 Edge1These go to 11.Premium
join:2006-03-01
USA
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to f0rtys3ven
Re: [NCAA-F] Unhappy Valley said by f0rtys3ven:Just root for the right team.
GO BLUE!
*vomits*
 |
|
| Hey at least your not in lansing repping the rival lol. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to fatness
|
|
 Rojo_P
join:2001-10-03
Lancaster, OH
·Earthlink Cable ..
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Linklist:said by fatness:Penn State hired Gene Marsh to negotiate the settlement with the NCAA. If they hadn't done that they would have lost their football program entirely for 1-4 years.
The Penn State trustees may be looking at repudiating the NCAA sanctions deal. Claim the PSU President didn't have authority to sign the deal. » www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/25/ap···+Text%29 University President Erickson says Penn State faced far worse 4-year death penalty
--
There's nothing big I want to prove,
No mountains that I need to move,
Or even claim what's right or true for you.
|
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
Bright House Netwo..
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by fatness:Penn State hired Gene Marsh to negotiate the settlement with the NCAA. If they hadn't done that they would have lost their football program entirely for 1-4 years.
The Penn State trustees may be looking at repudiating the NCAA sanctions deal. Claim the PSU President didn't have authority to sign the deal. » www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/25/ap···+Text%29 That was a faint glimmer of hope there for a couple hours, which was dashed when Erickson revealed to ESPN and other outlets that, had he not negotiated the sanctions down to the ones handed out, the NCAA would launch their own full investigation and add those results to the results of the Freeh Report and the Sandusky investigation/prosecution --- and they would have banned Penn State from football completely for 1 to 4 years. Complete football ban. He met with the trustees yesterday afternoon and early evening, and upon finding that out they backed what Erickson did.
»news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/26/re···penalty/
The 3 smartest things that Penn State has done so far to handle this fiasco are:
1. Hired Louis Freeh to investigate what happend and release his results to the world, unedited.
2. Erickson negotiating with the NCAA to avoid the football program being shut down for 4 years.
3. Extending O'Brien's contract as head coach for 4 more years.
»espn.go.com/college-football/sto···anctions
O'Brien is committed to keeping the team together as much as possible, on the field, and on TV, and not looking back and bitching about sanctions for past behavior. That's the attitude that will get Penn State through this. Each year a new class will come in, fewer and fewer of them will know about and idolize Paterno, and his legacy will be less and less important to the school each year. Yet the Penn State community will go on.
There are far more important things about that university and community that Paterno's reputation. More and more people around the PSU community are realizing that.
--
my pants are parched and thirsty |
|
|
|
fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14 Host:
Bright House Netwo..
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to fatness
A man claiming to be the boy McQueary saw Sandusky raping in the shower is about to sue Penn State.
»sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/f···dex.html
That is another reason for Penn State to be out front trying to set things right, make amends, and take their punishment. There are going to be lawsuits, which will result in more evidence being uncovered against PSU. There will be criminal trials of Curley and Schultz during which more evidence will come out. There are state and federal investigations of Penn State going on right now, both of which will uncover new evidence.
More negative stuff is going to come out. The more good behavior Penn State exhibits right now, the less likely they are to be damaged by what's yet to come out. This isn't over yet.
--
my pants are parched and thirsty |
|
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:I think less of an emphasis needed to be put on Penn State as a whole. As I said before, to which no one has been able to debate me on, this crime was perpetuated by 4 people. Curly, Schultz, Paterno, and Sandusky. These 4 people were the only ones with knowledge of the situation according to the Freeh report. It was these 4 people that are going to be incarcerated or fired for good reason. I would be inclined to agree with you if part of the team knew this was going on, but as it stands, that didn't happen.
Wrong, wrong wrong.
The problem goes back to 1998. Police, CYS, DPW and DA all investigated anf found no evidence of a crime. The NCAA is punishing Penn State back to 1998.
In 2000, the janitors saw something but kept their mouths shut.
After 2001, Sandusky moved on to Central Mountain High School
As for 2001, it is still unclear what Mike McQuery saw and wht he communicated. Testiony today may say one thing. Actual words in 2001 might be another. I doubt that we'll ever know.
Sandusky is certianly a guilty party. The others...we're not sure. The perjury trial hasn't been conducted.
