Joe Pa knew for 35 years

[UNT90]

And protected a friend while exposing hundreds of boys to anal rape at the hands of Jerry Sandusky. Dispicable. Burn in hell, pedophile protector:

http://footballscoop.com/news/report-penn-state-knew-of-jerry-sandusky-sex-abuse-as-early-as-1976/

[KingDL1]

Such an easy target when you are dead. 

[VideoEagle]

39 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

And protected a friend while exposing hundreds of boys to anal rape at the hands of Jerry Sandusky. Dispicable. Burn in hell, pedophile protector:

http://footballscoop.com/news/report-penn-state-knew-of-jerry-sandusky-sex-abuse-as-early-as-1976/

1976. So much for the excuse Joe was too old to understand what was going on. Back in 1976 he wasn't too old to understand. 

[KingDL1]

Really this all stems from this;

 

The report stems from a single line in a court order on a related insurance coverage case, which states, one of Penn State’s insurers has claimed “in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky.”

 

Can you people read? Can someone explain to me what allegedly means? Because that word must have changed from what I was taught, the key part was that it indicated absolutely no proof. So the meaning of allegedly must have mean something completely new these days. 

Joe is dead and can't defend himself, stuff like this is sad. Joe is not the bad guy, it is Sandusky that needs to burn. 

By the way I have no real love of Joe but this kind of bad accusations are irresponsible and there seems to be a trend for tearing down legends and find way to deflect for others benefit . A dead guy can't defend himself very well. As if enough smoke is fabricated there must be fire. At the end of the day I  really don't care what happened at Penn State 40 years ago. 

[UNTexas]

Ignorance is not a defense no matter how old he was. His reputation was crumbling before he died because he turned a blind eye to horrific crimes. Was he a bad guy for this? I believe he was a coward with an f' up moral compass. So yes, he was probably not a good guy. Pleasant to talk to? Sure. The neighbors always say how nice they were after the fact. 

Of course he knew. Of course more people in that program knew. This was a cover up. Everyone involved is pathetic and horrible people. 

[UNT90]

7 hours ago, KingDL1 said:

Really this all stems from this;

 

The report stems from a single line in a court order on a related insurance coverage case, which states, one of Penn State’s insurers has claimed “in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky.”

 

Can you people read? Can someone explain to me what allegedly means? Because that word must have changed from what I was taught, the key part was that it indicated absolutely no proof. So the meaning of allegedly must have mean something completely new these days. 

Joe is dead and can't defend himself, stuff like this is sad. Joe is not the bad guy, it is Sandusky that needs to burn. 

By the way I have no real love of Joe but this kind of bad accusations are irresponsible and there seems to be a trend for tearing down legends and find way to deflect for others benefit . A dead guy can't defend himself very well. As if enough smoke is fabricated there must be fire. At the end of the day I  really don't care what happened at Penn State 40 years ago. 

What it means is that there is a victim from 1976 that has come forward and stated this is what happened. The statute of limitations ran a long time ago, so there is no criminal prosecution. This victim also hasn't filed any civil litigation nor has he been all over the media with this claim, yet he has obviously made the claim and they have him as a witness otherwise it wouldn't be listed in a filed court document. 

Keeping all that in mind, what could be the victim's motivation?

Joe Pa isn't a legend. He protected a pedophile for years in order to keep pushing a completely false impression of who Joe Pa was through the media. He believed keeping his reputation in tact was worth allowing hundreds of children to raped by Sandusky. And that's what he did. He even got the university president to go along when that guy found out. Because Joe Pa ran Pedo St. 

Glad to see this out in the media. Maybe it will delay the reinstatement of Paterno's statue outside the stadium for a year or two.

Maybe.

Edited May 6, 2016 by UNT90

[edcollopy]

anyone that knew about that sick bastard and didn't turn him in is also a sick bastard.  I'm sorry guys, but if my close friend did that, I'd have to turn him in.  I don't know how somebody could just ignore an accusation like that and go on with life.  Not only that, but work with the guy and celebrate w/ him after big wins.  Either Paterno can store emotions in his head away better than anyone else, or he didn't really know.  Sad no matter what.

[UNT90]

37 minutes ago, edcollopy said:

anyone that knew about that sick bastard and didn't turn him in is also a sick bastard.  I'm sorry guys, but if my close friend did that, I'd have to turn him in.  I don't know how somebody could just ignore an accusation like that and go on with life.  Not only that, but work with the guy and celebrate w/ him after big wins.  Either Paterno can store emotions in his head away better than anyone else, or he didn't really know.  Sad no matter what.

He knew. The whole college football world had an idea. It's the reason Sandusky never got another head coaching gig. It's the reason he was never a candidate for the post-Joe Pa Pedo St. job. 

Joe Pa wasn't protecting Sandusky, he was protecting his own legacy. That's what was important to Joe Pa.

Pedo St.'s behavior mimicks the Catholic Church's behavior in the priest child sex scandal exposed by the Boston Globe. If you haven't seen the movie Spotlight, you should. It will show you how far people/organizations will go to protect themselves and deny child sex abuse. 

[KingDL1]

9 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

He knew. The whole college football world had an idea. It's the reason Sandusky never got another head coaching gig. It's the reason he was never a candidate for the post-Joe Pa Pedo St. job. 

Joe Pa wasn't protecting Sandusky, he was protecting his own legacy. That's what was important to Joe Pa.

Pedo St.'s behavior mimicks the Catholic Church's behavior in the priest child sex scandal exposed by the Boston Globe. If you haven't seen the movie Spotlight, you should. It will show you how far people/organizations will go to protect themselves and deny child sex abuse. 

The answer is you are assuming he knew, last I checked your innocent until proven guilty. It did not say there was allegedly a victim, but if the case went forward with any proof at the time  Sandusky would have been in jail in 1976, the statement said that the victim allegedly told Joe and that is all it said. Everything else is speculation based on hindsight, I imagine if Joe had the advantage of hindsight he would have had Sandusky fry in 1976. Unless you think Joe was an active participant, because even if Joe was just worried about his legacy why would he not let Sandusky go way back then and move on? There are plenty of wholes here.

What purpose does it do to convict Joe a dead man now what 4 years knowing or not? To hurt his family? He still can not defend himself. 

I don't like this guilty until proven innocent idea, especially if it is something like this. You believe Joe knew but that is something that  is difficult to actually know. If all of College Football knew then maybe we should end all college football. 

 

This is some sick stuff yes, should Sandusky get special punishment I think so. I think we should rewrite the constitution for special case daily torture for this. 

[UNT90]

56 minutes ago, KingDL1 said:

The answer is you are assuming he knew, last I checked your innocent until proven guilty. It did not say there was allegedly a victim, but if the case went forward with any proof at the time  Sandusky would have been in jail in 1976, the statement said that the victim allegedly told Joe and that is all it said. Everything else is speculation based on hindsight, I imagine if Joe had the advantage of hindsight he would have had Sandusky fry in 1976. Unless you think Joe was an active participant, because even if Joe was just worried about his legacy why would he not let Sandusky go way back then and move on? There are plenty of wholes here.

What purpose does it do to convict Joe a dead man now what 4 years knowing or not? To hurt his family? He still can not defend himself. 

I don't like this guilty until proven innocent idea, especially if it is something like this. You believe Joe knew but that is something that  is difficult to actually know. If all of College Football knew then maybe we should end all college football. 

 

This is some sick stuff yes, should Sandusky get special punishment I think so. I think we should rewrite the constitution for special case daily torture for this. 

An ex-coach told Joe Pa directly that he saw Sandusky in the shower with a young boy and heard "slapping sounds." Joe Pa's superiors are under indictment for failure to report child abuse and were under indictment for perjury (a notoriously hard charge to prove, which is why it was dropped). You would have to believe that Joe Pa was the one and only person in the gain of command that didn't know, disbelieve the assistant that said he told Joe Pa, and disbelieve prosecutors who have indicated Joe Pa knew. You would basically have to believe the word of Joe Pa's family (who weren't there) over the word of several witnesses who were.

I get it. You don't want to believe it's true. A lot of people react the same way you do. They don't want to believe it's true or that it even happens. They don't want their world disturbed, and this happening to others means it could happen to their kids. 

Denial is the strongest human emotion. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by UNT90

[Censored by Laurie]

2 hours ago, UNT90 said:

What it means is that there is a victim from 1976 that has come forward and stated this is what happened. The statute of limitations ran a long time ago, so there is no criminal prosecution. This victim also hasn't filed any civil litigation nor has he been all over the media with this claim, yet he has obviously made the claim and they have him as a witness otherwise it wouldn't be listed in a filed court document. 

Keeping all that in mind, what could be the victim's motivation?

Joe Pa isn't a legend. He protected a pedophile for years in order to keep pushing a completely false impression of who Joe Pa was through the media. He believed keeping his reputation in tact was worth allowing hundreds of children to raped by Sandusky. And that's what he did. He even got the university president to go along when that guy found out. Because Joe Pa ran Pedo St. 

Glad to see this out in the media. Maybe it will delay the reinstatement of Paterno's statue outside the stadium for a year or two.

Maybe.

What you are posting as fact is your idiot opinion. You have no way of knowing the circumstances. But that didnt stop you from creating them to fit your agenda. That is what I am talking about. Making crap up to validate your personal opinion. And that's exactly what you did here. 

[UNT90]

Just now, Censored by Laurie said:

What you are posting as fact is your idiot opinion. You have no way of knowing the circumstances. But that didnt stop you from creating them to fit your agenda. That is what I am talking about. Making crap up to validate your personal opinion. And that's exactly what you did here. 

Can you do anything but respond to my posts anymore? Just wondering...

And what I listed in the above post are facts. Of course your agenda doesn't really care. 

You were actually better as a yuck monkey. 

[Censored by Laurie]

4 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Can you do anything but respond to my posts anymore? Just wondering... 

no way of knowing. maybe stop posting long enough for me to find out? 

[UNTLifer]

Why is this thread in the Mean Green Football section of the board?

1 hour ago, UNT90 said:

Can you do anything but respond to my posts anymore? Just wondering...

Ahhh, wondered when this would come out.  CBL, he says the same to me, helps him feel important when it is just his go to answer when he can't come up with anything else.  Next he will claim you are reporting him to the moderators.

Edited May 6, 2016 by UNTLifer

[SilverEagle]

Quote

 

The report stems from a single line in a court order on a related insurance coverage case, which states, one of Penn State’s insurers has claimed “in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky.”

The same report says an unnamed assistant coach reported separate incidences between Sandusky and unnamed children in 1987 and 1988. Word of Sandusky’s crimes never went beyond the Penn State athletics department.

Penn State is seeking reimbursement for more than $60 million in payments it has doled out to Sandusky’s victims. Penn State’s insurer maintains it has no duty to cover the school’s payments.

 

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Penn St (aka Pedo state) is seeking reimbursement from their insurance company(s?) for the payouts that they made to Sandusky's victims? And in their legal response the insurance company(s?) allege that Joe P. knew about this (Sandusky's sexual proclivities) as early as 1976? So therefore they are not responsible to reimburse Penn State for victim compensation payments for victims that Penn State not only knew existed, but also victims that they should have known would exist if this coach was not stopped.

First of all, how do you write an insurance policy that anticipates coverage/compensation for anticipated sex crimes. Especially sex crimes against children? Because that HAS to be what Penn State says their coverage includes. And if that's what they are saying, then Penn State has to be saying that if they thought they were covered for such things, they are acknowledging that such things do happen and have happened on their grounds and by their staff..........for a long time. 

Just how dumb are these people (pedo U)? Did they think that the Insurance companies would NOT hit back at them in court? Good God, Penn St.! Take your 60 million dollar hit and let it die.

But since you've already taken it to court.......you deserve everything that the Insurance companies do to you in defending themselves. 

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by SilverEagle

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

11 hours ago, KingDL1 said:

Really this all stems from this;

 

The report stems from a single line in a court order on a related insurance coverage case, which states, one of Penn State’s insurers has claimed “in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky.”

 

Can you people read? Can someone explain to me what allegedly means? Because that word must have changed from what I was taught, the key part was that it indicated absolutely no proof. So the meaning of allegedly must have mean something completely new these days. 

Joe is dead and can't defend himself, stuff like this is sad. Joe is not the bad guy, it is Sandusky that needs to burn. 

By the way I have no real love of Joe but this kind of bad accusations are irresponsible and there seems to be a trend for tearing down legends and find way to deflect for others benefit . A dead guy can't defend himself very well. As if enough smoke is fabricated there must be fire. At the end of the day I  really don't care what happened at Penn State 40 years ago. 

Insurers do tend to hold onto those claim files, don't they? 

Sorry, no sympathy for dead or living Joe Pa.  No way he didn't know what was going on. 

[EagleMBA]

Silver NAILED IT!

[UNT90]

12 minutes ago, SilverEagle said:

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Penn St (aka Pedo state) is seeking reimbursement from their insurance company(s?) for the payouts that they made to Sandusky's victims? And in their legal response the insurance company(s?) allege that Joe P. knew about this (Sandusky's sexual proclivities) as early as 1976? So therefore they are not responsible to reimburse Penn State for victim compensation payments for victims that Penn State not only knew existed, but also victims that they should have known would exist if this coach was not stopped.

First of all, how do you write an insurance policy that anticipates coverage/compensation for anticipated sex crimes. Especially sex crimes against children? Because that HAS to be what Penn State says their coverage includes. And if that's what they are saying, then Penn State has to be saying that if they thought they were covered for such things, they are acknowledging that such things do happen and have happened on their grounds and by their staff..........for a long time. 

Just how dumb are these people (pedo U)? Did they think that the Insurance companies would NOT hit back at them in court? Good God, Penn St.! Take your 60 million dollar hit and let it die.

But since you've already taken it to court.......you deserve everything that the Insurance companies do to you in defending themselves. 

 

Why would Pedo St let it die? No one has held them accountable. Of course they think they can get away with it because they already have.

[SilverEagle]

18 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Why would Pedo St let it die? No one has held them accountable. Of course they think they can get away with it because they already have.

Well, since they are messing with people that have more money than God, and know how to hold on to as much of it as possible, they better get ready for it to get real ugly.

Because I can't imagine any insurance company settling with an individual and/or entity over compensation for such a horrendous crime. That would not be good for business.

The only customers that they could anticipate getting after that would be NAMBLA.  

[SilverEagle]

12 hours ago, KingDL1 said:

Really this all stems from this;

 

The report stems from a single line in a court order on a related insurance coverage case, which states, one of Penn State’s insurers has claimed “in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky.”

 

Can you people read? Can someone explain to me what allegedly means? Because that word must have changed from what I was taught, the key part was that it indicated absolutely no proof. So the meaning of allegedly must have mean something completely new these days. 

Joe is dead and can't defend himself, stuff like this is sad. Joe is not the bad guy, it is Sandusky that needs to burn. 

By the way I have no real love of Joe but this kind of bad accusations are irresponsible and there seems to be a trend for tearing down legends and find way to deflect for others benefit . A dead guy can't defend himself very well. As if enough smoke is fabricated there must be fire. At the end of the day I  really don't care what happened at Penn State 40 years ago. 

Get used to hearing this word. This is civil court, not criminal court. The burden of proof is different. And the word allege/alleged will be there a lot. 

