Sorry but the facts you just pointed out do not contradict what he said.
Why are Ped State fans so delusional?
- Thread starter WillieGuysIQ
- Start date
Sorry but the facts you just pointed out do not contradict what he said.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
ColumbusHawk
Well-Known Member
Sure the Freeh report is flawed! However, anyone who has read the report must admit that the "preponderence of the evidence" supports the conclusions.
"Preponderence of the evidence" is the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil lawsuit for the trier of fact to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial.
In other words, the standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. From my reading of the Freeh Report, the conclusions are more likely to be true than false.
"Preponderence of the evidence" is the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil lawsuit for the trier of fact to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial.
In other words, the standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. From my reading of the Freeh Report, the conclusions are more likely to be true than false.
Billso
Well-Known Member
I agree completely with the NCAA sanctions against PSU. Wouldn't have minded tougher ones, in fact.
You are dead wrong about civil suits, though, they will be numerous and they will be ugly. Some of the ugliest may be those against Second Mile, with its ties to prominent people and Governor Corbett, who so far has managed to stay above the fray.
My posts above are about Paterno specifically, not PSU's culpability generally, which is clear, egregious and sickening.
(Jon/Justin feel free to move this to Big 10 board where it really belongs...)
Last edited:
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Neither do I. I was answering the question about delusional PSU fans.
You need to get me out of your head. I'd do it myself, but the echo plays havoc, and the density f*&ks up the GPS.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Again, though, using that/those standard/s, the NCAA has clearly shown a pattern of inconsistency. "Preponderance of the evidence" would have had Reggie Bush and Cam Newton ineligible, JVB winning at Ohio State (presumably) and half the SEC teams with a bowl ban over the past 10 or 20 years.
Who is AGAINST sanctions for PSU? I am not aware of ANYbody that is. It's the method/process and severity that some people do not agree.
But, as is typical of this board, and several others, not agreeing with someone makes one an "idiot", a "pinhead", a "wingnut" and/or a "closet pedo".
All one has to do on this board is fall in lock-step with Thunder, Scorp and JDM, and it's bliss (unless, of course, you think for yourself, in which case, bliss is attained by not giving a whit in the first place, and/or finding common ground for thoughtful and coherent discussion with the aforementioned).
For instance, JDM had a policy when this first broke of no "Pedo State", no "poor taste", etc. That fell by the wayside almost as quickly as his BTN Pulse gig (which, BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed, and rue the day I watched even a second of Doyle, the composed and steroid-free J Leman, et. al.).
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
The Pedo State sanctions were neither swift nor harsh enough.
I'm sorry, I am not buying this excuse at all. That is a total cop out. If you had a close friend of 30+ years and in your mind you can't believe this person would be capable of doing such atrocities, you would go talk to this person to get their side of the story. Then you would find out who this kid is and inform his parents or at the very least have the police track the kid and his parents down. None of this was done, so again there is no excuse for what Joe Pa did. None. Disgraceful. I don't think it was malicious, it was just a very very poor choice on his part, one that completely tarnished his legacy forever. You can't excuse his actions (inactions) at all.
PJHawk
Well-Known Member
bullsh8t - in 1998 the boy came home with wet hair from showering with Sandusky and his mother called the PSU police. The police sure as hell never "cleared" Sandusky of anything either. They set the bastard up to admit he showered with the boy in the infamous "I wish I were dead" conversation. At the very minimum there was enough evidence for some charges like corruption of minors. The District Attorney Ray Gricar for reasons that remain unknown then and now - yes he's dead - chose not to press charges.
Billso
Well-Known Member
I've reread my post and am unable to find any "excuse" whatsoever. You seem to be responding to something you imagined I wrote, rather than what I actually wrote.
Not if he was accused of criminal behavior, I wouldn't. While it's a natural human instinct, to do so is beyond idiotic, both morally and legally, because it HURTS the investigation (thereby potentially reducing the chance of putting the guy away), and for you to suggest it tells me you've never managed people or been involved in substantive legal matters. I've personally had to handle a somewhat similar situation, with an employee, and was told in no uncertain terms NOT to talk to them or interfere with the investigation.
Yes, I agree completely. As a father, this particular failure angers me beyond belief.
I didn't. I pointed out, accurately, that the Freeh report summary findings accuse him of orchestrating a coverup, which the actual facts within the report don't support.
It appears from the responses here that emotion completely destroys otherwise intelligent people's ability to read and think critically.
Last edited:
Your excuse is that he shouldn't have confronted Jerry at all and I"m calling bull$hit, because that is exactly what needed to be done. The legal process would have worked itself out fine. As it turns out there was no legal process because nobody reported anything. To say that morally he shouldn't have confronted Jerry is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Morally he NEEDED to confront Jerry. I don't understand your logic on that at all. And don't give me this legal BS, had he talked to Jerry it's not like it would have prevented prosecution. And when I say you can't excuse his actions (inactions) I'm referring to people in general (particularly PSU fans), not you. I understand the argument you are trying to make, I just don't agree with it. Joe Pa had at the very least a moral responsibility to get more information and he chose to do nothing. That is inexcusable.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
LOL. It's ridiculous to assume he stayed out of it so as to not hinder a potential investigation. If anything, PedoJoe didn't talk to Sandusky or the victims so he'd have plausible deniability when things finally hit the fan.
I don't often agree with Dwayne, but he hit the nail right on the head on this one. That's called check mate.
Billso
Well-Known Member
Pretty clear you don't understand much of anything.
Yeah. It's just 'legal BS'.
Didn't say it would "prevent prosecution". But it would have greatly hampered prosecution by a) putting Sandusky on notice and b) giving the defense all kinds of grounds to quash evidence, question Paterno's motives, etc. I've seen ZERO attorneys or prosecutors disagree with this point, by the way. But I guess it's just scary legal mumbo-jumbo to you.
Well, I agree with everything you say in this paragraph. Just that it shouldn't have been done through_Sandusky but by following with Schulz/Curley to ensure the police had been contacted.
Billso
Well-Known Member
It's 'ridiculous' only if you are utterly, laughably clueless about basic criminal procedure. Not to the level of criminal attorneys, but the basic level anyone running a business or other large organization should understand.
And if you want 'plausible deniability', you don't report the incident to two senior PSU officials, on the record, and followup again a few days later. I don't think you understand the term.
Last edited:
Pretty clear you don't understand much of anything.
Yeah. It's just 'legal BS'.
Didn't say it would "prevent prosecution". But it would have greatly hampered prosecution by a) putting Sandusky on notice and b) giving the defense all kinds of grounds to quash evidence, question Paterno's motives, etc. I've seen ZERO attorneys or prosecutors disagree with this point, by the way. But I guess it's just scary legal mumbo-jumbo to you.
Well, I agree with everything you say in this paragraph. Just that it shouldn't have been done through_Sandusky but by following with Schulz/Curley to ensure the police had been contacted.
Well, we were having a reasonably intelligent argument, but when you couldn't think of any response, you just resorted to name calling and rolling eyes. I'm sorry, but you're clearly not convincing anyone in your arguments as every single person on here is disagreeing with you. So go on thinking you are the smart one in this conversation if it makes you feel better.
Billso
Well-Known Member
Right, because 'don't give me this legal BS' and 'biggest load of crap' was intelligent.
You won't find a prosecutor or judge anywhere who disagrees about not confronting Sandusky. By all means continue your life of blissful ignorance to the real world. I just hope for your sake you never run a business or have to deal with a meaningful legal issue.
EDIT: By the way, Louis Freeh also agrees. "Further, they [Curley/Schulz] exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who was the only one aware of the child's identity, of what McQueary saw in the shower on the night of February 9, 2001" Page 14-15 at http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf
Last edited:
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Billso is so up on legal things. He must be OO44's friend Benny.
Billso
Well-Known Member
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
That is YOUR opinion. Others disagree. Your closed mind, among many on this board, is what it makes it less and less pleasant to visit these boards with each passing day.
Believe it or not, there are other folks, NOT just at PSU, who believe the sanctions are too punitive. Still others believe that Joe Pa didn't know nearly as much as Louis Freeh, while others, hindsight being 20-20, he was covering up the whole thing.
In other words, SOME believe thewre are still some "gray areas" and that NCAA acted too swiftly and without the "normal" process.
And here's the kicker: in addition to being far less intelligent than you may believe you are, your opinion is only that. Valid? Certainly. Do I agree? In many respects. Your attitude and smugness? Jim Rome-esque on a good day, James Carville-ian on the worst day.