As for Lousi Freeh, if he were still alive, as Richard Jewell how good the Freeh-led FBI handled his case. |
|
 ABPremium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
kudos:3
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by avguser:Wrong, wrong wrong.
The problem goes back to 1998. Police, CYS, DPW and DA all investigated anf found no evidence of a crime. Sure they did. They just decided maybe not enough evidence to go forth with an arrest and trial at that time.
Nor is any law enforcement official involved claiming, in hindsight, that it was the right decision.
As for 2001, it is still unclear what Mike McQuery saw and wht he communicated.
But as they say-- denial is more than just a river in Egypt. |
|
| Re: 1998: Therefore, since no crime was committed according to the professional investigating the incident, one cannot and should not be punished. You had better hope that you are never punished for something that never occurred.
Re: 2001: To which story do you subscribe to that makes it clear that McQueary saw what has been reported? There are several versions to choose from, mind you. also, his father didn't think it was a crime. Dranov didn't think it was a crime. Whatever he told anyone didn't lead them to believe a crime had been committed. |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
 ·Site5.com
| Anytime when someone is punished for a crime they didn't commit, it is a travesty. There are a couple high profile stories that you can read about, but one I watched on 60 minutes was re-aired about a couple weeks ago. Michael Morton was convicted but his conviction was overturned due to DNA evidence. The sheriff and DA actually covered things up to keep him in jail.
I am not surprised that the DA dropped the case just based on the lack of evidence.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
ABPremium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to avguser
said by avguser:Re: 1998: Therefore, since no crime was committed according to the professional investigating the incident, one cannot and should not be punished. You had better hope that you are never punished for something that never occurred. Sandusky's crimes ocurred. At least a jury sure thought so.
Re: 2001: To which story do you subscribe to that makes it clear that McQueary saw what has been reported? There are several versions to choose from, mind you. also, his father didn't think it was a crime. Dranov didn't think it was a crime. Whatever he told anyone didn't lead them to believe a crime had been committed.
The story I'm referring to is the transcript of the grand jury and court testimony.
The boy who was raped and nobody knew who he was has now come forward, btw. |
|
| Here's the problem with people who don't read and don't understand what occurred (in general) because they only read media-slanted opinion.
Fact: In 1998, no charges were filed, hence no crime was committed. There is no failure on the part of the Penn State administration or athletic department for the handling/mishandling of anything that occurred w/r/t this incident. If anyone failed, it was the DA, CYS and DPW. They were on the case.
Fact: McQueary stated that he never used the words anal rape when he described Shower 2001. The Grand Jury report that incited the mass hysteria put those words in his mouth in their presentment. He denied ever using those words. The jury did not convict Sandusky of that specific charge either. Furthermore, you do realize that the GJ presentment also stated as a 'matter of fact' that the McQueary shower incident was March 2002. It has been shown that the GJ report is, in fact, incorrect. The incident occurred in February 2001. Sandusky of all people had the year correct; not the Grand Jury.
It remains to be seen if the gentleman that came forward is victim #2 or not. Perhaps when he is released from prison the world will find out. |
|
ABPremium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by avguser:Fact: In 1998, no charges were filed, hence no crime was committed. When a 55 or 60 year-old man sexually molests a young boy, a crime has been committed-- whether the man gets arrested and criminally charged for the act or not.
Fact: McQueary stated that he never used the words anal rape when he described Shower 2001. The Grand Jury report that incited the mass hysteria put those words in his mouth in their presentment. He denied ever using those words.
The words he used didn't change Joe Paterno's accurate enough understanding of the crime witnessed, nor do they change that a crime was committed-- that is, working under the fairly valid assumption that McQueary did see what he said he saw. |
|
fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14 Host:
Bright House Netwo..
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to avguser
said by avguser:Re: 2001: To which story do you subscribe to that makes it clear that McQueary saw what has been reported?
There was a grand jury at which he testified. There was a trial at which he testified. The defense attorneys didn't tear any holes in his story, and they're more adept at this than you and I are. The reason Sandusky was only convicted on 3 out of 4 charges involving the event McQueary saw is because McQueary did not literally see a penis go into a rectum, nor did he ever say he saw that. So he was acquitted of that charge. McQueary's testimony wasn't found inconsistent in court. It just didn't provide enough evidence for the jury to convict on the rape charge. The jury specifically asked to hear his testimony re-read to them while deliberating, and that resulted in 3 convictions of Sandusky and 1 acquittal. Not seeing the penis enter the rectum was why he was acquitted on that one.
I really don't know why that's so hard to understand. There's been an attempt all through the Sandusky investigation and prosecution to villianize McQueary. Initially it was because he reported things to Paterno, and Paterno fans didn't like that and went after McQueary. I understand that -- McQueary's testimony to the GJ exposed a hero's involvement in not reporting things to police that turned out to be crimes. But the grand jury's over. The trial's over. The NCAA sanctions are over. Nothing's going to be undone based on nitpicking things McQueary said.
--
my pants are parched and thirsty |
|
ABPremium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by fatness:Nothing's going to be undone based on nitpicking things McQueary said. Yet refusing to remove the blinders while continuing to beat the dead horse always remains a popular avocation. |
|
| reply to AB
Try an understand. it's very, very simple, but you keep making assumptions about what you think occurred and not working simply from the fact.
In 1998, there was an external investigation in to what occurred between Sandusky and the boy. It included the DA, Police, CYS and DPW. No abuse occurred. How gosh darn hard is that to understand. No crime occurred. No charges were filed.
Had anyone taken any action against Sandusky with no charges even being filed, then they were at risk of lawsuits themselves.
Read the facts and only the facts. They are very clear. |
|
ABPremium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by avguser:. . you keep making assumptions about what you think occurred and not working simply from the fact.
In 1998, there was an external investigation in to what occurred between Sandusky and the boy. It included the DA, Police, CYS and DPW. No abuse occurred. How gosh darn hard is that to understand. No crime occurred. No charges were filed.
Had anyone taken any action against Sandusky with no charges even being filed, then they were at risk of lawsuits themselves.
Read the facts and only the facts. They are very clear. You're the one wearing the blinders while beating the dead horse, not me.
Do you have access to info and "facts" that the rest of us do not have?
"No abuse occurred." "No crime occurred." Why do you keep insisting that it's only possible for child abuse to happen when an arrest is made over it? Surely you cannot be that naive.
Sandusky's sitting in jail, convicted of many counts of child abuse-- that is, engaging in sex acts with children.
Law enforcement felt there was valid reason to investigate a charge against him in 1998. But in your mind, because no arrest was actually made in that case, no abuse could have taken place.
You equate "facts" with 'legal actions taken'.
Crimes of all stripe are regularly committed without being solved, without an arrest being made. But when someone is murdered or sexually abused, they stay murdered or abused-- whether someone gets arrested or not. When your CD player is stolen from your car but no arrest is ever made, your CD player is still gone-- it's been stolen.
How is this a difficult concept for you? |
|
| 1. Detective Columbo, you still do not understand the simple fact of the matter. I have no facts other than the fact that an external investigation occurred in to the 1998 incident and there was no crime. No crime, therefore no abuse. it's really simple, but you still keepo making things up to say there was a crime.
2. As for your CD player scenario, the analogy would correctly be that the police investigated and found that the CD player was still right there in your car. Nothing was stolen, hence no crime was committed.
The entire point is that Penn State cannot and should not be held liable for 1998. That is on somebody else's conscience. |
|
ABPremium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by avguser:The entire point is that Penn State cannot and should not be held liable for 1998. That is on somebody else's conscience. That's it? Sanctions on the school and football program? That's what all your talk about 'crimes weren't committed' has been strictly about?
I had you wrong.
Screw Penn State, and their football program. Students whose education will be effected by sanctions have my sympathy. Probably not many of those, though, as "football" is not an offical choice for a degree. |
|
 pflogBueller? Bueller?Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA
kudos:3 | said by AB:said by avguser:The entire point is that Penn State cannot and should not be held liable for 1998. That is on somebody else's conscience. That's it? Sanctions on the school and football program? That's what all your talk about 'crimes weren't committed' has been strictly about? I had you wrong. Screw Penn State, and their football program. Students whose education will be effected by sanctions have my sympathy. Probably not many of those, though, as "football" is not an offical choice for a degree. I've stayed out of this thread as a Penn State alum, but I really take offense at that last comment. Penn State football players have been and are among the highest graduation rate, GPA, etc. Statements like that are ignorant - many of these football players use football as a means of getting an education not the other way around. 
--
"Women. Can't live with 'em, pass the beer nuts." -Norm |
|
