from one contact with the University police which did not result in a “log entry”, to think that they never made any reports from the 1998 incident, or that there wouldn’t be any reports made in 2001. It’s possible, but it’s a big stretch. After all, if no records were made at all, then how do we know about the decision not to make a log entry? Seems like they got that information from some written records about the 1998 incident and their decision-making process. Which would mean that there is written evidence of the 1998 report after all.

“What evidence is there that the Chief of the University Police was not contacted in 2001???”

Well, I don’t know, how about the email chain where the conspirators are conspiring not to report it? I’d say that is some prime evidence right there.

[Boogieman]

First, I don’t think you can extrapolate from one contact with the University police which did not result in a “log entry”, to think that they never made any reports from the 1998 incident, or that there wouldn’t be any reports made in 2001. It’s possible, but it’s a big stretch. After all, if no records were made at all, then how do we know about the decision not to make a log entry? Seems like they got that information from some written records about the 1998 incident and their decision-making process. Which would mean that there is written evidence of the 1998 report after all.

“What evidence is there that the Chief of the University Police was not contacted in 2001???”

Well, I don’t know, how about the email chain where the conspirators are conspiring not to report it? I’d say that is some prime evidence right there.

[Uncle Chip]

First, I don’t think you can extrapolate from one contact with the University police which did not result in a “log entry”, to think that they never made any reports from the 1998 incident, or that there wouldn’t be any reports made in 2001.

The best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour.

After all, if no records were made at all, then how do we know about the decision not to make a log entry?

After enough reports and enough meetings with enough people, records of the 1998 incident were made, but clearly early on the Chief was trying to keep it off the record. That is what the record shows, isn't it???

If the Chief of the University Police in 1998 could justify making no "crime log entry" [a euphemism perhaps???] because of "lack of clear evidence of a crime", even though he had the mother and her son ready to testify, how much easier would it have been for the Chief to subsequently justify making no "crime log entry" in 2001 until he finds his "clear evidence".

Would the Chief consider McQuery's witnessing of the incident alone as "clear evidence of a crime", or would the Chief say that he has to also speak with the boy before having before him "clear evidence of a crime"???