Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
relantel wrote:By following the law. PA Law on disclosure of such things was very tight. Paterno would not have been allowed to know.
We follow the emails included in the Freeh report, some of which have been doctored, but also the ones left out. Contemporary emails refer to Paterno as Joe. Paterno himself did not have email.
The one with "Coach" -- the subject line is Re: Jerry.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/08/anal ... to-be.html
Just because Freeh stated it is believed to be Paterno, when Freeh was constantly making narratives the evidence didn't support, we should believe Freeh over the actual document? The URL shows plenty of examples and Curley always uses "Joe" for Paterno, and Schultz always uses "JVP". So "Coach" coming from either one of these two gentlemen is not talking about Paterno.
shmenguin wrote:relantel wrote:By following the law. PA Law on disclosure of such things was very tight. Paterno would not have been allowed to know.
We follow the emails included in the Freeh report, some of which have been doctored, but also the ones left out. Contemporary emails refer to Paterno as Joe. Paterno himself did not have email.
The one with "Coach" -- the subject line is Re: Jerry.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/08/anal ... to-be.html
Just because Freeh stated it is believed to be Paterno, when Freeh was constantly making narratives the evidence didn't support, we should believe Freeh over the actual document? The URL shows plenty of examples and Curley always uses "Joe" for Paterno, and Schultz always uses "JVP". So "Coach" coming from either one of these two gentlemen is not talking about Paterno.
gotta be careful saying "proven" or "proof". this is not proof. it's evidence. and not great evidence.
shmenguin wrote:an e-mail saying that paterno was informed by the person who informed him is pretty good, yeah.
Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:shmenguin wrote:an e-mail saying that paterno was informed by the person who informed him is pretty good, yeah.
I just sent relantel a PM saying that you told me that you were going to rob a bank.
count2infinity wrote:You're not being asked to believe anything. Any rational, sane person looks at the e-mail and sees "coach" and knows it's referring to Paterno. I don't know where rel was going with his comment about it not being Paterno when it clearly is. You called him on it, I doubt there's any one else here that believes it, why the need to keep going with it?
Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:So whatever you write in an email makes it true? I should send an email that I won a billion dollars. Curley could be just using Paterno's name in order to get a faster response but not actually talk with him.
slappybrown wrote:Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:So whatever you write in an email makes it true? I should send an email that I won a billion dollars. Curley could be just using Paterno's name in order to get a faster response but not actually talk with him.
Come on SDD. So now we're at some people think its not even referring to Paterno (I don't know if that's you or not) and even if it is him, Curley is lying to "get a faster response", and your analogy is this is like writing an email "that says I won a billion dollars so that way I will have a billion dollars."
shmenguin wrote:Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:shmenguin wrote:an e-mail saying that paterno was informed by the person who informed him is pretty good, yeah.
I just sent relantel a PM saying that you told me that you were going to rob a bank.
i just sent an email to president nebzar of the braxbap galaxy, saying the same thing about you. see, this is where us being humans with evaluative minds come in and we can judge what's reasonable and what's not. like i said, there isn't "proof" here. we're dealing with what's available.
more importantly, also like i said, you're painting a very unlikely picture about what happened. if you listed every domino that had to fall correctly, it would be a pretty wild story.
Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:shmenguin wrote:Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:shmenguin wrote:an e-mail saying that paterno was informed by the person who informed him is pretty good, yeah.
I just sent relantel a PM saying that you told me that you were going to rob a bank.
i just sent an email to president nebzar of the braxbap galaxy, saying the same thing about you. see, this is where us being humans with evaluative minds come in and we can judge what's reasonable and what's not. like i said, there isn't "proof" here. we're dealing with what's available.
more importantly, also like i said, you're painting a very unlikely picture about what happened. if you listed every domino that had to fall correctly, it would be a pretty wild story.
There are plenty of stories of people being incorrectly judged and prosecuted, Duke Lacrosse, Richard Jewel, Hillsborough to name just a few. Look back at them and most happend because dominos fell in a way that caused the results.
I believe that there is enough evidence and other possible interpretations of events that contradict the asserstions made by the OAG and the media.
To believe what you believe is even wilder IMO. You have a man, who wasn't afraid of bad publicity and had a history of behaving ethically when most of his peers benefited from doing the opposite, who choose to knowingly cover up the actions of a person whom he didn't even like. All the while this cover up was accomplished by not telling anyone to keep quiet and by not giving anyone anything of any benefit. then covered up the whole thing in order to protect the football program. But the whole thing then unraveled because the man chose to later tell the truth in court when he could have easily stayed quiet.
Pavel Bure wrote:
For every story of being incorrectly judged there are 10 being correctly judged. I'm not sure what you're railing against. You think JoePa is innocent and others don't. Neither side is going to convince the other at this point in time because all the facts aren't known. Give it up.
Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:slappybrown wrote:Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:So whatever you write in an email makes it true? I should send an email that I won a billion dollars. Curley could be just using Paterno's name in order to get a faster response but not actually talk with him.
Come on SDD. So now we're at some people think its not even referring to Paterno (I don't know if that's you or not) and even if it is him, Curley is lying to "get a faster response", and your analogy is this is like writing an email "that says I won a billion dollars so that way I will have a billion dollars."
I am saying that there the evidence of Paterno knowing about 1998 is not concrete evidence that he knew. For that I would need testimony from someone saying they spoke to Paterno about 1998 something Curley has yet to do. Regardless the emails don't give details about what he was being investigated for. How are we to know for sure that Paterno knew that Sandusky was investigated for showering with a boy. I was giving an alternative possible scenario. Can you prove one is more likely than the other?
relantel wrote:Pavel Bure wrote:
For every story of being incorrectly judged there are 10 being correctly judged. I'm not sure what you're railing against. You think JoePa is innocent and others don't. Neither side is going to convince the other at this point in time because all the facts aren't known. Give it up.
So we should make a judgment without a complete set of facts? Can't think you really meant that, did you?
A good film recommendation for those here.... Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. How one man with doubts persuaded an entire jury dead-set against him by establishing doubt for each piece of evidence.
NCAA attorney Everett Johnson Jr. argued that the plaintiffs' claims the NCAA held a "gun to the head" of Penn State forcing the university to agree to the unprecedented sanctions is false and that Penn State simply had a choice between two undesirable options – sign the consent decree with provisions like a ban on bowl games or see the entire football program suspended.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests