Penn State protects child rapist that was former famous D-Coordinator

[mugs]

Really? in 1998 you have a victim and an accuser (both the boy and the mother), you have Sandusky admitting to the inappropriate action. All these gone through the State, The police, the Child Welfare department, and the people with the authority didn't do diddly shit

He didn't admit to anything criminal in 1998.

Now with one third hand account, with no victim coming forward, with JoePa gone to the school admin the very next day on a Sunday after McQueary told him about the incident, you are blaming him for inaction? Should JoePa be the judge and the jury on something he didn't witness, and go all out in the public on something with huge privacy implication? I know you people are all about hanging JoePa, but seriously, double standard much?

Yes! 1000 times yes. I blame Paterno, McQueary, Schultz and Curley for their inaction. They all knew Sandusky had raped a child in the shower. Paterno, Schultz and Curley knew it wasn't the first time Sandusky did something inappropriate in the shower with a child. They all knew that the 2002 incident wasn't reported to the appropriate authorities, and despite this none of them reported it. They all enabled Sandusky to continue raping children.

Double standard? What double standard? I'm only applying one standard. If you know children are being raped, you need to do something about it. No one needed to be the "judge and jury." All any of them had to do was report what they knew to the police or to the department of child welfare. None of them did (don't even try to claim that reporting it to Schultz was as good as reporting it to the police; Schultz had no operational role in the campus police).

 

[TheVrolok]

ROFLMAO!!! That's what you PedoState apologists have been saying since this story broke. Your athletic department approved the rape of children and JoePa spoke down from on high and said "Screw the kids, leave my program alone!!"

Deal with it, accepting the truth is the first step in the healing process.

How in any way did you get my defending PSU/being an apologist out of what I said?

 

[Andrew111]

Oh yeah and you people can continue to laugh/bash PSU. Like I give a $hit. I will take my PSU MBA that ranked 22nd in the US and top 50 in the world by Financial Time, and continue to drive my bimmer, travel around the world and enjoy my 6 figure salary. Have a nice day

You are obviously quite butt hurt about your school being seen in such a negative light...so yes, you obviously do give a shit But the funny thing is....anyone that reads this thread will get an even worse impression of PSU simply by reading your posts attempting to defend the school and JoePa.

Oh, and Financial Times....really? You be proud of that Financial Times ranking....one thing is for sure though...no matter what ranking is used, PSU has only one way to go in ANY ranking system (well, unless NAMBLA starts a college ranking), and that's down. This whole debacle is going to cost the school a WHOLE lot of money and the school is forever tarnished by the actions of JoePa, Sandusky, etc. and by idiot students and alumni like you rchiu:biggrin: So congrats rchiu for helping make your school look like shit.

 

[zinfamous]

You are obviously quite butt hurt about your school being seen in such a negative light...so yes, you obviously do give a shit But the funny thing is....anyone that reads this thread will get an even worse impression of PSU simply by reading your posts attempting to defend the school and JoePa.

Oh, and Financial Times....really? You be proud of that Financial Times ranking....one thing is for sure though...no matter what ranking is used, PSU has only one way to go in ANY ranking system (well, unless NAMBLA starts a college ranking), and that's down. This whole debacle is going to cost the school a WHOLE lot of money and the school is forever tarnished by the actions of JoePa, Sandusky, etc. and by idiot students and alumni like you rchiu:biggrin: So congrats rchiu for helping make your school like shit.

weird...no one even tries to praise any program that is not top 10--more likely top 5.

here we are expected to accept that a ranking of 22 for a program is hot shit?



being that it's an MBA program on top of that, might as well be a printout from U of Phoenix with such a ranking.

 

[rchiu]

weird...no one even tries to praise any program that is not top 10--more likely top 5.

here we are expected to accept that a ranking of 22 for a program is hot shit?



being that it's an MBA program on top of that, might as well be a printout from U of Phoenix with such a ranking.

Why, that's suppose to make me feel bad and depress from you and your high school ed credential....hahahahhaa

 

[rchiu]

He didn't admit to anything criminal in 1998.



Yes! 1000 times yes. I blame Paterno, McQueary, Schultz and Curley for their inaction. They all knew Sandusky had raped a child in the shower. Paterno, Schultz and Curley knew it wasn't the first time Sandusky did something inappropriate in the shower with a child. They all knew that the 2002 incident wasn't reported to the appropriate authorities, and despite this none of them reported it. They all enabled Sandusky to continue raping children.

Double standard? What double standard? I'm only applying one standard. If you know children are being raped, you need to do something about it. No one needed to be the "judge and jury." All any of them had to do was report what they knew to the police or to the department of child welfare. None of them did (don't even try to claim that reporting it to Schultz was as good as reporting it to the police; Schultz had no operational role in the campus police).

Yeah, thanks for completely demonstrating your bias. In 1998 with states official going through all the evidence, all the interviews with the accuser and victims coming forward, they were not blame for not "knowing" and "inaction" .....but but but in 2002, PSU people with one third hand account, they all of the sudden have to know, and blamed for in action.

Seriously it doesn't take a psychologist to know you people and media are just going after the big fish. We know Ray Gricar doesn't make a good rapist protector, why probably only 50 people in the world knows that name and he disappeared in 2005.

Yeah, go and yell rapist, rapist apologist, type in all cap, all bold, yell 100000000000 time you blame PSU....doesn't change the fact you and all the same crowd here in this thread holds the same bias, same agenda.

 

[moparacer]

Yeah, thanks for completely demonstrating your bias. In 1998 with states official going through all the evidence, all the interviews with the accuser and victims coming forward, they were not blame for not "knowing" and "inaction" .....but but but in 2002, PSU people with one third hand account, they all of the sudden have to know, and blamed for in action.

Seriously it doesn't take a psychologist to know you people and media are just going after the big fish. We know Ray Gricar doesn't make a good rapist protector, why probably only 50 people in the world knows that name and he disappeared in 2005.

Yeah, go and yell rapist, rapist apologist, type in all cap, all bold, yell 100000000000 time you blame PSU....doesn't change the fact you and all the same crowd here in this thread holds the same bias, same agenda.

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/08/freeh-lied-about-1998-and-heres-proof.html

Why the idiot BOT paid Freeh 6 million dollars to do a opinionated hatchet job investigation where most of the people involved in the scandal were not interviewed is beyond explanation.

I still say there are quite a few people WAY up higher on the food chain that would be more then happy to keep the focus on the dead coach and football program.

 

[rchiu]

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/08/freeh-lied-about-1998-and-heres-proof.html

Why the idiot BOT paid Freeh 6 million dollars to do a opinionated hatchet job investigation where most of the people involved in the scandal were not interviewed is beyond explanation.

I still say there are quite a few people WAY up higher on the food chain that would be more then happy to keep the focus on the dead coach and football program.

Very good info, for those people who haven't actually read the Freeh report and just blindly accept whatever that complete piece of garbage concluded, here is a chance to see how much direct evidence Freeh and his $6 million dollar and supposedly combing over millions of emails and document get you. Not one email from or to JoePa directly regarding the investigation. Not one email from anyone saying they discussed in detail with JoePa about the investigation.

It is what it is. General public loves a conspiracy and witch hunt. Top bureaucrats can't wait to put the coach under the bus and wash their hand as soon as humanly possible. People defending PSU and the coach (oh in case anti-psu crowd forgot, no one is defending that piece of shit Sandusky) will be ridiculed. But hey who cares, someone in the world got to have some principles and do the right thing instead of blindly follow the marching order from this fvcked up media world.

 

[mugs]

Yeah, thanks for completely demonstrating your bias. In 1998 with states official going through all the evidence, all the interviews with the accuser and victims coming forward, they were not blame for not "knowing" and "inaction" .....but but but in 2002, PSU people with one third hand account, they all of the sudden have to know, and blamed for in action.

In 1998 the only thing they knew was that he had showered with kids in a locker room after working out, and that he hugged one of the kids in the shower. I wish they would have stopped Sandusky then, but it doesn't seem like there was any evidence that would be sufficient to convict him of anything. In 2002 Paterno, Curley and Schultz knew all of that, and they knew that McQueary had witnessed Sandusky raping a child in the ass in the shower.

How can you possibly excuse their inaction? How can you defend them? I just don't get it.

Yeah, go and yell rapist, rapist apologist, type in all cap, all bold, yell 100000000000 time you blame PSU....doesn't change the fact you and all the same crowd here in this thread holds the same bias, same agenda.

Woah, I never blamed PSU. I blame Paterno, Schultz, Curley and McQueary for what they did. I have nothing against Penn State. Being from New Jersey I have a lot of friends who went to college there. Fortunately none of them have represented their alma mater as poorly as you have.

 

[rchiu]

In 1998 the only thing they knew was that he had showered with kids in a locker room after working out, and that he hugged one of the kids in the shower. I wish they would have stopped Sandusky then, but it doesn't seem like there was any evidence that would be sufficient to convict him of anything. In 2002 Paterno, Curley and Schultz knew all of that, and they knew that McQueary had witnessed Sandusky raping a child in the ass in the shower.

How can you possibly excuse their inaction? How can you defend them? I just don't get it.



Woah, I never blamed PSU. I blame Paterno, Schultz, Curley and McQueary for what they did. I have nothing against Penn State. Being from New Jersey I have a lot of friends who went to college there. Fortunately none of them have represented their alma mater as poorly as you have.

Are you serious? Sandusky admitting himself taking shower naked with a boy, hugging the boy in the shower naked was less incriminating than one third hand account? You don't even know what the hell McQueary saw, you don't know what McQueary told JoePa/PSU admin, and all of the sudden, those people in your opinion must "know", must be blamed for inaction, more so than those people who directly interviewed Sandusky, hear his admission, hear him saying his action was inappropriate?

Wow, sorry man, if you still don't see your bias, not sure what else can anyone do to help you.

 

[mugs]

Are you serious? Sandusky admitting himself taking shower naked with a boy, hugging the boy in the shower naked was less incriminating than one third hand account? You don't even know what the hell McQueary saw, you don't know what McQueary told JoePa/PSU admin, and all of the sudden, those people in your opinion must "know", must be blamed for inaction, more so than those people who directly interviewed Sandusky, hear his admission, hear him saying his action was inappropriate?

Wow, sorry man, if you still don't see your bias, not sure what else can anyone do to help you.

I don't know why you keep referring to what McQueary saw with his own eyes as a "third hand account." He saw it happen. To Paterno, Curley and Schultz it was second-hand. I've noticed that you keep trying to distort the facts and spread misinformation. I've noticed that most of Paterno's defenders do that, and that's telling.

You're right that I don't know what McQueary saw or what he told Paterno, Curley and Schultz. I do know what he says he saw and what he says he told them. I also know that they thought it was significant enough to warrant reporting to the Department of Child Welfare until a conversation with Joe Paterno changed their minds. That much is provable, and that is enough to justify calling them child rape facilitators.

Edit: I also don't think McQueary has any reason to lie about what he saw or what he told Paterno/Curley/Schultz. What he is claiming makes him look bad, because he didn't report it to law enforcement. Why would he lie to make himself look bad?

 

[zinfamous]

Why, that's suppose to make me feel bad and depress from you and your high school ed credential....hahahahhaa

where would you get that impression?

:hmm:

I mean, I know that fabricating info, laziness, academic dishonesty and blatant cheating are the primary credentials for the typical MBA "graduate," but at least accept the fact that arguing against what you have made plain about yourself, and what you can merely assume about myself (yes, I know--your shittiness with the language makes this even more difficult), is a losing proposition.

Surely....you were challenged with logic at some point in you life?


how sad.

 

[rchiu]

where would you get that impression?

:hmm:

I mean, I know that fabricating info, laziness, academic dishonesty and blatant cheating are the primary credentials for the typical MBA "graduate," but at least accept the fact that arguing against what you have made plain about yourself, and what you can merely assume about myself (yes, I know--your shittiness with the language makes this even more difficult), is a losing proposition.

Surely....you were challenged with logic at some point in you life?


how sad.

Oh you are not one of those liberal art guy with decent English but can't hack it in the real world and ended up living in your parents basement, and bitch and moan about other people with real degrees like engineering and MBA are you? My English maybe shitty but that's just one of 3 languages that I can use professionally, and my focus have always been in engineering and business related subject. Don't hate cause you can't make it in the real world. hahahaha

 

[rchiu]

I don't know why you keep referring to what McQueary saw with his own eyes as a "third hand account." He saw it happen. To Paterno, Curley and Schultz it was second-hand. I've noticed that you keep trying to distort the facts and spread misinformation. I've noticed that most of Paterno's defenders do that, and that's telling.

You're right that I don't know what McQueary saw or what he told Paterno, Curley and Schultz. I do know what he says he saw and what he says he told them. I also know that they thought it was significant enough to warrant reporting to the Department of Child Welfare until a conversation with Joe Paterno changed their minds. That much is provable, and that is enough to justify calling them child rape facilitators.

Edit: I also don't think McQueary has any reason to lie about what he saw or what he told Paterno/Curley/Schultz. What he is claiming makes him look bad, because he didn't report it to law enforcement. Why would he lie to make himself look bad?

Let's count. Sandusky and his victim - first hand. McQueary saw through mirror and hearing "slapping sound", second hand. JoePa told by McQueary - third hand. Hard to follow? oh and that email about "a conversation with Joe Paterno changed their minds"? How convenient is it for you and the media to miss the only thing they change their mind on is talking to Sandusky first, they did not change their mind on informing the other groups. Direct quote from the Schultz email to Spanier.

---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 maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two group….----

Now where in this email said the direct result of the conversation with JoePa is that they will not go to other groups? Come on, show us your so called proof that JoePa told them not to go to the other group. As to why they didn't inform the other groups, it's anyone's guess. Schultz dropped the ball? Maybe. They told someone and someone dropped the ball? Maybe. JoePa told them to not go to other group? Absolutely horse shit.

 

[hclarkjr]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48655774/ns/us_news-life/#.UCo0IKMywim

An accrediting organization has told Penn State that its status is "in jeopardy" based on recent developments in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education, which accredits universities in the Mid-Atlantic region, cited information in the school's internal investigation led by former FBI director Louis Freeh and the severe penalties imposed by the NCAA over the school's handling of molestation allegations against the former assistant football coach, who was convicted in June of 45 child sexual abuse counts.
The commission said in an Aug. 8 notice that Penn State remains accredited while "on warning" but it wants a monitoring report submitted by the end of next month detailing steps taken to ensure full compliance with governmental requirements, that the university's mission is being carried out, that the commission will be fully informed and that Penn State is complying with standards on leadership and governance as well as integrity.
Story: Penn State trustees back president on NCAA action The commission also wants the report to address the university's ability to bear financial obligations stemming from "the investigation and related settlements, etc." It said "a small team visit" will be made, a standard practice "to verify institutional status and progress."
Penn State officials on Monday expressed confidence that they would be able to address all concerns expressed by the commission.
"This action has nothing to do with the quality of education our students receive," said Blannie Bowen, vice provost for academic affairs in a statement posted on the university's website. "Middle States is focusing on governance, integrity, and financial issues related to information in the Freeh report and other items related to our current situation."
Bowen said the body doesn't issue a warning unless it believes that an institution can make improvements and remain in compliance, and "this is certainly true for Penn State.
"We're confident that our monitoring report and the site visit will confirm this to the commission," Bowen said.
University president Rodney Erickson said that the commission "wants us to document that steps we have already taken and are planning to take will ensure our full compliance with its requirements." He said he was also confident that officials would be able to "fully demonstrate our financial stability."

 

[momeNt]

Holy shit, the denial is strong in rchiu.

Say it ain't so Joe, and if you're too dead to talk, we'll say it for you.

 

[hclarkjr]

Attorneys for Penn State's ousted president are planning a news conference to rebut what they view as inaccuracies in a report that concluded he concealed child sex-abuse allegations against a former assistant football coach more than a decade ago.
One of Graham Spanier's lawyers, Peter Vaira, told The Associated Press on Tuesday there are ''many, many errors'' in the report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, and the legal team will meet with reporters in Philadelphia early next week to point them out.
Freeh was hired by Penn State's board of trustees to investigate the Jerry Sandusky scandal. His July 12 report asserted that Spanier, football coach Joe Paterno and two other university officials buried a 2001 allegation against Sandusky to protect Penn State from bad publicity.
The NCAA used the report as the basis for leveling severe penalties against Penn State, including a $60 million fine, a multi-year bowl ban and a reduction in athletic scholarships.
Spanier was ousted as school president soon after Sandusky's arrest. He has not been charged with a crime and remains a tenured faculty member at Penn State. He is on sabbatical until December.
He has repeatedly said that Freeh mischaracterized his knowledge and handling of abuse allegations against Sandusky, who awaits sentencing following his conviction on 45 counts for sexually abusing 10 boys.
Freeh's spokesman declined to comment Tuesday.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoo...curacies-in-penn-state-internal-report-081412

 

[waggy]

sadly i think penn state is digging a deep deep hole.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Wow, sorry man, if you still don't see your bias, not sure what else can anyone do to help you.

Is this guy comedy gold or what?

 

[hclarkjr]

Is this guy comedy gold or what?

sadly not. i live close enough to ped state that i know some people who went there or have friends going there. it is sad

 

[mugs]

Let's count. Sandusky and his victim - first hand. McQueary saw through mirror and hearing "slapping sound", second hand. JoePa told by McQueary - third hand. Hard to follow? oh and that email about "a conversation with Joe Paterno changed their minds"? How convenient is it for you and the media to miss the only thing they change their mind on is talking to Sandusky first, they did not change their mind on informing the other groups. Direct quote from the Schultz email to Spanier.

I apologize for accusing you of dishonesty. It seems you actually don't know what firsthand means. I think we established earlier that English isn't your first language, so this is understandable. Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firsthand

McQueary's account is firsthand. You can't argue that.

---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 maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two group….----

Now where in this email said the direct result of the conversation with JoePa is that they will not go to other groups? Come on, show us your so called proof that JoePa told them not to go to the other group. As to why they didn't inform the other groups, it's anyone's guess. Schultz dropped the ball? Maybe. They told someone and someone dropped the ball? Maybe. JoePa told them to not go to other group? Absolutely horse shit.

Now I'm going to accuse you of dishonesty, because you know you left out the incriminating part of the e-mail. You're also misinterpreting the part you quoted, but I can't be certain that is dishonesty.

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.

Clear indication that he decided to take a different approach than what they previously agreed to. And a native English speaker would interpret that to mean that Joe Paterno had influenced the decision.

* * 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.

His organization is the Second Mile; the other one is the Department of Child Welfare. Previously they were going to inform both, but now it's just a "maybe" for the Department of Child Welfare.

* * If* he* is*
cooperative* we* would* work* with* him* to* handle* informing* the* organization.

The organization = the Second Mile.

* * If*
not,*we*do*not*have*a*choice*and*will*inform*the*two*groups.

The two groups = Second Mile and Department of Child Welfare.

To to summarize for you -
The old plan was to inform the Second Mile and the Department of Welfare.
The new plan is to inform the Second Mile; if Sandusky is not cooperative (willing to get professional help) they'll also inform the Department of Child Welfare.

**Additionally,*I*will*
let* him* know* that* his* guests* are* not* permitted* to* use* our* facilities.*

This means that Sandusky has to confine his anal rapes to his own basement, while his wife ignores what is happening.

I* need* some*
help*on*this*one.**What*do*you*think*about*this*approach?

He sounds uncomfortable with the new approach and is looking for validation from someone else.


You are right that he didn't explicitly say that Paterno told him not to tell the Department of Child Welfare. But anyone who reads that e-mail without bias knows what it means. You can't even argue that you think it means something different, because if you thought it wasn't incriminating you wouldn't have left the beginning part out of your quote.

Edit: sorry for the asterisks, copying out of the PDF didn't work too well.

 

[Andrew111]

I apologize for accusing you of dishonesty. It seems you actually don't know what firsthand means. I think we established earlier that English isn't your first language, so this is understandable. Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firsthand

Rchiu is a fine example of the "quality" students they admit into the PSU MBA program...and he got accepted before the school's reputation got hammered. Many more Rchius will be running around the PSU campus now:biggrin: I wonder what score he got in the GMAT. From this thread I can tell critical reasoning, sentence correction, and reading comprehension (basically the whole verbal section of the test) were not his strengths

 

[holden j caufield]

can you block or ignore posts from a user on this forum. Does this guy troll this thread every waking hour?

 

[Ns1]

can you block posts from a user on this forum. Does this guy troll this thread every waking hour?

yes, use the ignore feature. my ignore list is quite massive now.

 

[rchiu]

I apologize for accusing you of dishonesty. It seems you actually don't know what firsthand means. I think we established earlier that English isn't your first language, so this is understandable. Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firsthand

McQueary's account is firsthand. You can't argue that.

Now I'm going to accuse you of dishonesty, because you know you left out the incriminating part of the e-mail. You're also misinterpreting the part you quoted, but I can't be certain that is dishonesty.

Clear indication that he decided to take a different approach than what they previously agreed to. And a native English speaker would interpret that to mean that Joe Paterno had influenced the decision.

His organization is the Second Mile; the other one is the Department of Child Welfare. Previously they were going to inform both, but now it's just a "maybe" for the Department of Child Welfare.

The organization = the Second Mile.

The two groups = Second Mile and Department of Child Welfare.

To to summarize for you -
The old plan was to inform the Second Mile and the Department of Welfare.
The new plan is to inform the Second Mile; if Sandusky is not cooperative (willing to get professional help) they'll also inform the Department of Child Welfare.



This means that Sandusky has to confine his anal rapes to his own basement, while his wife ignores what is happening.

He sounds uncomfortable with the new approach and is looking for validation from someone else.

You are right that he didn't explicitly say that Paterno told him not to tell the Department of Child Welfare. But anyone who reads that e-mail without bias knows what it means. You can't even argue that you think it means something different, because if you thought it wasn't incriminating you wouldn't have left the beginning part out of your quote.

Edit: sorry for the asterisks, copying out of the PDF didn't work too well.

Let's see where do we start. Firsthand: obtained by, coming from, or being direct personal observation or experience. Tell me this, was McQueary the one getting raped? Was that his "personal experience"? Did he have "direct" personal observation? Was he next to the boy and Sandusky when they were having sex? By all the account, he saw what he saw from a mirror first and he slammed the locker to let them know he was there. By the time he went around to the shower, Sandusky was not with the boy anymore. Was that direct observation? I mean you are so good in English, why don't you tell me that.

And let's see from the email you cited:

* * 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.*

So tell me with you perfect English comprehension, what exactly was Shultz having trouble with? Any capable English speaker would say he was having trouble with speaking to the organizations without first talking to Sanduksy. Is there anything which indicated he was having trouble/concern with going to any organization? Like what all you people/media claimed? protecting the all mighty JoePa legacy, football reputation.....etc...Anything?

Another point: Previously they were going to inform both, but now it's just a "maybe" for the Department of Child Welfare. So in your perfect English comprehension, does maybe equal to a no?

And you want to discuss the first part of the email, I already talked about the part where they had "a conversation with JoePa and changed their mind" in the previous post and didn't think it was necessary to quote the part again, but here you are thinking I thought it was incriminating that's why I left it out. The whole fvcking point of the post was to discuss they had a conversation, but the result of the conversion was not not to go to any of the organization but to just talk to Sandusky first.

See this is what all you media and witch hunting public try to do. Take shit out of context and interpret bits and pieces of info as you want to interpret it. Even you admit that the email didn't say JoePa told them exactly that. But all of the sudden, you "know" what it means. You should really take up business law and maybe you would learn that English can be interpret in every which way. Just because you can write a grammatically correct sentence doesn't mean you "know" and can perfectly deduce what it really means. If it is really like you people believed, that JoePa had that much influence and control, why after tens and thousands of emails Freeh claimed to researched, there was not one email directly speak of JoePa's "direct" influence. This email is the very best that you people can come up with. "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe, , I am uncomfortable....ect"? Or maybe all these people had the foresight the email was going to be reviewed and they were covering their tracks 10+ years ago, hiding their track in every email they sent regarding Sandusky over the past 10+ years to make absolutely sure JoePa and his football legacy, and their intention to protect football program isn't mentioned in one bit of the email? You honestly think that is possible? Logic anyone?

Since you claim you know English so well, guess all I can say is you are just another dishonest prick trying to twist email and bits of info to your views and belief, like the rest of the general public. Pathetic....