ADVERTISEMENT

3 Stooges

I just called again and now a woman answered in the news room and read the same story that was run yesterday. She said she is there until 11:30 so feel free to call. She also said every story they run does NOT appear on their website. Not that hard to call if you don't believe me.

Ask for the Newsroom


Again the # is 412-242-4300

I already called so no need to call again, as they will just repeat whatever they told me, or you. I tried to watch the newscast, but could only view today's 12:00noon show and I couldn't figure out if you can watch prior newscasts. I also started a thread on BWI to see if anyone there knows about it.

Until I learn otherwise, I stand by my bullshit call on the OP.
 
Can someone please call?

I just called again and now a woman answered in the news room and read the same story that was run yesterday. She said she is there until 11:30 so feel free to call. She also said every story they run does NOT appear on their website. Not that hard to call if you don't believe me.

Ask for the Newsroom


Again the # is 412-242-4300
 
So they told you they ran the story!

I already called so no need to call again, as they will just repeat whatever they told me, or you. I tried to watch the newscast, but could only view today's 12:00noon show and I couldn't figure out if you can watch prior newscasts. I also started a thread on BWI to see if anyone there knows about it.

Until I learn otherwise, I stand by my bullshit call on the OP.
 
I did not hear the entire story when I started the post but after calling WTAE I said that their attorney was trying to get their case tossed out because they did not know they had to report the incident.

THERE WAS NO COURT CASE!! CAPEESH?

Since I am self employed and work from home I called WTAE since there is no search engine on their website. If you call their newsroom they can read any story that the run to you . I called and YES they did run a piece yesterday stating:

Graham Spanier and the 2 other PSU administrators attorney was trying to have the case against them thrown out 5 years after the filing due to THEY DID NOT KNOW THEY HAD TO REPORT THE INCIDENT IN 2001!


PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!

Here is the contact info for WTAE:

412-242-4300

CALL YOURSELF!!!

QUOTE="pabornandraised, post: 1750307, member: 39616"]Could not find anything about this on the following websites:
WTAE
Harrisburg Patriot-News (PennLive)
Centre Daily Times
Dauphin County Courthouse

I think the OP is making stuff up....again....and look how many fell for it. Sad, really.
[/QUOTE]
 
So they told you they ran the story!

I already explained what I was told.

PSU0622, who posted early in this thread, responded to my BWI thread asking if anyone knew anything about a hearing, with this reply:

"I asked my friend who works in the OAG and he said no. I saw your discussion on the Pitt board and I myself asked for a link last night. I could not find anything."

Dauphin County court also has a dedicated Curley-Schultz-Spanier link and that has nothing.
http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Pages/default.aspx
 
I did not hear the entire story when I started the post but after calling WTAE I said that their attorney was trying to get their case tossed out because they did not know they had to report the incident.

THERE WAS NO COURT CASE!! CAPEESH?
[/QUOTE]

So what was there then? Did their attorneys (they each have their own) ask for this for Christmas?
 
What the hell are you talking about? The story referenced Graham Spanier's attorney but I thought you said you called!


So what was there then? Did their attorneys (they each have their own) ask for this for Christmas?[/QUOTE]
 

See above. I already called them, and researched the "source" that they provided. Also, the Harrisburg and State College newspapers had nothing on this story. Nothing on the BWI board either.

Maybe because there is no story?[/QUOTE]
is your username @Dinnersocks on Dawgshed.com?
 
I called twice and found the info very easily.


Ask for the Newsroom and ask about the piece on the 3 Penn St Administrators.

412-242-4300

Not really that hard!
 
I am going to keep posting until someone calls and verifies this story. Whoever calls can come to super cool tailgate free of charge for the opener.
 
My point about the insurer was the second mile is not the first consideration in issues with Sandusky. His behavior was known by PSU long before 1998.
 
I can't remember the first verified date he was exposed. The insurance company has been quiet lately. Ins companies hate paying out without a fight.

My point about the insurer was the second mile is not the first consideration in issues with Sandusky. His behavior was known by PSU long before 1998.
 
What the hell are you talking about? The story referenced Graham Spanier's attorney but I thought you said you called!



So what was there then? Did their attorneys (they each have their own) ask for this for Christmas?
[/QUOTE]

Your OP stated, and I quote: "3 Stooges...Were in court today arguing to have their case thrown out because...."

So now you're saying that they WERE NOT in court, and it was only Spanier's attorney, who DOES NOT represent all 3, who was in court to file a motion. Yet there is nothing out there to confirm it, other than random people who answer the phone at WTAE.

I researched all of the sites that I did yesterday and still found nothing to confirm that anything happened with the case this week.
 
What is about PSU fans that have trouble comprehending things? I said I only heard part of the piece and after calling I posted that is was a motion and not "in court".

Again, for our slow PSU trolls .....the crazy thing was their defense ( they didn't know they had to report the incident in 2001) argument. The forum for how it was transmitted is immaterial to my point.

Geeese now go away


Your OP stated, and I quote: "3 Stooges...Were in court today arguing to have their case thrown out because...."

So now you're saying that they WERE NOT in court, and it was only Spanier's attorney, who DOES NOT represent all 3, who was in court to file a motion. Yet there is nothing out there to confirm it, other than random people who answer the phone at WTAE.

I researched all of the sites that I did yesterday and still found nothing to confirm that anything happened with the case this week.[/QUOTE]
 
My point about the insurer was the second mile is not the first consideration in issues with Sandusky. His behavior was known by PSU long before 1998.

From what I know based on court records is that two John Doe's received payments for claims that predated 1998. The John Doe's never testified under oath and were not cross-examined.

I also know based on fact is that the person who approved all settlements is a billionaire with connections to Second Mile up to his eyeballs, whose personal fortune was at risk if anyone started looking into Second Mile.
 
What is about PSU fans that have trouble comprehending things? I said I only heard part of the piece and after calling I posted that is was a motion and not "in court".

Again, for our slow PSU trolls .....the crazy thing was their defense ( they didn't know they had to report the incident in 2001) argument. The forum for how it was transmitted is immaterial to my point.

Geeese now go away



Your OP stated, and I quote: "3 Stooges...Were in court today arguing to have their case thrown out because...."

So now you're saying that they WERE NOT in court, and it was only Spanier's attorney, who DOES NOT represent all 3, who was in court to file a motion. Yet there is nothing out there to confirm it, other than random people who answer the phone at WTAE.

I researched all of the sites that I did yesterday and still found nothing to confirm that anything happened with the case this week.
[/QUOTE]

No proof that any motion was filed this week, which is what you are hanging your hat on.

I know that it's hard to admit when you're wrong, but people with real character find a way.
 
pa bored and raised just call the news desks and ask the question.
Are you too stupid to understand that!
 
JS was given emeritus status when he retired after the 1999 season (I have heard that Paterno opposed this) by none other than Rod Erickson, the former president that your Captain thinks did such a bang-up job handling the situation. He had access to facilities, but hardly the run of the place.

Also, JS did not just "work" for the Second Mile, he did, in fact, work for them....as in employed by.

1. He did have the run of the place if he was showering in the coaches showers in the football building after hours. Not sure why that gets argued. He pretty much did as he wanted because the University loved to play up the relationship with TSM as one of it's favorite charities. It was pretty openly bragged about and was a big deal if you could get close to that group.

2. Paterno was opposed? Why? I mean, he didn't know anything, right?

3. Erickson helped the BOT keep the school out of hotter water and deeper excrement. That's why Captain reminds you guys constantly. There were a few minimally inconvenient football seasons and a couple ND coaching buyout worth of checks written to keep the money train rolling. Hardly a bad investment given the outcome. At least from the University's perspective.
 
1. He did have the run of the place if he was showering in the coaches showers in the football building after hours. Not sure why that gets argued. He pretty much did as he wanted because the University loved to play up the relationship with TSM as one of it's favorite charities. It was pretty openly bragged about and was a big deal if you could get close to that group.

2. Paterno was opposed? Why? I mean, he didn't know anything, right?

3. Erickson helped the BOT keep the school out of hotter water and deeper excrement. That's why Captain reminds you guys constantly. There were a few minimally inconvenient football seasons and a couple ND coaching buyout worth of checks written to keep the money train rolling. Hardly a bad investment given the outcome. At least from the University's perspective.

1. He had access to that building, which I already said. If you consider that to mean having the run of the place, then so be it. Yes, certain people at PS had a deep relationship with Second Mile, I guess because it was considered to be a worthy charity in the area. I didn't get the feel that the university as a whole loved to play up the relationship, but that's just me.

