The Lions' Pride

Gotta think it was Scumbag.

This actually makes a lot of sense. And I wonder if Lubrano or someone will request a check. I am crossing my fingers that someone checks... Can any trustee request this or does it have to go through Peetz? If so, could be a problem.

The more I thought about this as I listened to this guy on the Slaten interview it dawned on me ... When was the last time anyone within the program referred to JVP as "coach" and not "Joe"... Even Jay called him "Joe".

That's the bitch of the whole thing............I think you can make an argument this was poor judgment all the way to an active cover up and have a leg to stand on.... PSU kept poor notes and vague ones.... What i would give to be a fly on the wall for so many conversations.

If we could have waited until after the trials these emails could have been explained by the people wrote them.... Who was that said let's not rush to judgement again?

Need a little help. I'll admit I havent followed the specifics in the case because I've been too mad, sad, and disgusted. Everything I keep hearing from all the talking heads is 1) PSU covered-up the sex abuse, and 2) PSU allowed a child predator to continue using the facility after the 2001 incident.

With regards to point #1, the February 28, 2001 email from Schultz says they were going to inform his organization with or without his cooperation. Later in the email the say they are "responsible at some point to inform his organization and maybe the other one if he (Sandusky) is not cooperative....we have no other coice and will inform the two groups". The email further notes that "if the message is not heard and acted upon, we become vulnerable for not having reported it". Nothing in this email suggests that the university tried to cover up the allegations...in fact its quit the contrary.

With regards to point #2, the email says they will "let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities". Again, this is contrary to everything i've been hearing from the media.

Very confused!

Also, how do you get the feds involved to investigate the emails? Again, unless it's done it may be all for nothing...

Bam! Good point helpdesk.

We will likely be making more of an effort to work with the actual suit bringers than with the attorneys who seem to be reticent to even return call or emails with our offer to supply leads and contacts for their investigations. It's somewhat incongruous to us that they are so insular.

Since Ray is in DC and may have the opportunity to contact the federal investigators that is on our agenda. We are completing a full analysis of the Freeh Report and awaiting some public notice of who is actually investigating what from the Feds.

In 1998 we have an email talking about “coach” looking for updates and is very anxious to know the outcome. Fast forward a few years and
In 2001 we have an email where Curly says we will tell him we know about the first incident.
So, if they were going to tell Sandusky in 2001 that they knew about the first incident logic dictates that the coach in the 1998 email is not Sandusky as they would not need to advise him they knew of 1998 if they were discussing 1998 with him at the time. Unless the first incident was not 1998 in which we have an even bigger problem. Now, logic would again dictate that the “coach” referred to in 1998 was Joe and not Scrap or Anderson etc. People can continue to pretend Joe didn't know about 98 and didn't lie and didn't help cover it up. Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see what fills up first. Not to mention if even by some huge stroke of luck coach is not Joe, do people actually believe all these people knew about the investigation but Joe never heard or knew anything? Are you serious? Joe was not wrongfully maligned and his legacy wasn't wrongfully destroyed. He got what he deserved.

Well for one - Curley saying "Coach is anxious to know" doesn't mean he has said anything to Sandusky and that May 13th email is the only one aside from May 6 that even uses the word Coach.
Just relating his anxiousness doesn't mean Curley has anything to tell him

and 2 On Tuesday, February 27, 2001, Curley emailed Schultz and Spanier:
I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday-- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and [sic] maybe the other one about the situation.

This only means that Curley never informed him that he knew about the 1998 investigation and there is still not much that he did know from Schultz in 1998

Curley asks "any updates" on May 13 the "coach is anxious to know"
May 18th "any updates" and May 30th "any further updates"

Curley's interest also involves Sandusky's decision about 1) the offer to be Asst AD 2) whether he is going to coach with Joe at all and 3) the retirement plan that JS is considering and negotiating

Curley only hears these things from Schultz
On May 14 Schultz tells Curley that a DPW investigator was going to talk to the boys sometime over the next week.
WELL THAT is very odd because we know from the police report that counselor John Seasock interviewed Vic 6 on May 8th at 2pm and as far as we know did not interview BK or Brandon the second boy..

On JUNE 8th Schultz tells Curley after returning from a 2 week vacation that he doesn't know if DPW talked to JS while he was gone but he would check on it.

So Curley didn't know much if anything more about the 1998 affair from Schultz other that the misinformation in the May 14 email
You can see all this in the Freeh Exhibits 2A B C D and E

So Curley has no idea what if anything Sandusky was told about the 1998 investigation or if JS has any idea that Curley or Paterno have any idea about 1998.

He does know by law that he should not know about it and Schultz seems to have told him almost nothing.

Assumptions are easy to make but when you actually review the "evidence" or rather the lack of evidence it's much less apparent. I guess that's why Schultz offered only the misinformation on May 14 about some future review by a psychologist that had already happened on May 8th?

We also know from the police report that JS messages on the message machine of Victim 6 were given to police and that soon after that the mother told JS not to attend her son's games and that he would not be allowed to go with JS - SO JS knew something was up. That doesn't mean he got it from TC or if he had any idea TC knew anything about him being investigated

Thank you for posting FACTS!

However, do you know if JS was allowed to continue bringing boys onto the PSU facilities after the 2001 incident. Its one of the things I have the biggest problem with. The media leads you to believe that PSU allowed this to happen under their noses even after 2001.....but I've never seen any evidence that this is true....in fact, the February 27, 2001 email states that they were going to tell JS that his guests could no longer use the facilities. Did that happen?