[UNT90]

12 minutes ago, SilverEagle said:

Get used to hearing this word. This is civil court, not criminal court. The burden of proof is different. And the word allege/alleged will be there a lot. 

But if they didn't have a witness to allege it, it wouldn't be there at all, and the fact that Pedo St paid that witness to go away (complete with a non-disclosure clause, I'm sure) and now wants the insurance company to pay for it is more evidence that Joe Pa knew, and knew a hell of a long time ago. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by UNT90

[SilverEagle]

1 minute ago, UNT90 said:

But if they didn't have a witness to allege it, it wouldn't be there at all. 

Yep

[UNT90]

2 minutes ago, SilverEagle said:

Yep

And the interesting thing is Pedo St had to give the insurance company all their info t file the claim, so everyone knows exactly who the witnesses are. 

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

On 5/6/2016 at 10:57 AM, SilverEagle said:

 

First of all, how do you write an insurance policy that anticipates coverage/compensation for anticipated sex crimes.

 

Just because an insurance policy is written, doesn't mean the insurer anticipates something.  It's a risk mechanism. 

As far as a liability policy, such as one described for this type of event, you are trading premium dollars for defense against allegations.  Whether the allegations are true or not make no difference, you are paying for defense.

(And, insurers write these policies because accusations are rare.  Therefore, they make a lot of money writing the policies.  Warren Buffet has made most of his money with his reinsurers.)

Here, Penn State's problem appears to be that they made payments to victims then tried to get the insurer to pay.  The vast majority of insurance policies require that the insurer be notified of claims and/or incidents which might lead to clams.  Doing so would possibly trigger defense and/or, in the case of a judgment or settlement coverage.

If Joe Pa knew, then, and didn't report, defense and coverage could both be denied by the insurer.

The vast majority of policies also require that the insurer be involved - if not, lead - the investigation into the accusations.  If the school, then, made payments based on investigations that excluded insurer participation, the insurer would likely deny coverage. 

Finally, my guess is the insurer's policies from that era were in line with pre-asbestos liability policies.  Therefore, those policies could be stacked, leaving the insurers with little ground to invoke its limits.

So, yes, the insurers will fight Penn State.    

Edited May 9, 2016 by MeanGreenMailbox

[SilverEagle]

16 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

Just because an insurance policy is written, doesn't mean the insurer anticipates something.  It's a risk mechanism. 

Hmmm, interesting. So risk could be just anything? I would have thought that any insurer would include a clause excluding criminal behavior.

As far as a liability policy, such as one described for this type of event, you are trading premium dollars for defense against allegations.  Whether the allegations are true or not make no difference, you are paying for defense.

(And, insurers write these policies because accusations are rare.  Therefore, they make a lot of money writing the policies.  Warren Buffet has made most of his money with his reinsurers.)

Here, Penn State's problem appears to be that they made payments to victims then tried to get the insurer to pay.  The vast majority of insurance policies require that the insurer be notified of claims and/or incidents which might lead to clams.  Doing so would possibly trigger defense and/or, in the case of a judgment or settlement coverage.

If Joe Pa knew, then, and didn't report, defense and coverage could both be denied by the insurer.

The vast majority of policies also require that the insurer be involved - if not, lead - the investigation into the accusations.  If the school, then, made payments based on investigations that excluded insurer participation, the insurer would likely deny coverage. 

In the case of sexual assault of children, that can get real tricky. Because the police prefer/require that they be notified first of such allegations. The police and/or DA may not want the insurance company to come in and interview the victim. AND assuming that the insurance investigator was given access to  the victim, depending on the era, the skill levels regarding interviewing and then assessing information gathered from the interview can be real suspect. 

Finally, my guess is the insurer's policies from that era were in line with pre-asbestos liability policies.  Therefore, those policies could be stacked, leaving the insurers with little ground to invoke its limits.

So, yes, the insurers will fight Penn State.    

And I'm pulling for them to win.