2. I don't think Paterno liked JS all that much so why would he want him around? Other than that I don't know the specific reasons. Regarding knowing anything, Paterno said he didn't know, and I believe him until proven otherwise (real proof, not just the same old "Joe ran the place, so he had to know".) Lots of people said they didn't know, including trained/licensed child care professionals (PhD level) that worked along side JS at Second Mile after he retired from PS in 1999 (and were well informed of the shower incident), as well as state-level professionals that approved of his many adoptions.

3. Interesting view of Erickson. Many others see him as a spineless coward and a puppet who was promoted to keep certain BOT members out of hotter water and deeper excrement, including the former governor. His actions, or rather the actions of his puppeteers, have cost the university many millions more than he "saved".
 
2. Regarding knowing anything, Paterno said he didn't know, and I believe him until proven otherwise (real proof, not just the same old "Joe ran the place, so he had to know".)

Oh, Jesus Effing Christ., another Paterno apologist who puts a phony image above the rape of children. Paterno himself testified to the grand jury that he was told by Mike McQueary something of a sexual nature was going on in the Lasch showers between Sandusky and a young boy.

Paterno's grand jury testimony is "real proof" that he knew for anyone who is not a cult member Paterno admitted in his grand jury testimony that he knew. He then passed the buck and did nothing to stop Sandusky abusing young boys for the next decade.

The reason Paterno's reputation is forever destroyed for anyone who is not a cult member is because the man himself testified that he knew what was going on for at least a decade before Sandusky was arrested.
 
This is clear evidence of a PSU directed cover-up. Joe Paterno called WTAE from the grave or from the Caribbean and told them to take all traces of this down from the web. Hopefully WikiLeaks got a screen shot before it was taken down.
 
At least when I see a crime I report it to the authorities!
I don't ask who do you work for and think to myself it's there problem.
Are you too stupid to understand that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
From what I know based on court records is that two John Doe's received payments for claims that predated 1998. The John Doe's never testified under oath and were not cross-examined.

I also know based on fact is that the person who approved all settlements is a billionaire with connections to Second Mile up to his eyeballs, whose personal fortune was at risk if anyone started looking into Second Mile.

Who is this you speak of?
 
Oh, Jesus Effing Christ., another Paterno apologist who puts a phony image above the rape of children. Paterno himself testified to the grand jury that he was told by Mike McQueary something of a sexual nature was going on in the Lasch showers between Sandusky and a young boy.

Paterno's grand jury testimony is "real proof" that he knew for anyone who is not a cult member Paterno admitted in his grand jury testimony that he knew. He then passed the buck and did nothing to stop Sandusky abusing young boys for the next decade.

The reason Paterno's reputation is forever destroyed for anyone who is not a cult member is because the man himself testified that he knew what was going on for at least a decade before Sandusky was arrested.

Obviously you know nothing about the case.

There was no rape. Ever. The child in the showers stated that nothing happened and in recent sworn testimony did not dispute what he originally stated.

The term "sexual nature" was fed to Paterno by the person asking the questions. Public record. Look it up if you're not too lazy.

The rest of your post is just bullshit.
 
Obviously you know nothing about the case.

There was no rape. Ever. The child in the showers stated that nothing happened and in recent sworn testimony did not dispute what he originally stated.

The term "sexual nature" was fed to Paterno by the person asking the questions. Public record. Look it up if you're not too lazy.

The rest of your post is just bullshit.

Bullshit. Maybe you better the check the records. Paterno introduced the word fondling, the person asking the question repeated and verified "fondling" and Paterno then used sexual nature.
 
Mr. Paterno: I’m not sure of the date, but he did call me on a Saturday morning. He said he had something that he wanted to discuss. I said, come on over to the house.
Here you go PB&R:

He came over to the house.

And as I said, I’m not sure what year it was, but I know it was a Saturday morning and we discussed something he had seen.

Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?

Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.

Q: Did he identify who that older person was?

Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.

Q: You’re saying that at the time this incident was reported to you, Sandusky was no longer a coach?
Mr. Paterno: No, he had retired voluntarily. I’m not sure exactly the year, but I think it was either ‘98 or ‘99.

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
 
Bullshit. Maybe you better the check the records. Paterno introduced the word fondling, the person asking the question repeated and verified "fondling" and Paterno then used sexual nature.

You are correct. I thought that's how I remembered where the term came from, but I got that one wrong. I read something about how that term came about and if I can find it I'll post a link.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT