Online Now 802

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

On this Board 521
Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)

Online now 750
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets

Reply

SIAP Framing Paterno...

  • http://framingpaterno.com/ is a new website exploring the other side of the argument. Pretty interesting stuff here.
    JB.

    jbilbow

  • jbilbow said...

    http://framingpaterno.com/ is a new website exploring the other side of the argument. Pretty interesting stuff here.
    JB.

    Can't frame a guilty man.

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • Let it go. Move on. Turn the page.

    Stop this crap. Paterno's story has been written. It's not changing anytime soon, if ever.

    bonovoxpsu

  • sneakypete said...

    Can't frame a guilty man.

    Also can't fix stupid.

    Nittanynole

  • Nittanynole said...

    Also can't fix stupid.

    You would know best.

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • sneakypete said...

    Can't frame a guilty man.

    Can't condemn a man as guilty without evidence in the United States, but it doesn't stop you from doing it.

    "I believe in what Coach Paterno set forth.”- Garrett Sickels "A bowl game ain't nothing but a vacation."- Gerald Hodges

    fortheglory94

  • fortheglory94 said...

    Can't condemn a man as guilty without evidence in the United States, but it doesn't stop you from doing it.

    Theres enough circumstantial evidence to show what Paterno did and didn't do and that he lies at least twice and possibly 3 times. Innocent men don't lie. Theres enough for any logical person with 3 brain cells to put 1 and 1 together. He turned a blind eye and assisted in sweeping it under the rug.

    This post was edited by sneakypete on 8/2/2012 at 12:58 PM

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • sneakypete said...

    Theres enough circumstantial evidence to show what Paterno did and didn't do and that he lies at least twice and possibly 3 times. Innocent men don't lie. Theres enough for any logical person with 3 brain cells to put 1 and 1 together.

    You don't get convicted on circumstantial evidence, so please stop with that. Until you can produce a transcript of a conversation or documented e-mails in a confirmed timeline, you are simply stating an opinion. That's your right in this country, but you try to pass it off as indisputable fact. It's not.

    "I believe in what Coach Paterno set forth.”- Garrett Sickels "A bowl game ain't nothing but a vacation."- Gerald Hodges

    fortheglory94

  • fortheglory94 said...

    You don't get convicted on circumstantial evidence, so please stop with that. Until you can produce a transcript of a conversation or documented e-mails in a confirmed timeline, you are simply stating an opinion. That's your right in this country, but you try to pass it off as indisputable fact. It's not.

    Did you really just say that people don't get convicted of circumstantial evidence? Really?

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • fortheglory94 said...

    You don't get convicted on circumstantial evidence.

    That is very wrong.

    signature image

    #DicedPineapples

    shavisimo2

  • I have my own thoughts on what happened, but your not going to change public opinion. That is their right, whether or not you agree is different. The only way this MAY change is if Curley or Shultz come out and say Joe had no idea what was going on and they kept him in the dark. Even then your not going to change peoples opinions.

    alogsdon

  • sneakypete said...

    Did you really just say that people don't get convicted of circumstantial evidence? Really?

    They are not supposed to is my point. Unfortunately the intelligence of jurors sometimes lets the accused down. A good attorney can mold circumstantial evidence for a conviction. But for the basis of this particular situation, I really don't see how people can think the worst of a man who did the right thing in so many situations in his life without real evidence of it. How does he get condemned without any real proof? I simply cannot get to that point. Again, show me that. If you don't have it, then we'll just agree to disagree. You inject the same vitriol into so many threads that it is just getting tiresome. We know how you stand, why keep antagonizing people?

    "I believe in what Coach Paterno set forth.”- Garrett Sickels "A bowl game ain't nothing but a vacation."- Gerald Hodges

    fortheglory94

  • shavisimo2 said...

    That is very wrong.

    Circumstantial evidence doesn't get someone convicted, the prosecutor sells it well enough to get a conviction. Real, hard evidence sells itself is my point. In this case, we're not even talking about a trial. Remember, the PA AG didn't find any to even make a charge. There just isn't any here.

    "I believe in what Coach Paterno set forth.”- Garrett Sickels "A bowl game ain't nothing but a vacation."- Gerald Hodges

    fortheglory94

  • fortheglory94 said...

    They are not supposed to is my point. Unfortunately the intelligence of jurors sometimes lets the accused down. A good attorney can mold circumstantial evidence for a conviction. But for the basis of this particular situation, I really don't see how people can think the worst of a man who did the right thing in so many situations in his life without real evidence of it. How does he get condemned without any real proof? I simply cannot get to that point. Again, show me that. If you don't have it, then we'll just agree to disagree. You inject the same vitriol into so many threads that it is just getting tiresome. We know how you stand, why keep antagonizing people?

    99% of all cases are circumstantial evidence. Very rarely does the CSI stuff happen or you find a smoking fun. It's about adding everything together and showing orval leads one place.

    If people want to keep defending Joe then I will keep giving my opinion. The man was never as great as most think and this is as bad as it gets. There is plenty to show what happened. I would be happy to pm you along and thorough post.

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • fortheglory94 said...

    Circumstantial evidence doesn't get someone convicted, the prosecutor sells it well enough to get a conviction. Real, hard evidence sells itself is my point. In this case, we're not even talking about a trial. Remember, the PA AG didn't find any to even make a charge. There just isn't any here.

    Circumstantial evidence does get people convicted all the time. Real hard evidence does sell itself. Having real hard evidence to convict a person isn't the easiest thing to come by. I am not at all commenting on this case specifically, but in general, circumstantial evidence and inferences are often used for convictions.

    signature image

    #DicedPineapples

    shavisimo2

  • sneakypete said...

    Theres enough circumstantial evidence to show what Paterno did and didn't do and that he lies at least twice and possibly 3 times. Innocent men don't lie. Theres enough for any logical person with 3 brain cells to put 1 and 1 together. He turned a blind eye and assisted in sweeping it under the rug.

    Not in a court of law, but in public opinion, yes, you're right.

    psume06

  • psume06 said...

    Not in a court of law, but in public opinion, yes, you're right.

    If Joe were alive and had been charged criminally, that would have been up to the judge or jury to decide, not you, not sneaky and not public opinion. There may or may not have been enough.

    signature image

    #DicedPineapples

    shavisimo2

  • psume06 said...

    Not in a court of law, but in public opinion, yes, you're right.

    Clearly you pay no attention to trials. Lots of people have been convicted on less.

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • While it is some what nice to see that not everyone bought into the narrative, I think that trying to defend anything about the school or Joe at this point is an exercise in futility. Facts and rational arguments get countered by "OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ABUSED CHILDREN!". It's the ultimate strawman argument that no one is going to get called out for using.

    People are going to constantly call us complicit just for being Penn State fans or Alumni, and there's going to be complete and total moral outrage every time it looks like someone in a blue or white shirt in central PA might be enjoying themselves at or near a football game for the short term.

    It feels like we're all going to be persona non grata in the sports world for the forseeable future. Guilty by association, as ridiculous as that is.

    The more we fight that assertion, the more the media and uppity morons on the internet get to point and laugh as they say "LOOK AT THOSE DELUDED PENN STATERS THAT CARE MORE ABOUT FOOTBALL THAN KIDS THAT GOT RAPED!".

    O'Brien has it right. No amount of fighting what's in the Freeh report or the national narrative is going to make anything better at this point. Just get on board with the players that stay and hope for the best in the future.

    Theweeble

  • sneakypete said...

    Clearly you pay no attention to trials. Lots of people have been convicted on less.

    I suppose if I was convicted in the court of public opinion of something for which there were multiple living witnesses that hadn't testified or been interviewed I may be a bit upset. Circumstantially speaking of course.

    helpdesk

  • helpdesk said...

    I suppose if I was convicted in the court of public opinion of something for which there were multiple living witnesses that hadn't testified or been interviewed I may be a bit upset. Circumstantially speaking of course.

    Right, and if Curly says anything that makes Joe look bad at trial you will say he is just saving his own ass. I don't think Joe orchestrated a cover up, but it's clear he participated in it even without interviewing the others.It's clear he lies more then once. We can see this without interviewing Curly, Schultz or Spabout and again if they say anything that makes Joe look bad you will dismiss it and say they are saving their own asses. Red has already testified so we know what he has to say. C

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • Such blind hate cant be good for the soul

    This post was edited by Seltz on 8/2/2012 at 6:24 PM

    signature image signature image

    If you havent signed up for premium 247 yet..take my word for it...its worth it!

    Seltz

  • sneakypete said...

    Right, and if Curly says anything that makes Joe look bad at trial you will say he is just saving his own ass. I don't think Joe orchestrated a cover up, but it's clear he participated in it even without interviewing the others.It's clear he lies more then once. We can see this without interviewing Curly, Schultz or Spabout and again if they say anything that makes Joe look bad you will dismiss it and say they are saving their own asses. Red has already testified so we know what he has to say. C

    Well, let's be honest here.. It makes a truckload of sense for anyone involved to shovel as much of this mess as will fit into Paterno's coffin. He's not going to defend himself. Jay and Scott will defend their father, but nobody likes them anyway (right?). Its who the media really wants to blame (moreso than literally everyone else involved) because it makes the best story.

    All of this at the expense of the reputation of one dead guy, who never really cared about his reputation anyway.

    It's a really sad truth of the situation, but it's the easiest way possible for those that are left on the hook (and still alive) to deflect all of the blame and anger that should be directed at them into a 6ft hole and throw dirt on it.

    It's pathetic, but this whole situation has been dominated by that kind of coward, from Sandusky on down the line.

    Theweeble

  • sneakypete said...

    Right, and if Curly says anything that makes Joe look bad at trial you will say he is just saving his own ass. I don't think Joe orchestrated a cover up, but it's clear he participated in it even without interviewing the others.It's clear he lies more then once. We can see this without interviewing Curly, Schultz or Spabout and again if they say anything that makes Joe look bad you will dismiss it and say they are saving their own asses. Red has already testified so we know what he has to say. C

    I expect them to say what the emails show, they were clueless as to what happened then, and what McQueary told them then does not match-up with what he is stating now. You're out of your mind if you think they are going to try to blame their failure to act on Joe. If Joe told them it was their problem to deal with and to go pound sand I'm fine with that, because guess what, it was their problem to deal with, not a football coach's.

    If you read the emails you would see they determined their options after initially receiving info on the incident from Joe, Schultz talked to university counsel immediately after being informed, and we will most likely be hearing from the chief of the university police as well (he, like McQueary was not allowed to talk to the Freeh group). A lot of info could come out during and shortly after the trial. It will be interesting to hear why they waited 9-10 days to talk to McQueary when they called university counsel the Sunday Joe told them McQueary claimed to see some funny business. Are they going to try to blame that delay on Joe too?

    Edit: It will also be very interesting to hear what the university counsel told them to do or not do.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by helpdesk on 8/2/2012 at 3:43 PM

    helpdesk

  • Theweeble said...

    Well, let's be honest here.. It makes a truckload of sense for anyone involved to shovel as much of this mess as will fit into Paterno's coffin. He's not going to defend himself. Jay and Scott will defend their father, but nobody likes them anyway (right?). Its who the media really wants to blame (moreso than literally everyone else involved) because it makes the best story.

    All of this at the expense of the reputation of one dead guy, who never really cared about his reputation anyway.

    It's a really sad truth of the situation, but it's the easiest way possible for those that are left on the hook (and still alive) to deflect all of the blame and anger that should be directed at them into a 6ft hole and throw dirt on it.

    It's pathetic, but this whole situation has been dominated by that kind of coward, from Sandusky on down the line.

    Joe didn't care about is reputation? Next you'll say he didn't care about the records. Do you honestly believe Joe is innocent in all this?

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete