Penn State Goings-On

[Rasputin]

very logical but it doesnt explain the university's disposition in 2002 which leads me to believe that there may have been an actual 2002 investigation that got buried on the hopes that they could distance sandusky from the school

But no one made any effort to distance Sandusky from the school.  I think this dog won't hunt.

they appear to have institued a policy of not letting him bring kids from the charity to the campus

my original post was why do this if the adminstration doesn't believe the ga's story

if the adminstration believes the ga's story then how does it reach that conclusion without a 2002 investigation

given that most institutions investigate allegations of conduct that can give rise to liability, this suggests that an investigation occured in 2002 and that the results were negative to sandusky, and that the school buried the investigation in the hopes of driving any future misconduct away from the school

[Caliga]

No I missed it.  I understand he was talking about killing Sandusky or kicking his ass or something?

Not in what I saw.  It was just "these are little kids...sob sob sob"

Millen has commented on this a couple of times now and in one of the commentaries I saw he did say his instinct is to take matters in to his own hands or something of that nature, but he quickly clarified that this ultimately needs to be handled in court.

[The Brain]

There's no great mystery here. The school is rotten to the core just like the Catholic church.

[Barrister]

very logical but it doesnt explain the university's disposition in 2002 which leads me to believe that there may have been an actual 2002 investigation that got buried on the hopes that they could distance sandusky from the school

But no one made any effort to distance Sandusky from the school.  I think this dog won't hunt.

they appear to have institued a policy of not letting him bring kids from the charity to the campus

my original post was why do this if the adminstration doesn't believe the ga's story

if the adminstration believes the ga's story then how does it reach that conclusion without a 2002 investigation

given that most institutions investigate allegations of conduct that can give rise to liability, this suggests that an investigation occured in 2002 and that the results were negative to sandusky, and that the school buried the investigation in the hopes of driving any future misconduct away from the school

Depends what you mean by investigation.  Curleys investigation (if you can call it that) was limited to asking McQueary about the incident.

[alfred russel]

they appear to have institued a policy of not letting him bring kids from the charity to the campus

my original post was why do this if the adminstration doesn't believe the ga's story

if the adminstration believes the ga's story then how does it reach that conclusion without a 2002 investigation

given that most institutions investigate allegations of conduct that can give rise to liability, this suggests that an investigation occured in 2002 and that the results were negative to sandusky, and that the school buried the investigation in the hopes of driving any future misconduct away from the school

A lot hinges on what investigation was actually done, and what it turned up. There wasn't really a reason for Sandusky to bring kids onto campus in the first place, so telling him to stop doesn't necessarily mean they came across evidence. They may have thought they were providing CYA to the school in case of the worst. It seems a real investigation was never conducted (at least, not with the police), so I'd assume the word "investigation" is being used by the administration very broadly to cover the fact they only dis a cursory look into things.

The alternative is that an investigation was launched, and was able to substantiate the GA's account. While that is possible, I find it unlikely that multiple grown men would be confronted with knowledge of a child rapist and tell him just to stay away from campus. If that happened, then I would think these people are every bit as evil as Sandusky. Maybe more so. 

[grumbler]

i am not making assumptions

i know the difference between assumptions and fact; you've yet to identify an assumption that i've made

1.  he is told by a graduate assistant that he witnessed sandusky (assuming the veracity of joe pa's version of events) in the shower with a boy who appeared about ten;

4. he is not on the campus because of joe pa but instead because of his charity (apparently at the will of a department other than athletics);

5.  if we accept that thus far there is no known fact  which would suggest that in 2002 joe pa should have believed his friend of 34 years capable of such a monstrous act, then it's reasonable to assume that joe pa might have had some skepticism about the veracity of the allegation;

6. joe pa nontheless reports it to his boss and to the head of the department at penn state who is letting sandusky run this charity on penn state property. 

I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.

No reason to assume that he doesn't know.  Clearly, since you don't believe in the changed game, you must be assuming/speculating he didn't know, since  there are no known facts to support that position.

i will concede that i've speculated on what might be based on matters not yet known but i've not reached any conclusions and only offfered theories where i freely admit that we don't yet have enough facts

That is all anyone can do.

you on the other hand are uncharacteristically quick to judgment with suggestions as to what must necessarily be without regard to whether we have any fact that supports these matters as of yet

You are uncharacteristically misreading my position.  I am simply providing reasons why one assumption (or speculation, if you prefer) seems more plausible than another.  The assumption/speculation that there was a secret investigation in 1998 and another in 2002 seems to me completely unfounded and illogical.

it is characteristically an argument based largely on semantics you'

I don't know of a single instance in which we have debated word meaning.  If you are going to "characteristically" make this a matter of semantics, then what is the word whose meaning you dispute?

[crazy canuck]

That is what I thought.  So I stand by my assessment.

They were talking about the 1998 incident and whether or not Paterno would have known about it.  There were police and a district attorney involved.  I'm pretty sure it can be called an "investigation."

I am not sure what you were talking about.  We were talking about the GA witnessing the boy being anally raped and what occurred after that.  BB then noted there were other matters.

[crazy canuck]

they appear to have institued a policy of not letting him bring kids from the charity to the campus

my original post was why do this if the adminstration doesn't believe the ga's story

if the adminstration believes the ga's story then how does it reach that conclusion without a 2002 investigation

given that most institutions investigate allegations of conduct that can give rise to liability, this suggests that an investigation occured in 2002 and that the results were negative to sandusky, and that the school buried the investigation in the hopes of driving any future misconduct away from the school

A lot hinges on what investigation was actually done, and what it turned up. There wasn't really a reason for Sandusky to bring kids onto campus in the first place, so telling him to stop doesn't necessarily mean they came across evidence. They may have thought they were providing CYA to the school in case of the worst. It seems a real investigation was never conducted (at least, not with the police), so I'd assume the word "investigation" is being used by the administration very broadly to cover the fact they only dis a cursory look into things.

The alternative is that an investigation was launched, and was able to substantiate the GA's account. While that is possible, I find it unlikely that multiple grown men would be confronted with knowledge of a child rapist and tell him just to stay away from campus. If that happened, then I would think these people are every bit as evil as Sandusky. Maybe more so.

Investigations by Universities into allegations of misconduct on their premises is pretty common so I am not sure what you mean by the word being used "very broadly".  I agree entirely that if there was an investigation and it was covered up that the people that did that are every bit as evil.  That is the point.

Edit: actually if there was no investigation they are also evil.  Insitutionally I find it harder to believe that no one did anything about the allegation.

[Rasputin]

very logical but it doesnt explain the university's disposition in 2002 which leads me to believe that there may have been an actual 2002 investigation that got buried on the hopes that they could distance sandusky from the school

But no one made any effort to distance Sandusky from the school.  I think this dog won't hunt.

they appear to have institued a policy of not letting him bring kids from the charity to the campus

my original post was why do this if the adminstration doesn't believe the ga's story

if the adminstration believes the ga's story then how does it reach that conclusion without a 2002 investigation

given that most institutions investigate allegations of conduct that can give rise to liability, this suggests that an investigation occured in 2002 and that the results were negative to sandusky, and that the school buried the investigation in the hopes of driving any future misconduct away from the school

Depends what you mean by investigation.  Curleys investigation (if you can call it that) was limited to asking McQueary about the incident.

i believe that there was likely more to it; although clearly there is presently no objective evidence of that having occured

[MadBurgerMaker]

I am not sure what you were talking about.  We were talking about the GA witnessing the boy being anally raped and what occurred after that.  BB then noted there were other matters.

 

Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.

Do you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it?  Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible.  And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.

to the contrary, I believe that it's highly probable that others in the adminstration with knowledge of the investigation may have purposefully shielded joe pa from knowledge of what was going on thinking they were helping give him cover

Your assumption requires not only that the administration shield JoPa, but also that every cop and investigators and clerk with knowledge of the case also shield JoPa from knowing, to the extent of not even interviewing him as part of the case.  I don't think I buy the idea that such a conspiracy is reasonable.  Possible, yes, but not at all likely.

You are using the word "investigation" in a different way than the rest of us.  There were no cops involved (That is the whole point!).  This was an internal investigation - if one occurred at all.

The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police.  University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston.  The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead.  They found his computer in a river.

They're all quoting the one above (except PLJ's first, which is just the part g quoted).

e: I should have made this a big quote pyramid.  I missed my chance.

[Malthus]

There's no great mystery here. The school is rotten to the core just like the Catholic church.

It's because in America, football occupies some of the field religion used to. 

Evidently, a little anal rape of minors wasn't going to be allowed to get in the way of delivering a quality football program ...

[crazy canuck]

They're all quoting the one above (except PLJ's first, which is just the part g quoted).

And I think they all come after Grumbler jumped in with his semantics which came after the discussion about the 2002 event and BB bringing up the fact that there was another victim.  I can see now how you and I are thinking about different things.

[Rasputin]

i am not making assumptions

i know the difference between assumptions and fact; you've yet to identify an assumption that i've made

1.  he is told by a graduate assistant that he witnessed sandusky (assuming the veracity of joe pa's version of events) in the shower with a boy who appeared about ten;

4. he is not on the campus because of joe pa but instead because of his charity (apparently at the will of a department other than athletics);

5.  if we accept that thus far there is no known fact  which would suggest that in 2002 joe pa should have believed his friend of 34 years capable of such a monstrous act, then it's reasonable to assume that joe pa might have had some skepticism about the veracity of the allegation;

6. joe pa nontheless reports it to his boss and to the head of the department at penn state who is letting sandusky run this charity on penn state property. 

I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.

No reason to assume that he doesn't know.  Clearly, since you don't believe in the changed game, you must be assuming/speculating he didn't know, since  there are no known facts to support that position.

i will concede that i've speculated on what might be based on matters not yet known but i've not reached any conclusions and only offfered theories where i freely admit that we don't yet have enough facts

That is all anyone can do.

you on the other hand are uncharacteristically quick to judgment with suggestions as to what must necessarily be without regard to whether we have any fact that supports these matters as of yet

You are uncharacteristically misreading my position.  I am simply providing reasons why one assumption (or speculation, if you prefer) seems more plausible than another.  The assumption/speculation that there was a secret investigation in 1998 and another in 2002 seems to me completely unfounded and illogical.

it is characteristically an argument based largely on semantics you'

I don't know of a single instance in which we have debated word meaning.  If you are going to "characteristically" make this a matter of semantics, then what is the word whose meaning you dispute?

there was an investigation by police into allegations of sandusky miscoconduct in 1998

there is no known investigation by any reasonable definition in 2002 but i am speculating that one occured and was buried

i noted that one has to assume joe pa's version of events to reach the conclusion that he acted reasoanably because if one assumes the ga's version of events then its pretty clear joe pa acted unreasonably

my point in this context (which i think you know pretty well) is simply that if you accept joe pa's testimony to the grand jury, there is no known fact which leads to the conclusion he did anything wrong

i dont see where i assumed anything in reaching any conclusion about the case because we simply dont yet have enough known facts; right now this case turns on whether to believe the ga or the admintrators (as it relates to penn state's culpability as opposed to sandusky's)

[alfred russel]

Investigations by Universities into allegations of misconduct on their premises is pretty common so I am not sure what you mean by the word being used "very broadly".  I agree entirely that if there was an investigation and it was covered up that the people that did that are every bit as evil.  That is the point.

Edit: actually if there was no investigation they are also evil.  Insitutionally I find it harder to believe that no one did anything about the allegation.

What I meant by "very broadly" is that if I ask you to tell me what you saw, I am technically "investigating" and there was an "investigation." I somehow doubt there was a real investigation, because these sorts of charges are investigated by police and law enforcement, and in this case we know they weren't.

I don't know what happened, but I would think that they were able to convince themselves that the charges were largely based on a misunderstanding rather than confronting the reality. Somehow these people had to live with themselves, just as the GA did.

[MadBurgerMaker]

And I think they all come after Grumbler jumped in with his semantics which came after the discussion about the 2002 event and BB bringing up the fact that there was another victim.  I can see now how you and I are thinking about different things.

Oh I dunno about that.  I just knew, or thought, they were talking about the 1998 investigation at that point.

I'm currently a sports radio junkie listening to the shows about this, which I don't tend to bother with.  The ESPN guys seem to keep recycling stuff though, making it remarkably similar to what they do on TV.  They do have their own comments that they're putting in there as well, along with responses to callers, etc.  Finebaum has Joe Tessitore on, which meant I listened for precisely the amount of time it took to find that out. 

Don't know who else is on aside from van Pelt and Finebaum right now though.