Jump to content

TreatyOak

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3949
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by TreatyOak

  1. 17 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

    Just looking at the 2002 incident:

    Normal adult notices Sandusky and boy going at it in shower. Initially, doesn’t know what’s going on, makes themselves known. Either by force or de-escalation protects child. If totally flummoxed, immediately calls 911

    Normal adult hears report of incident above. Immediately, tells first adult to notify law enforcement (not the admin). There’s little ambiguity here.

    It’s not rocket science folks. Not only did JoePa know, he was clearly an active participant (if not the architect) in the cover-up.

    Apparently, you haven't watched the infomerical created by Joe Pa's family lawyers.  As Curly Dumpster will tell you, that explains everything.  Free JoePa! 

  2. 20 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    I can't decide which reply to go with, so here are both:

     

    1.  Louis Freeh is literally about as much of a "credible, world-renowned expert" as you can find -- he was a US Attorney, he was a District Judge, and he was appointed to run the FBI by Bill Clinton, even though Freeh was a Republican.  Yet you question his report and take the report from a guy hired by the Paterno family at face value?

     

    2.  It blows my mind that you think that "world-renowned experts" don't sell themselves out.

    What do you think "expert witnesses" do in court?  Do you think "expert witnesses" (who are also usually "world-renowned experts") are objective in court?  Do you really think "expert witnesses" don't tailor their testimony to benefit the party who hired them?

    Do you know the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?

    Great comments. So obvious. 

  3. 15 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    Joe pa ran and controlled penn state. 

    Joe pa’s longtime friend and associate, essentially his second in command at penn state, raped a whole bunch of young boys at his nearby house, on penn state property and using his penn state influence to do so. 

    When joe pa is notified about this he doesn’t do jack shit to stop it.

    in order to protect his legacy. 

    Ergo, penn state, no matter how much they try to deny it, will now always be Ped State. And joe pa, no matter how much his family, sycophants and Ped state supporters want to deny it, will forever rightfully be known as the piece of shit he was. 

    I feel bad for the good people who went there but it is what it is. 

    Brilliant. Exactly right.  No amount of infomercial revisionist shite will ever change any these basic truths. Why on earth two people have crept out of the floorboards here to defend him is weird.  

  4. 3 hours ago, CurlyDumps said:

    As of yesterday morning, Treatyoak thought JoePa was guilty.  When presented with info from a credible, world-renowned expert who analyzed the facts and evidence of the case, he plugged his ears and yelled "LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU."   He is so uninformed about the case, he thought JoePa was handed a "written report" and never "turned it in to anybody." But he's got strong opinions!

    He also is too dumb to see the irony in his tasteless, idiotic holocaust denier analogy.

    Being that you are defending JoePed, you're not exactly preaching to the converted here. I have yet to read one positive comment from anyone about your wonderful video.  I suggest you do the following:

    1. Carefully read the thread title-We're not exactly the biggest fans of a program that tolerated a child rapist for three decades. Joe's good friend and assistant coach Jerry Sandusky watched games from the press box and had an office in Joe's athletic department UNTIL HE WAS ARRESTED. In case they don't mention it in your wonderful video, this man was convicted of 45 counts of child abuse on Joe's watch, many of them took place in the locker room and during bowl trips!!!!! (In Joe's bizarre world, middle-aged men apparently often travel on planes to other cities with young boys who stay in their hotel room.)

    2. Migrate yourself over to BlueWhiteIllustrated.com and stay there. 

  5. As of yesterday morning, Curly Dumps thought JoePa was guilty, but is now rethinking his position based on an advertorial commissioned by the lawyers of the Paterno family. 

    Now, I'm also rethinking my position on the Holocaust. Up until this morning, I thought that millions of Jews, gypsies, Catholic priests, homosexuals, political dissidents, Slavs, Russian POW's, Poles and others were systematically killed by the the Nazi's. But I saw a video commissioned by Neo Nazi's that has me rethinking my position. 

  6. 2 minutes ago, CurlyDumps said:

    if you're curious about what he has to say, listen to the interview.  If you just want to dig into your black and white "Paterno covered up kiddie rape, the end" narrative, then don't bother.

    Everything that anyone needs to know about what Joe Paterno had to say is contained in his quote to the Washington Post. He admitted to being handed a report about one of his coaches raping a young boy in the showers in 2002. 10 years later, he had yet to report it. That's Joe's own narrative, not mine!!!

    i am honestly surprised that you even care what we think, cause the odds of you changing anyone's mind here are zero. 

  7. 4 minutes ago, CurlyDumps said:

    No, I don't think that fact had any effect on Jim Clemente's findings. I'm repeating myself, but he's a former victim who spent 30 years investigating child sex crimes, putting away sex offenders, and endeavoring to prevent future abuse from happening.  It was literally his life's work. The notion that he would lie to protect anyone who covered up child sex crimes is outrageous. The only previous connection Clemente had to anyone involved in this case was to Louis Freeh - his former boss who he liked and respected.

    Defense lawyers pay expert witnesses to give testimony at trials. Does that automatically discredit the testimony? Of course not.  It depends on the witness.

    So what does the esteemed Mr. Clemente have say about Joe Paterno admitting that an aide approached him in 2002 with a report that Sandusky was raping a young boy IN THE PENN STATE LOCKER ROOM? 

    "Paterno, 85, told the Washington Post that the young aide who came to him in 2002 with a report that he had seen Jerry Sandusky allegedly fondling a boy in the locker room did not go into details.

    "You know, he didn't want to get specific. And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man," Paterno said."

    Dude, please just stop defending him. He's as bad as Sandusky and pretty much would have seen jail time. 

  8. 2 hours ago, CurlyDumps said:

    Jim Clemente, who spent 30 years investigating child sex crimes, and is a victim of child sex abuse himself, and has also probably made millions off the TV show he created (Criminal Minds) is going to throw away his credibility and life's work to shill for the Paterno family?  For what, a paycheck? He had no prior connection to the Paternos or Penn State. He refused to sign an NDA and warned the law firm that he'd be vocal about his findings regardless of how it made Joe Pa look.  You can disagree with his opinions, but to attack his credibility is just baseless and ignorant.

    "He was hired by the law firm representing the Paterno family  back in 2012/13 to go over the Freeh report and give his opinion on its findings."

    Being hired by the Paterno family would have been bad enough on its own. 

    Being hired by the law firm that represents that pack of nutjobs is even worse. 

    Please go away. 

    • Like 1
  9. 19 minutes ago, CurlyDumps said:

    I'm a fan of Jim Clemente and his podcast "Real Crime Profile."  I didn't know until recently that he was involved in this case.  He was hired by the law firm representing the Paterno family  back in 2012/13 to go over the Freeh report and give his opinion on its findings.

    Clemente is a former FBI profiler with a lot of experience working child sex crimes and studying the behavior of offenders. He was also a victim of child sex abuse himself.  So, he's extremely informed and has zero tolerance for cover-ups surrounding these crimes.  He analyzed "The Keepers" netflix doc on his podcast and went scorched Earth on the Catholic church. So if he believed Paterno was guilty of anything, he would not have held back.

    The TLDR version of findings is that Free report was deeply flawed. Sandusky was an "acquaintance offender" and and expert groomer who had everyone around him fooled - Paterno, Penn State, the department of child services who allowed the Sanduskys to foster 20+ children, the department of health (who investigated the '98 incident), the DA who failed to press charges, the fraud psychologist who analyzed Sandusky back in '98 and misled everyone involved (by concluding that Sandusky was not a pedophile, just had "boundary problems"). Freeh didn't understand the type of offender Sandusky was, and thus misinterpreted the information he had on the case and events surrounding it  Clemente does not think Paterno tried to suppress information or cover anything up.

    Here is an interview he did back in 2013, if you're interested in hearing a different perspective. It made me rethink assumptions I had about Paterno, Penn State, and the alleged cover up.

       

     

    Lost all credibility since

    "He was hired by the law firm representing the Paterno family  back in 2012/13 to go over the Freeh report and give his opinion on its findings."

    It's a whitewash. Will not waste my time watching. 

    • Like 1
  10. 2 hours ago, SHOOTER12 said:

    Aw hell no...don't know how I missed it, but did that idiot really go there/

    "Paterno, 85, told the Washington Post that the young aide who came to him in 2002 with a report that he had seen Jerry Sandusky allegedly fondling a boy in the locker room did not go into details.

    "You know, he didn't want to get specific. And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man," Paterno said."

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/joe-paterno-admits-handle-sex-allegation/story?id=15362562

    Truly unbelievable. 

  11. 40 minutes ago, Sejjr said:

    While I agree that Beck had a garbage situation at O-Line, it is absolutely fair to judge the idiotic WR personnel packages and dumbfounding play calls. This will be the make or break season for Beck, with zero margin for error. We will likely have an improved OL, 3 obvious WR starters, some TE options, and now a mature option as a pass catching, non-fumbling RB in Watson to add good depth at a minimum. Either impress us, Beck, or hit the bricks. 

    Good words. The WR personnel packages have not been discussed enough. Here's to hoping Ingram makes an immediate impact.   

  12. 11 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

    Because the film falls under the category of art or editorial, they don't need to secure rights from Penn State. If this was a brand advertisement intended to overtly make money off some product, then they would be sued within hours. However, movies, books, editorial, etc., are protected. Of course, Penn State can always sue if they feel the movie is untrue in it's depiction, but they would have a hard time winning based on the producers of the movie claiming artistic license.   

    True story. In the film, Titanic, a crew member is shown doing a poor job of saving people, and he ends up shooting himself. Because the filmmakers based the character on a real person but apparently completely fictionalized his behavior, the people of the Scottish town he was from blew up  and tried to sue James Cameron. He ended up apologizing for the depiction. So in certain cases, movie producers will at least confront critics, but doubt Penn State will do anything. 

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/78839.stm

  13. On 4/2/2018 at 5:37 PM, Sejjr said:

    Based on the trailer, I am pretty surprised that Penn State would grant them any rights to their brand or game footage.

    Because the film falls under the category of art or editorial, they don't need to secure rights from Penn State. If this was a brand advertisement intended to overtly make money off some product, then they would be sued within hours. However, movies, books, editorial, etc., are protected. Of course, Penn State can always sue if they feel the movie is untrue in it's depiction, but they would have a hard time winning based on the producers of the movie claiming artistic license.   

  14. 1 hour ago, CycleTex87 said:

    He may be loyal to a fault with Tim Beck.  Just sayin.

    True and we will see how this situation evolves, but IMHO, it isn't fair to judge Beck based on the limitations that we faced last season. Don't mean to derail this thread, so I'll tie it back to Watson. If we go through a season and Beck is unable to utilize Watson's receiving skills, then I will agree with you. 

×
×
  • Create New...