1111 users online (221 members and 890 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 100
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    795

    The 2001 Coverup

    I originally thought about naming this thread "horsing around" and just keeping track of all the time I've seen Joe Paterno quoted using the term. Instead, I'm placing this under the larger topic of the 2001 coverup, because I think it's important to understand where the term "horsing around" originated.

    Here a some of the ocassions I have found where Paterno used the term just within the last two years:

    Paterno goes back on "cheerleader" comment
    October 11, 2001

    On the radio show, Paterno refuted that statement by saying, “I was horsing around with the media.”

    http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...r-comment.html
    BIG TEN CONFERENCE MEDIA DAYS
    July 28, 2011

    http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=73032

    "That's probably been something that I preach all the time to the staff. If somebody wants to horse around with something, or he suggests that maybe he wants something, walk away, walk away. That doesn't mean we've always walked away. I try to keep track of it. It's nice to know we haven't had a major violation. I'm proud of that. I'm not going around gloating about it."
    Joe Paterno Transcript: Big Ten Media Day
    Aug. 2, 2010

    http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-...080210aac.html

    'And kids walk by my house every day. And always surrounded with them, all of it. And I've tried to stay active in the affairs. My wife has been very active in doing a lot of different things at the university. And I'm around young people all the time. So I don't horse around with them. I have a couple of laughs, have a little fun with them and the whole bit."
    Paterno clearing slate for roster
    August 4, 2010

    http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...e_for_ros.aspx

    "The two kids who got involved in it, they're buddies," Paterno said. "They were kind of horsing around a little bit. Drake's a good kid. I think the whole thing kind of got blown up."
    Spanier, Schultz, and Curley all said they were told that McQueary witnessed Sandusky horsing around with a boy in the shower. But John McQueary, MM's father, testifed his son would never use that term: "That's an archaic term that my dad would have said to me. I don't think I would have used it, and haven't used it, and I don't think Mike knows it."

    Is Joe Paterno old enough to be John McQueary's father? Probably so. It seems like he is suggesting Paterno originated the term. I'm sure MM told him that he never said it.

    When Paterno met with Cynthia Baldwin on January 3, 2011, she noted that Paterno said that MM saw Sandusky "horsing around" with a kid in the shower (pg 83 of the Freeh report). She made no note of "fondling or doing something of a sexual in nature" as Paterno testified in front of the grand jury.

    So what did Paterno tell Curley and Schultz when they met them in February 11, 2001? Did he tell them that MM said that he saw Sandusky horsing around with a boy in the shower? And 10 days later, when Curley and Schultz met with MM, did MM then tell them that he witnessed something "extremely sexual in nature" as he testifed he said? If so, Curley and Schultz must have been blindsided. They've been sitting on a rape allegation for TEN DAYS. It was only after the meeting with MM that Curley and Schultz began using "code" (Freeh report, pg 73) in their emails. The coverup only began after they realized Ol' Joe did not convey to them the seriousness of the allegation.

    If this scenario is correct, Paterno did do the right thing by testifying truthfully in front of the grand jury; however, he left Curley and Schultz holding the bag. They're left with this ridiculous "horsing around" story that is not believable. They deserve no sympathy, however. If they were willing to coverup child abuse to protect JoePa's legacy, they've getting their just desserts.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,479
    In all fairness, I heard it used on reruns of My Three Sons, which were broadcast in the area in the mid 1970's. I've also heard it in Dr. Strangelove, as "horsin' around." http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html The film was often shown on campus in the mid 1980's.

    I've heard, and I'm sure used, the term "horsing around," "fooling around," and, yes, "screwing around" in a completely non sexual context. For example, "I was fooling around with my computer settings and ... ."

    I am sure that I have never heard of a sexual encounter referred to as "horseplay." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/horseplay

    I think it is possible that Paterno didn't think it was a sexual encounter. However, the e-mails do indicate that Paterno knew about 1998, in 1998. At least he knew that there was incident and that it had been investigated.

    The only person "protected" by not revealing 2001, ultimately, was Gricar or Lauro.

    Gricar was facing a primary that ended up being relatively close in May 2001. Charging Sandusky could have had a negative impact on that. The fact that Gricar didn't charge in 1998 could have also cost him votes, especially if the Chambers' Report came out. The problem is, why would the Big 4 (or even Curley or Paterno) even want to protect Gricar?

    They'd have to be saying, **We're going to potentially all lose our jobs, destroy the football program, and go to jail, so that Ray up their in Bellefonte can win his primary and serve for another four years.** That makes zero sense?

    Why protect Lauro? He doesn't have any ties to the University. He's a bureaucrat and covered by civil service. It would next to impossible to get him fired over this. Further, he claimed he never saw the Chambers' Report, which is the really incriminating document.


    What happened to former Centre County DA Ray Gricar?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    3,266
    Not buying it Big Cat.........but an interesting read!

    Paterno was a savvy businessman and a skilled football coach. He might have used some old fashioned lingo but he knew what Sandusky was all about. Just like he couched his words in his GJ testimony and his public statement "I wish I had done more" he protected himself first.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila View Post
    In all fairness, I heard it used on reruns of My Three Sons, which were broadcast in the area in the mid 1970's. I've also heard it in Dr. Strangelove, as "horsin' around." http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html The film was often shown on campus in the mid 1980's.

    I've heard, and I'm sure used, the term "horsing around," "fooling around," and, yes, "screwing around" in a completely non sexual context. For example, "I was fooling around with my computer settings and ... ."

    I am sure that I have never heard of a sexual encounter referred to as "horseplay." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/horseplay

    I think it is possible that Paterno didn't think it was a sexual encounter. However, the e-mails do indicate that Paterno knew about 1998, in 1998. At least he knew that there was incident and that it had been investigated.

    The only person "protected" by not revealing 2001, ultimately, was Gricar or Lauro.

    Gricar was facing a primary that ended up being relatively close in May 2001. Charging Sandusky could have had a negative impact on that. The fact that Gricar didn't charge in 1998 could have also cost him votes, especially if the Chambers' Report came out. The problem is, why would the Big 4 (or even Curley or Paterno) even want to protect Gricar?

    They'd have to be saying, **We're going to potentially all lose our jobs, destroy the football program, and go to jail, so that Ray up their in Bellefonte can win his primary and serve for another four years.** That makes zero sense?

    Why protect Lauro? He doesn't have any ties to the University. He's a bureaucrat and covered by civil service. It would next to impossible to get him fired over this. Further, he claimed he never saw the Chambers' Report, which is the really incriminating document.
    I don't think they were concerned with protecting Gricar and Lauro. To Gricar's credit, they must have feared him if they felt the need to coverup the crime up at the university level.

    As far as DPW goes, Schultz recommended in his email that DPW be contacted. He testified that he believed they were notified. So the idea to not notify DPW must have originated at the Paterno/Curley level.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,479
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    I don't think they were concerned with protecting Gricar and Lauro. To Gricar's credit, they must have feared him if they felt the need to coverup the crime up at the university level.
    Nor do I think there would be a cover up to benefit either Lauro or Gricar.


    As far as DPW goes, Schultz recommended in his email that DPW be contacted. He testified that he believed they were notified. So the idea to not notify DPW must have originated at the Paterno/Curley level.
    Good point.

    1998 Paterno/Curley are on the sidelines, following it, but not intervening. They are basically saying, **What's happening with the case?** They don't know; they are not on the inside. The decision is basically Lauro's and Gricar's. Spanier comes into play only because he doesn't tell the BoT.

    2001, Schultz wants to basically do what they did in 1998, call DPW, and then call the chairman of the board of Second Mile (which they do). Suddenly, there is the email from Curley, saying Paterno opposes the idea.

    Do they feel a need to cover up for 1998? Well, they didn't cover up in 1998; DA/DPW knew about that. The records are still in PSU's files, and they didn't destroy them.

    Something had to change between 1998 and 2001. What?


    What happened to former Centre County DA Ray Gricar?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,479
    Okay, one change. Sandusky was no longer under the control of PSU and/or Paterno. He's retired. While his retirement package was good, it was no where near Paterno's.


    What happened to former Centre County DA Ray Gricar?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila View Post
    Nor do I think there would be a cover up to benefit either Lauro or Gricar.



    Good point.

    1998 Paterno/Curley are on the sidelines, following it, but not intervening. They are basically saying, **What's happening with the case?** They don't know; they are not on the inside. The decision is basically Lauro's and Gricar's. Spanier comes into play only because he doesn't tell the BoT.

    2001, Schultz wants to basically do what they did in 1998, call DPW, and then call the chairman of the board of Second Mile (which they do). Suddenly, there is the email from Curley, saying Paterno opposes the idea.

    Do they feel a need to cover up for 1998? Well, they didn't cover up in 1998; DA/DPW knew about that. The records are still in PSU's files, and they didn't destroy them.

    Something had to change between 1998 and 2001. What?
    Bolded by me.

    This is the conclusion that most have drawn, and it is a logical one, but to be fair, that is not what the email said. I know that most people here will consider this splitting hairs, but Curley wrote, " "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday -- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps."

    I'd be much more comfortable grabbing my own torch and pitchfork if the email overtly said that Joe nixed the plan. While I see how that is a reasonable link to make, I want to be careful that we don't start to report the wording in a way that makes us remember it wrongly.

    Your interpretation is probably correct, and I am certain we will have verification at Curley's trial.
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Rlaub44 View Post
    Bolded by me.

    This is the conclusion that most have drawn, and it is a logical one, but to be fair, that is not what the email said. I know that most people here will consider this splitting hairs, but Curley wrote, " "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday -- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps."

    I'd be much more comfortable grabbing my own torch and pitchfork if the email overtly said that Joe nixed the plan. While I see how that is a reasonable link to make, I want to be careful that we don't start to report the wording in a way that makes us remember it wrongly.

    Your interpretation is probably correct, and I am certain we will have verification at Curley's trial.
    Okay, here is the exact quote from 2/27/01: After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday - I am uncomfortable with what we agreed would be the next steps.

    Curley is at least giving the impression that Paterno is on board with this change in plans. That is why I attributed that to Curley.

    Now Curley is either relaying what Paterno thought was okay, or Curley wants to do this and is using Paterno as an excuse (which seems bizarre). So, the question is, why would either one of them want to change plans?


    What happened to former Centre County DA Ray Gricar?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila View Post
    Okay, here is the exact quote from 2/27/01: After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday - I am uncomfortable with what we agreed would be the next steps.

    Curley is at least giving the impression that Paterno is on board with this change in plans. That is why I attributed that to Curley.

    Now Curley is either relaying what Paterno thought was okay, or Curley wants to do this and is using Paterno as an excuse (which seems bizarre). So, the question is, why would either one of them want to change plans?
    Thanks, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just that I have seen it reported too often that the email states that Paterno changed the plan, and that is not yet in evidence.

    I wonder too about the change of plans. Their apparent reason from the email history was that they felt it was "more humane" to talk with Sandusky first.

    Were they attempting to cover-up their real motives in the emails, or were they really that clueless to think that it was a better solution? We know Spanier was aware of the potential for blowback, so what made that risk more palatable than letting the authorities handle the accusation against a former employee who had a history on file with law enforcement?
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila View Post
    Nor do I think there would be a cover up to benefit either Lauro or Gricar.

    Good point.

    1998 Paterno/Curley are on the sidelines, following it, but not intervening. They are basically saying, **What's happening with the case?** They don't know; they are not on the inside. The decision is basically Lauro's and Gricar's. Spanier comes into play only because he doesn't tell the BoT.

    2001, Schultz wants to basically do what they did in 1998, call DPW, and then call the chairman of the board of Second Mile (which they do). Suddenly, there is the email from Curley, saying Paterno opposes the idea.

    Do they feel a need to cover up for 1998? Well, they didn't cover up in 1998; DA/DPW knew about that. The records are still in PSU's files, and they didn't destroy them.

    Something had to change between 1998 and 2001. What?
    Well, obviously, most of the crimes Sandusky was convicted of occurred during that time period. I believe I'm correct in saying that. Did Paterno hear any rumors between 98 and 01?

    Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

    Mr. Paterno: I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it.

    You did mention ó I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody.

    I donít know.

    I donít remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor.
    Why there was no followup question, I don't know. Schultz and Curley were relentlessly questioned. Perhaps Paterno could have been pinned down to a decade, at the very least. Regardless, he did admit to hearing rumors. There's a good chance it was during the 98-2001 period. He may understood that an investigation in 2001 would have uncovered even more crimes. He feared losing his position. So he was all for kicking the can down the road. Curley went along because he was "Paterno's errand boy" and "loyal to a fault."

    I could almost excuse Schultz, since he thought his plan was implemented, but he never followed up. He couldn't even name the outside agency that was supposedly contacted when asked during his grand jury testimony.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by Rlaub44 View Post
    Thanks, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just that I have seen it reported too often that the email states that Paterno changed the plan, and that is not yet in evidence.

    I wonder too about the change of plans. Their apparent reason from the email history was that they felt it was "more humane" to talk with Sandusky first.

    Were they attempting to cover-up their real motives in the emails, or were they really that clueless to think that it was a better solution? We know Spanier was aware of the potential for blowback, so what made that risk more palatable than letting the authorities handle the accusation against a former employee who had a history on file with law enforcement?
    Spanier could have very well been sincere with the "more humane" remark. Remember he never talked to Mike McQueary. He only heard about the allegation through Curley and Schultz, who are both charged with perjury. It was really dumb decision, but possibly a sincere one.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,479
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    Spanier could have very well been sincere with the "more humane" remark. Remember he never talked to Mike McQueary. He only heard about the allegation through Curley and Schultz, who are both charged with perjury. It was really dumb decision, but possibly a sincere one.
    The problems are:

    1. So far as we know, Sandusky was never forced to get help.

    2. Spanier talked about how this could backfire. If this wasn't anything other than "horseplay" or "horsing around," why would he think that? Why would he even consider calling in DPW unless he thought that there could be some abuse.

    I still get the feeling we are missing something.


    What happened to former Centre County DA Ray Gricar?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Rlaub44 View Post

    Were they attempting to cover-up their real motives in the emails, or were they really that clueless to think that it was a better solution? We know Spanier was aware of the potential for blowback, so what made that risk more palatable than letting the authorities handle the accusation against a former employee who had a history on file with law enforcement?
    Here is a hypothetical. Suppose that in 1998, Gricar doesn't prosecute, but realizes that there is a problem. He gets a message either to Curley or Paterno (or both) that he won't prosecute if Sandusky "gets help with the problem." The message would not necessarily be directly to either. Whomever it is lets it slide.

    2001, either Paterno or Curley realizes that the 1998 message went unheeded. They know that, instead of being able to say, "Well the police and DPW investigated in 1998 and didn't find anything," they will be faced with a situation where Gricar didn't prosecute because they were suppose to restrain Sandusky. Whomever decides not to involve LE because of that.


    What happened to former Centre County DA Ray Gricar?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    285
    Horseing around- If you are around horses, you'll see it gets pretty phallic. I would use it to describe rough, clumsy physical shoving- testing of strength, roughhousing- that is not a fight. But it needs to be between people of similar age and size- never adult to child-- the same actions there would be abuse or bullying. Sandusky and a child- no way that's "play" and horseplay is supposed to stay within the limits of "play".

    Paterno seems to use it in a self-congratulatory way in "horseing around with the media". Like shoving them around.

    I just can't see him translating the inferred message from McQueary- this hugely upsetting thing- into that label accidentally. If he used those words he was deliberately castrating the message.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila View Post
    Here is a hypothetical. Suppose that in 1998, Gricar doesn't prosecute, but realizes that there is a problem. He gets a message either to Curley or Paterno (or both) that he won't prosecute if Sandusky "gets help with the problem." The message would not necessarily be directly to either. Whomever it is lets it slide.

    2001, either Paterno or Curley realizes that the 1998 message went unheeded. They know that, instead of being able to say, "Well the police and DPW investigated in 1998 and didn't find anything," they will be faced with a situation where Gricar didn't prosecute because they were suppose to restrain Sandusky. Whomever decides not to involve LE because of that.
    I like that scenario because it would also give a reason for Gricar to walk away. Perhaps he learned about the 2001 incident in 2005. He knew one day Sandusky's crimes would be exposed. He realized that his warning would be perceived as special treatment for the football team. Or he just realized he made a horrible decision. Either way, he did not want to deal with the fall-out, so he orchestrated his disappearance.


    JMO

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The complicity of Patsy in coverup.
    By Let_Forever_Be in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 275
    Last Post: 04-17-2014, 06:22 PM
  2. Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7
    By wfgodot in forum Jerry Sandusky General Discussion threads
    Replies: 589
    Last Post: 02-10-2012, 07:03 PM
  3. Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #5
    By wfgodot in forum Jerry Sandusky General Discussion threads
    Replies: 596
    Last Post: 12-09-2011, 08:10 PM
  4. Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #4
    By wfgodot in forum Jerry Sandusky General Discussion threads
    Replies: 602
    Last Post: 11-29-2011, 03:06 PM
  5. Which Ramsey Is Benefiting From The Coverup?
    By BlueCrab in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-05-2005, 03:34 PM

Tags for this Thread