Sunday, September 29

Candlelight Tribute to Joe Paterno Planned for Homecoming Game

Please join Penn State alumni, friends, and fans immediately after the Homecoming game to honor Joe Paterno's legacy. 

We will be holding a candlelight vigil with a few memorial activities, and we hope this becomes an annual tradition.

We will be meeting at the place where his statue stood until it was needlessly removed. 

Additional Details:
Please bring a battery-operated votive or tealight candle. These are available at any craft store - or pretty much anywhere that sells candles - and will fit in your pocket. 

Do not light (activate) them until instructed to do so. Some additional candles will be available but it would be best to plan ahead.  The candles will be arranged for a special memorial before we leave, so they may burn through the night.

You are welcome to either wear tribute-type clothing or bring memorabilia or signage. 

This is a public event, so feel free to invite everyone who may wish to participate. 

It is time to right this wrong and restore our image. 



  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. JJ,
      I deleted your post because you cited information that was never published on this blog. I have said from day one and every day since that Sandusky committed 3 crimes every time he showered with a child (grooming).

      Next, if you have a problem with a commenter's point of view, then take it up with the commenter in the appropriate comment section.

      Finally, your other statements are proof of your ignorance of compliant sexuall abuse cases. I strongly suggest you read Ken Lanning's work before you post again. Here is an excerpt from Lanning of victim disclosures (Note points 1 and 2).

      Society’s lack of understanding and acceptance of the reality of compliant child victims often results in the following:
      1. Victims failing to disclose and even denying their sexual victimization.
      2. Incomplete, inaccurate, distorted, even contradictory victim disclosures when they do happen.
      3. Lifetime of victim shame, embarrassment, and guilt.
      4. Offenders being able to have numerous victims over an extended period of time.
      5. Ineffective prevention programs that not only do not prevent victimization, but also make the first four problems worse.

      Here's the link. Educate yourself.

  2. PS it is worth noting that the Paterno family has a very different view of Sandusky than you. It is hard for me to reconcile the family who clearly claims Sandusky is a pedophile with supporters of Paterno arguing the opposite.

  3. JJ,
    As I said above, I am on the record - every time - that Sandusky was guilty of child abuse. And, FYI, John Ziegler has also stated repeatedly that he believes Sandusky is a pedophile.

    So, your comments here are aimed at the wrong people. No one on this blog has ever said Sandusky wasn't guilty.

  4. Ray, it was a written comment from Westchesterbill

    "And if that charge was made up, how can anyone have confidence in the prosecution of Sandusky? It is clear to me that Sandusky is innocent. I was happy to see that Mr. Ziegler feels that Mr. Sandusky is innocent of the salacious chargers, although he is not yet where I am.

    Please don't fight injustice with injustice. Joe Paterno was mistreated, but so was Jerry Sandusky."

    If he is not affiliated with the website, then your statement is true. However, no one challenged this person, and the impression is that the publisher's believe in Sandusky's innocence.

    John Ziegler's position on JS has been as erratic as you believe MM's testimony to be. He is so all over the place, screaming, so that it is difficult to know what he is claiming. He iz cozy with the Sandusky, which is fine, but he seems to think he is objective. He claims to be a supporter of JP, yet JP's own family has distanced themselves from him. And when he is directly asked about JS's innocence, he generally avoids the question (He's had his day in court, I am here for JP's legacy, etc all of which adds to the theory that he believes he is innocent.) If he does not believe JS is innocent, he could say "He is guilty" and then move on to Paterno. He doesn't.

    And finally, the characterization of Ziegler's views have come from supporters on the board, evidenced partially by the above poster.

    1. I have disagreed with Westchesterbill and pointed out to him exactly as I wrote above -- 3 crimes every times Sandusky showered with a minor because grooming is a crime. While it does not rise to the level of an "indecent assault," it is still child sexual abuse.

      I've not corrected him every time he's done it.

      Ziegler was just interviewed and reiterated that Sandusky is guilty, but that his crimes were not as severe as characterized at trial. The link I provided is instructive and I agree with John that the testimony of a few victims, as well as McQueary's, was embellished.

      Clearly, the jury thought so as well in the McQueary's case (aquittal on IDSI) and in the case of Victim 5 (acquittal: indecent assault).

      Ziegler is not in the same camp as Westchesterbill. And I have publicly disagreed with others who proclaim Sandusky is innocent.

      There is a very small minority of people who believe Sandusky is innocent. John Ziegler and I are not in that group.

  5. One other thing. I agree with Westchesterbill, as does Ziegler, that Sandusky was not afforded a fair trial. The admission of the hearsay testimony in the janitor case was clearly wrong and so was the decison not to end the trial when the two cops got caught lying on the stand.

    W'Bill is right that the janitor crime was a fabrication. I counted 7 things that were contradicted by time and/or physical evidence in Petrosky's testimony (between the trial and grand jury).

  6. "I have disagreed with Westchesterbill and pointed out to him exactly as I wrote above -- 3 crimes every times Sandusky showered with a minor because grooming is a crime. While it does not rise to the level of an "indecent assault," it is still child sexual abuse.

    Ray, are you claiming the only crime committed by Sandusky was showering with a child?" What do you mean by "grooming" ... sexual contact? Do you believe JS ever engaged in oral sex with a child?

  7. JJ,
    Apparently, you didn't do the reading assignment I gave you.

    No, that's not what I'm claiming. I'm merely stating the fact that Sandusky was committing 3 crimes (endangering welfare, corruption of minors, and unlawful contact) every time he showered with a minor. Those counts also apply to any touching of the bodies that he did that was not "indecent" (i.e., didn't involving touching of genitals). It would include things like naked bear hugs.

    I suspect Sandusky went at least as far as indecent assault with some victims -- beyond that, I'll leave to the next grand jury to figure out. But from what we know, a few victims were very much coached/coaxed into testifying, Victim 8 didn't even exist, and a couple others have highly suspect stories.

    There is little doubt that some of the victims embellished and some downplayed the crimes. That's consistent with the expert's writtings on the disclosures of compliant victims.

    I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Sandusky never had oral sex with a victim. I also wouldn't rule out that his abuse of Victim 6 could have been more than was disclosed.

  8. JJ misses a key component of the Sandusky matter - that the charge of anal rape was just made up. That was the heart of the claim that Sandusky was using Penn State shower rooms as rape rooms, Paterno knew about it, and Paterno did not stop it.

    The crimes that Ray Blehar claimes are a stretch to me. I disagree with Blehar in that I believe that lewd intent needs be shown, otherwise changing diapers would be crimes.

    To see my point better, consider the complaint by the mother in 1998. She was worried that Sandusky's penis may have brushed against her son when Sandusky was in the shower with the boy and hugged him. Police hid in her house while she tried to get Sandusky to incriminate himself. She wanted to destroy a man because his penis might have brushed against her son. Taking Blehar as being correct about the "crimes", did those "crimes" justify an effective life sentence of a man who worked so hard and did so much for boys at risk? The 1998 boy continued a warm relationship with Sandusky, with his mother's knowledge, for a dozen years thereafter.

    For years I traveled at least 65 mph down the beautiful Rt. 684 that connected to White Planes New York. The speed limit was 55 mph and I knew it. But that limit was ridiculous and never enforced.

    Blehar works from details about the case. I work from the fact that there was at least 1,000 years of silence preceded the uproar when a profession advocate and high powered lawyers got involved. There was no physical evidence. The pattern in this case matched the pattern in the satanic cult and day care prosecutions of the 1980s.

    I just reread Blehar's last comment, and I think we are in the same church if not in the same pew.

    1. WBill,
      I believe your position (and Ziegler's) is that if Sandusky's crimes were limited to the 3 grooming crimes and nothing more, that it would have been unlikely for the state to prosecute him. That is likely true.

      As my timeline of GJ testimony shows, it wasn't until Victim 4, who was coached by the police, admitted to crimes above grooming did the case pick up steam. And the OAG had to fabricate the janitor crime and "upgrade" the McQueary incident to really make its case.

      It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the judge had tossed the Victim 4 and Victim 8 charges and none of that testimony would have been heard. As I wrote in Report 3, many of the jurors were convinced after Day 1 and Victim 4 testified. The janitor testimony is likely to also have prejudiced the jury.

      Seeing that case tried on the strength of Aaron Fisher and McQueary's testimony would have been quite interesting.

  9. Westchesterbill, you are a troubled individual.

    "She wanted to destroy a man because his penis might have brushed against her son."

    It was JS's first day alone with the boy. He stated they would "work out", and lifted weights for a few minutes, then Sandusky produces clothes for the boy to wear after he showers with him. The child is not sweating. This was premeditated on JS's part, and part of his MO in the PSU locker room.

    She wanted to destroy him because he brushed his penis against her son? Really? JS admitted that his genitals may have touched a boy he had taken out for the first time. She finds her son's clothes. Good God, man, you now are blaming HER for JS's actions. An apologist to the end.

    Do you wish to see the lie detector results from JS? He failed repeatedly, lying about sexual conduct with boys. He failed miserably as to each major point because he was lying. He sexually abused children.

    As I stated, MM one consistent part was that he saw something sexual. you can parse out the rest, but he has been consistent about this. And he would go to JP's home the next morning if he was merely uncomfortable about JS showering with a boy? You know this is crap.

    And, BTW, JP testified under oath that MM complained to him about sexual behavior between JS and a boy in PSU's showers. Was he lying?

    I have avoided calling you and John Ziegler child sex abuse enablers, but that is what you are. Blinded by your torured logic, you create a conspiracy, involving tens if not hundreds of people who all of a sudden wanted to have JS arrested.

    You have become what JS said in his sentencing ... a conspiracy by everyone, including PSU itself.

    Perhaps you and Ziegler would have a bit more logic if your son was sexually abused by JS.

    1. It is 20-20 hindsight which allows one to predict the past and not the future. There are 50 shades of grey between black and white.You paint with a very broad brush The JS scandal has one criminal. Everyone else(except for Corbett, the BOT and the AG) are victims.When MM went to JP the next day, JP knew that none of MM's father, DR D, MM's mother, MM, and who knows who else,thought that this was a police matter.MM came to JP as an employee and JP did what he thought he, as an employee should do. FOR JP to call the police made no sense(imagine me calling the police to tell them that you told me that you saw something(not exactly sure what) happening. IF MM had gone straight to Curly or Shultz, the media wouldn't have given 2 shits about this story or the boys(these stories are a dime a dozen). But because MM went to JP the media went wild and everyone with an agenda Including Corbett)made JP and PSU the villains.If I were you I'd focus on 2Mile; thats where the ball disappeared.

  10. This has been reported so many times and none of what you are saying is new or truthful. Sorry, but you are a few days late and far from the truth.

  11. RC, what I stated is the truth, and I stand behind it. I assume you know what JP testified to under oath.

    HK, JP was exceedingly truthful throughout this ordeal. He always testified that he was told about a sexual complaint by MM. He never wavered. What he also said was he did what he thought was right. He reported it to TC. He did nothing else. Not a follow up, no other concern for the child. Legally, he did not violate any criminal statute.

    It is worth noting that JP had the balls to state, after this, that in hindsight he would have done more. Gutsy b/c I am sure his attorneys told him to conceed nothing.

    JP was not part of a conspiracy to cover up JS. JP was completely indifferent. But he did not direct TC to cover up anything or make it go away. To the extent the media claims JP did cover up, this is false.

    Which is also why you should consider the interview with McGettian and Fina, the prosecutors. They said that there was no basis to charge JP. while they me have done it different, they pointed out his hindsight statement.

    The prosecutors did not claim JP was part of a conspiracy or cover up. This was first on JS, then on TC/GS who did try to coverup the JS issues. In doing so, they brought PSU with them, unfortunately. A university operates through such people as TC/GS.

    1. did they report the incident to 2M. Were MM, DR D, MM Sr and MM Mom also part of a coverup. Was 1998 part of a coverup. How about the thousands from gov't agencies and people through all walks of life that came into contact with JS throughout the many years ; are they part of the coverup.

    2. How can someone who is so little-informed about the complexities of the Sandusky case as to not even have learned what grooming is think that she/ he can speak with any weight on this matter. JJ, you're embarrassing yourself. Really.

    3. JJ, no matter how many lines of testimony you quote, you are basing your assumptions on witness recollection was of a hearsay conversation that took place 10 years prior.

      I disagree when you say JP never "wavered". If you read his entire testimony he begins by saying:

      "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. I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore. So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."

      That statement is far from "unwavering". He states TWICE that he "doesn't know what to call it/I'm not sure exactly what it was". It is evident (to those wtihout bias) that he clearly does not remember specifically what McQueary told him 10 years ago other than MM thought it was "inappropriate". (MM also testified that 3 slapping sounds was assumed to be a sex act).

      You are basing most of your stance on Paterno's use of the words "sexual nature". But the rest of his testimony doesn't provide evidence that he actually heard those words.

    4. JJ,
      To say TC and GS covered up Sandusky's crimes is ludicrous on several fronts.

      First, they reported the incident in 2001 to people outside PSU and used the University's e-mail system to openly communicate about the incident. They cc'd their administrators on the e-mail.

      Second, Tim, Gary, Graham, and Joe Paterno and the administrative assistants were NOT the only people who knew about 2001 at PSU. Freeh didn't report the others, but I know that the others included an equipment manager, a former employee, and another employee.

      Third, PSU reported the incident to The Second Mile.

      Fourth, Courtney and Schultz both recall that PSU contacted CYS about the incident.

      It is the state's burden to prove a report was not made. They have no credible witnesses to bring forth to prove their point.

      Fifth, there were no other crimes on PSU's campus after 2001 that these men covered up. 1998 was determined not to be a crime. So, where is the cover-up? People can't cover up things that they don't know about.

  12. JJ,
    You are ranting again. You have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Sandusky raped anyone on PSU's campus. At this point, we are now down to 3 cases of child sexual abuse on campus - none involving a rape - and one which should never been allowed due to the contaminated testimony of the witness.

    Joe Paterno testified to an event in which he had no recollection. You say he testified to a crime of a sexual nature, but you never state the qualifiers.

    So here is that rock solid, iron clad, definitive testimony of Joe Paterno. EMPHASIS ADDED:

    "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.

    Seriously, JJ. Anyone who eliminates the qualifiers around "It was a sexual nature" is being dishonest about the certainty of what Paterno testified to.

    Also, you and I both know Paterno was not told about "fondling" from McQueary, who stated he couldn't see Sandusky's "actual hands."

    I've deleted your false and demeaning comment.

  13. These are your qualifiers around JP's testimony about receiving a complaint of a sexual nature regarding JS and a boy in the showers. You put statement in caps with the idea it will fool somebody

    Some of the "qualifications" have to do with his use of the word fondling.

    The only context is that he was asked if there was a complaint about JS, and JP testified there was ... a sexual one.

    Did he know the specifics? No, not in great detail. But he knew enough to call it a sexual complaint.Red flag? And he repeated that to the end. Never changed it.

    You can continue to parse out things such as JS exacts body positioning, whether he actually saw JS's penis penatrate the rectum of a boy. Hint ... if a grown man is told of a sexual complaint regarding JS and a boy in the shower, what do they do? What more evidence do you want? Should you alert authorities? If you did it internally, to see how the investigation is going?

    Would you not have one ounce of concern for a boy in a shower with a graduate assistant telling you the actions were sexual in nature?

    The claim was not false nor demeaning. The only people being demeaned are the boys sexually assaulted on PSU property, repeatedly.

    1. "Would you not have one ounce of concern for a boy in a shower with a graduate assistant telling you the actions were sexual in nature?"

      The answer to your hypothetical question is obviously Yes. But it is that....a hypothetical question. No one knows what MM said specifically to Paterno. But we do know for sure is, that whatever MM saw, he did not feel it was enough to "have one ounce of concern for the boy in the shower" to 1) separate the boy from Sandusky, 2) get the boy's name, and 3) call police.

      Let's assume that MM did use the words "sexual nature". Based on the rest of Paterno's Grand Jury testimony, he says:" I don’t know whether I was specific or not. I did tell Mike, Mike, you did what was right; you told me. Even though Jerry does not work for the football staff any longer, I would refer his concerns to the right people."

      He did that. Given the laws in Pennsylvania which Ray documented, what else did you want him to do? At this point, he only has a hearsay story, which he has no evidence of fact. It would be completely wrong for Paterno to assume anything but innocence until the matter is investigated. Which he thought he began by "referring MM's concerns to the right people".

      And even with 10 years of hindsight, the Sandusky jury did not completely believe MMs story.

    2. JJ,
      The qualifiers in CAPS came directly from Paterno's grand jury testimony that was read into evidence at the December 16, 2011 preliminary hearing, page 175.

      It clearly shows that Paterno was searching for the words to describe it and came up with sexual nature. However, the reason the testimony is INADMISSIBLE is because he could not be cross-examined to determine if that's what he recalled from 2001 or if it was what he recalled under the questioning in 2011 about a sexual abuse case.

      There is also testimony that McQueary saw NOTHING in the shower. Dranov and Spanier both testified that the incident occurred out of sight. Dranov testified that Mike only told him about sounds.

      Finally, it has not been determined by a court of law that PSU didn't contact the authorities. All there is are some baseless allegations by a narcotics officer who cannot state with certainty which agencies he contacted and what the year of the incident he asked the agencies about.

  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.