It is currently Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:43 pm Advanced search

Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Discuss everything about Penn State and college football here.

Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Blue&White » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:06 pm

Started this thread to avoid the topic leaking into other threads, to the extent possible.

Anyway, in the 2013 team thread, appoo posted the following:

appoo wrote:Wonder what's going to happen when this thing gets turned on its head. It's coming out that the "Jerry" stuff in the emails that involved Joe were actually referring to Jerry Dunne.


Can we please be careful with these comments? To clarify, it's not "coming out" that the Jerry was Jerry Dunne. What is happening is Spaniers lawyers are claiming that the full context of the seemingly incriminating e-mails against Spanier show exculpatory evidence that he was actually referring to the Jerry Dunn situation. Dunn was fired in 2003, not 2001, which means they effectively talked about this for at least 2 years.

I'm not saying it's not true, but I think we need to be careful with statements like "it's coming out". Don't confuse legal maneuvers with facts. My gut reaction to this is that if Spaniers lawyers thought they had slam dunk information that exonerated their client, they would not be presenting their defense in the media. They would be presenting it to prosecutors on the side to get them to drop the case, but would not want it public so they can still surprise the jury with it. Maybe that's not their strategy but when I see defense lawyers trying to play the media, I get suspicious as to their evidence.
#Cespedespaid!
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 8435
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby pennst92 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:37 pm

I still think it worth noting. As for the Jerry situation, it was during that time period that Jerry was seeking the extension after the sweet 16 appearance, I believe. I don't have the dates of the emails, but there's at least enough there to draw a conclusion that it possibly could be true.

Fwiw: whether true or not, in my mind it has at least as much credibility as the conclusions drawn from the four emails referenced in the Freeh report. I appreciate the further dialogue that paints this in a much broader stroke of grey than the black and white judgment rendered by the NCAA asshats.
A good team has to have players capable of making plays...oh, wait - we're so there!
pennst92
 
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:17 pm
Location: Lexington, South Carolina

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Carl Spackler » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:45 pm

While they could have been referring to Dunn the wording doesn't seem to indicate that if I remember the quotes of the emails correctly. It was the Curley 180 degree reversal on turning in Sandusky to authorities discussion. Why would Curley speak to Joe and then change his mind on turning in Jerry Dunn to the authorities? Turn in Dunn for what? Poor coaching? While Jerry's coaching was abusive it was not criminal as far as I know. Unless my memory is faulty (possible) it doesn't seem to be a plausible conversation unless the wording suddenly changes.

Now, if somehow it was accurate and it was Dunn the entire Freeh report becomes suspect beyond the PSU community as that would be a major boo boo.
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914): "An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods."
Carl Spackler
 
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:39 pm
Location: N40.7243 W-82.1074

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Blue&White » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:52 pm

I basically agree with you. I think it is worthy of discussion and consider it a possibility. My only point is we need to be careful of comments like "it's coming out" as if we know these statements are facts. Based on what we know, I consider this possibility and conclusion no less valid than those of the Freeh report. However, I equally consider it no more valid. Not without more evidence.

We all want this to be true. We all want Joe to be vindicated, and probably Spanier too (although to a far lesser extent). I just think given all that has happened, and how everyone was so outraged at the media for jumping on innuendo based on half truths (or, in some instances, non-truths), we should try to avoid being swept up in the same thing at every possibility the other way. That's all. At this point, I'm waiting for the whole story to come out. I'd be lying if I said I had some expectation that Joe or the others are going to be exonerated in the process, but I don't dismiss the possibility. I also think it's entirely possible that the 3 defendants will push as much blame on Joe as they can get away with.
#Cespedespaid!
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 8435
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby pennst92 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:00 pm

Well put, well thought out. I agree.
A good team has to have players capable of making plays...oh, wait - we're so there!
pennst92
 
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:17 pm
Location: Lexington, South Carolina

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby appoo » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:34 am

Someone on a different board talked to Tom Bradley at a Pittsburgh restaurant, and that's what he was told regarding the Jerry thing.
appoo
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Blue&White » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:35 am

I don't see how Bradley is in any better position to know than you or I. Spanier's lawyers kicked this off. Tom is most likely just reading about it.
#Cespedespaid!
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 8435
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby appoo » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:27 pm

Blue&White wrote:I don't see how Bradley is in any better position to know than you or I. Spanier's lawyers kicked this off. Tom is most likely just reading about it.


I would think working in the program, and working with and knowing Tim Curley and the rest of the AD automatically puts him in a better position than just about anyone else. And you're speculation of him likely just reading it...? Not sure why you think that's likely.
appoo
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Blue&White » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:01 pm

Well, it's been in the media. I saw the story about this and I certainly did not hear it from Tom Bradley. And, the version of events recounted is very consistent with what I read elsewhere. Do a quick Google search and you'll find a few links that give more details.

Secondly, while I agree that working in the program puts him a better position to know what on inside the PSU AD, that does not necessarily mean that he was involved with decisions on the basketball program's head coaches tenure or employment. HR issues are generally confidential and not discussed among the wider organization. Additionally, if Tom is indicating he knew about what was going on in 2001 and he knew this was not over Sandusky, he needs to be careful because everyone else who is believed to have been "in the know" has since been indicted.

It doesn't make sense to my a football coach would know about what they intended to do with Jerry Dunn.
#Cespedespaid!
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 8435
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby appoo » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:43 pm

We'll see, almost none of it makes sense. I just wish Curley and Schultz would speak up about this.
appoo
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:27 pm

Next

Return to The Locker Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron