Sandusky Investigation Update: Fire, Duck, Cover
by Chris Grovich on Nov 17, 2011 11:01 AM EST
in #PSUCharges
Email
Print[If you're in the Philly area Saturday, especially the western 'burbs, consider attending this fine event. Penn State vs. Ohio State on a 30-foot screen? All you can drink? Proceeds to charity? Go!]
Some news updates from around the region, state, and country on the Jerry Sandusky investigation. Oh, and hope you caught South Park last night. That was just a matter of time -- and yes, I laughed. Beats crying or kicking the dog at this point.
One of the thoroughly underreported aspects of this story is The Second Mile. Hard to see them surviving this scandal. One thought would be for them to disband, restart under a different name, and attempt to return to their efforts in helping children across the state. Make no mistake, this charity did a lot of good for many kids. In reality, however, Second Mile is finished.
Second Mile official had concerns about Jerry Sandusky and certain boys in 2008 | PennLive.com
The charity's board will decide if The Second Mile has a future. "A scenario says your brand is so broken you can't make it happen," interim CEO David Woodle said.Patriot-News Special Report: The Second Mile and Penn State: Charity and university's fates were tied together | PennLive.com
The charity basked in the imprimatur of Penn State. Sandusky ran it at the same time he was the Nittany Lions’ greatest defensive coach. Joe Paterno served as master of ceremonies at its biggest fundraiser. Penn State players helped with fundraising.Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett defends Second Mile Foundation grant action | PennLive.com
"Yes I knew this (Sandusky investigation was under way), but I could not act publicly on this without saying certain things that would have possibly compromised the investigation. So eventually we did approve it." - Gov. Tom Corbett, explaining his administration's approval this summer of a capital grant to the Second Mile Foundation.Gov. Tom Corbett suspends $3 million state grant to Sandusky's charity, Second Mile | PennLive.com
Sandusky, charged in the sexual assault of boys, used the charity to find victims, prosecutors allege.
Then, there's the ongoing saga of Mike McQueary. He's been getting raked over the coals for his alleged lack of response after seeing Sandusky and a young boy in the showers at Penn State, and now getting equally criticized for what might be a change in his story. Did he contact the police? Did he break up the shower scene? It's getting hard to tell what is truth and what is meant to clumsily salvage McQueary's reputation.
Definitely check the NYT story below, which details how investigators tracked McQueary from a PSU message board and convinced him to meet in a remote parking lot to tell his side of the story.
Mike McQueary attended Jerry Sandusky fundraiser one year after making sexual assault allegations | PennLive.com
A story published in June of 2003 in the Centre Daily Times shows that McQueary was among those who attended a fundraiser organized by Sandusky, whom he allegedly witnessed sexually assaulting a boy about a year prior.Internet Posting Helped Sandusky Investigators - NYTimes.com
Law enforcement officials wound up looking into the question of a Penn State cover-up in the Sandusky case.
And oh, right, the victims. One of them is apparently even more emboldened to testify after Sandusky's self-immolation with Bob Costas on national television, and there may or may not be more victims coming forward.
Sandusky Accuser Would Testify in Sexual Assault Case, Lawyer Says - NYTimes.com
Reports on additional Sandusky victims are wrong, police say | PennLive.com
A lawyer for an alleged victim in the Penn State child sexual abuse case said Jerry Sandusky’s recent comments on television had emboldened his client to testify against him.
Authorities have asked for victims to contact them. State police have reported just one more victim than those listed in charges.Exclusive: Jerry Sandusky interview prompts long-ago victims to contact lawyer | PennLive.com
Hearing Sandusky's voice and his words proclaiming no wrong — while admitting he showered innocently with boys — was a trigger for some who allege they were abused by the former Penn State defensive coordinator.
Other legal wranglings:
Jerry Sandusky preliminary hearing assigned to Westmoreland County district judge | PennLive.com
Judge Robert E. Scott has no known connections with Penn State or Second MilePenn State interim football coach Tom Bradley was among those who testified in Sandusky case | PennLive.com
A summary of Bradley’s testimony is not outlined in the 23-page grand jury presentment, but a source close to the investigation confirmed Bradley did appear and testified in over the summer.
168 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The whole message board thing is intriguing..
Is anybody planning to take the day off from work to furiously search the archives of Scout and/or BWI?
I can't speak for BWI
But I was a FOS member for years, and I’m pretty sure McQ was active over there.
by Chris Grovich on Nov 17, 2011 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
Weird...
but he wouldn’t have dropped information like that, would he?
by Artiefufkin10 on Nov 17, 2011 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
I'm very interested in the role
if there is any, of the good Governor in this whole ordeal. Something just doesn’t seem right with that.
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
I have a feeling that the number (and position/power) of people who knew about this is going to astound us all.
by Chris Grovich on Nov 17, 2011 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree Chris
There are just so many things that don’t add up. That it didn’t take off until he was out of the picture, that he still approved the grant, that so many people were donating/funding him. Why he was so quick to condemn Joe and his action/inaction. Very interesting stuff.
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
So much this.
By the time all is said and done, Joe’s role will look minimal- and that’s not selling him short- the scope of this is a lot bigger than just PSU, methinks.
by TheK-GunNeedsReloaded on Nov 17, 2011 11:31 AM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Posted This in Other Thread (Still just trying to understand)
This may have been covered, but does anyone know the date Grand Jury report? I don’t think I have ever seen an official document without some kind of date, title, preamble, etc., and it just strikes me as strange. I am just curious about the timing of when the document was created vs. when it was released.
by dontcallmescooter on Nov 17, 2011 11:20 AM EST reply actions
A question I have is
If PSU was really trying to cover this up AND McQueary was insistent upon asking questions about it years later (as the NYT article says), why did they keep McQueary on staff and promote him to WR coach / recruiting coordinator? Why would they make a guy like that more prominent? And before somebody says, “to buy his silence,” that just doesn’t add up, because he (again, according to the NYT piece) continued to ask about it thereafter
GO IOWA AWESOME, now and forever, unless PSU sees them in the B1G CG
Beat Ohio State.
In general
GAs that used to be division 1 QBs are usually the easiest to fast-track and promote to assistant coach positions. There was nothing unnatural about his career path at all, college football is littered with former QB (see: Major Applewhite)
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Nov 17, 2011 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly
My post was poorly worded. PSU didn’t try to force him out in disgrace to discredit him or over promote him to buy his silence. If he really was persistent in asking questions about some deep, dark secret that senior admin was trying to brush under the rug, wouldn’t they do that?
GO IOWA AWESOME, now and forever, unless PSU sees them in the B1G CG
Beat Ohio State.
Given the confusing nature of most of this
I’m just going to assume that we’re being setup for the Chewbacca defense, for my own sanity.
by TheK-GunNeedsReloaded on Nov 17, 2011 11:33 AM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
The defense rests.
Only after his rebirth as "Petey"
the “don’t sue people” panda
Is he related to Pedobear?
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
It's raining outside
Can I borrow your tinfoil hat?
by kijana's acl on Nov 17, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
Well then I guess this proves Paterno innocent
If Paterno wanted to keep him close enough to keep a good eye on him and tie him to any scandal, he would obviously want to put MM at OC so if anything came out, it would look like MM was being rewarded for his silence. However, we all know Joe used the mighty powers of Nepotism to place his dim-witted son as OC instead. Therefore, Joe wasn’t part of the conspiracy at all. Case closed.
I'm on the Internet cause I'm an Internet thug.
#OccupyESPN
Follow @134Lounge
Could you say...
That the Govenor did what was his legal duty, but maybe fell short of his moral obligation to the people of PA?
by jbolt1971 on Nov 17, 2011 12:44 PM EST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
His double talk is fitting of a politician
“As to the actions of Mr. Paterno, the attorney general made a determination that he had not at this point in time done anything that would be of a criminal nature. But in my opinion, when you don’t follow through, when you don’t continue on to make sure that actions are taken, then I lose confidence in your ability to lead. That would be the case here.”
But in my opinion, when you don’t follow through, when you don’t continue on to make sure that actions are taken, then I lose confidence in your ability to lead.
So Mr. Corbett, does this mean that you will be stepping down?
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
by jman07 on Nov 17, 2011 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Dan Onorato
would have handled this situation with a friendly face and dignity. There’s something about Corbett that I just don’t trust, every time he talks.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Nov 17, 2011 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
I'd respond if I didn't think we were going to get into "NO POLITICS" territory....
@JPosnanski - I saw a girl crying tonight. When I asked why she said: "Because everybody lost."
#OccupyESPN
by Adam Collyer on Nov 17, 2011 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
Oh shit, I didn't mean to get into politics
I just meant that it was one or the other, and the other has always seemed more compassionate, and is a Penn State grad so would have dealt with the gravity of this maybe more personally and less as a springboard to his own political career.
I hope no one comments on either of their actual politics or platforms. Just their backgrounds and motivations in general.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
Ha, I know, but I was just making a joke as well.
@JPosnanski - I saw a girl crying tonight. When I asked why she said: "Because everybody lost."
#OccupyESPN
by Adam Collyer on Nov 17, 2011 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
Yea
I wasn’t trying to start a political debate. I have one question, are there no public relations people in the state of Pennsylvania? Seriously. Every person that has anything remotely close to a part in this scandal has just said stuff that makes them look like mouth breathing morons, from Spanier, the BoT, to Corbett. Just shut up already.
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
Right on
I mean this is a PR nightmare that would make it hard for even the best, but it seems like the wrong people have said the wrong things at the wrong times and the right people have stayed quiet when they should have issued a statement (looking at you, University, from last Sat thru Wed).
- Spanier unconditionally supports Curley and Schultz
- Police Chief Noonan issues statement on something that really makes no sense for him to comment on, him being, you know, Police Chief.
- Scott Paterno issues sort of strange statement
- No one says anything for days
- They cancel a press conference (not a bad move) but do it an hour before its scheduled time (very bad move)
- Paterno speaks in his front yard
- The Board of Trustees handles meeting/firing/press conference about as poorly as you could possibly imagine in every single way
- Corbett says knucklehead and other things
- Sandusky is allowed to go on TV and breathe weirdly into phone
- McQueary email leaks to press
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Nov 17, 2011 1:11 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
See my comment below...
Someone changed their story on this. No way they saw perjury coming down the road, or there’s a better plan. They had years to prep, and these are smart men and women who are survivors (you don’t get that high up without knowing how to survive).
by SkellerDweller06 on Nov 17, 2011 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
I can never support a man
who taxes my beer. Thats is not ’MERICA.
I'm on the Internet cause I'm an Internet thug.
#OccupyESPN
Follow @134Lounge
I said this a couple of days ago, but I forgot..
NO ONE READS THE FANPOSTS
Follow my antics: @DanVecellio
Its the name on the front of the jersey that matters most, not the one on the back. -Joe Paterno
by Dan Vecellio on Nov 17, 2011 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
My friend watched the South Park episode last night
And said there was a PSU commercial on during it. Now that’s just funny.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the Big Ten...or just lose the sweater vest.
Corbett funding excuse
He was slashing dollars just about everywhere as the budget evolved. Teachers were asked to take pay freezes. No taxes (including shale) were to be raised so funds had to be slashed. Not approving a three million dollar expenditure for a private charity would not have raised any eyebrows or jeopardized the investigation. Amateur political spin! It sure didn’t stop him from slashing PSU’s funding or open confrontations with Spangler over PSU budget cuts (one would think that had a better chance of jeopardizing the investigation, if his logic stream is to be believed.) So, what’s the real story here — sports journalists: its time to step up and root out the truth about our dear old gov!
Stop blaming Joe -- media mobs
by OlderBudweiser on Nov 17, 2011 1:04 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Did you just refer to Graham Spanier as Egon?
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Rec
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
The Department of Corrections budget managed to eek out an increase.
We’re about to join five other states that have the distinction of spending more money on corrections than on education.
Priorities fail.
"Every time you go to that cook-off you get drunk as a poet on payday!"
by DrewRusse on Nov 17, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Well if we don't increase the corrections budget
then how can we support all of the people we’ll need to put in jail because they dropped out of school and had to resort to crime with no educational skills to fall back on? To me, it’s just forward-thinking.
/picks nose
/watches Glenn Beck
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Nov 17, 2011 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Off on a tangent, but . . .
there are some states using standardized test scores in grade school to predict future incarceration capacity requirements. Apparently, the correlation is quite good. Think how perverse that logic is.
reminds me of one thing I read, don't remember where it was from
to paraphrase: “they made the windows in the upper floors so small that no one could jump, when they should have spent more time making sure no one would ever want to”
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Nov 17, 2011 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Someone Changed Their Story
Look, we all like to talk about how much we hated Spanier and Curley, but they were two of the most successful men in their respective positions and were generally pretty highly regarded in their circles. They’re smart, and they’re good enough to get into high power positions and stay there. What I’m saying is, they’re not idiots.
There’s no way that they and/or the University general council (and the BOT, for that matter) all just sat quietly waiting for the Grand Jury presentment to get released. They HAD to have discussed what their reaction would be once the findings were released. Given how much of an EPIC FAIL their response was, I just can’t envision a scenario where they KNEW this bombshell was coming and didn’t have a better plan. If you knew that a Grand Jury was potentially going to accuse your top guys of crimes, and paint your patron saint as a coward who shunned responsibility, and you had a few years to plan for that eventuality, wouldn’t you have a pretty top notch response planned???
That tells me someone changed their story when they testified to the Grand Jury, and didn’t tell anyone else, and just let the bomb drop with the presentment.
by SkellerDweller06 on Nov 17, 2011 1:06 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
Somebody said this to me before
and it’s actually something that I believe. If this is true, we all know who the person is that didn’t do as was expected…the one that was fired.
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
Or
They really didn’t foresee that the University would be found to have mishandled anything. They thought their testimony would help put Sandusky behind bars, but honestly didn’t believe that the process had been handled wrong within the University. I seriously believe this.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Nov 17, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Or
I read previously that the General Council had no idea about any of this. Anyone who has ever been near executive leadership knows that the two people who get looped in on every dicey decision are the GC and the Accounting/Finance guy. If he didn’t know, odds are good that there really was an effort to keep this thing squashed.
by SkellerDweller06 on Nov 17, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Wasn't Schultz the Accounting/Finance guy?
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
by jman07 on Nov 17, 2011 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
He sure was.
I frankly wonder how it was legal for him to wear as many hats as he did. Just being head of both finance and HR would be a flaming conflict of interest.
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
And the General Council
for suresies knew about this whole thing. Heck, they knew about the 98 and 02 investigation because Schultz knew about them. The only way they didn’t know is if Schultz didn’t say anything. So once more, in this whole nightmare, by all appearances, the guy that handled the cover-up was Schultz.
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
by jman07 on Nov 17, 2011 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
its funny that he's probably the least talked about of the people involved
yet I keep thinking he’s the most culpable. At this point, I think we’ve confirmed he was acting on behalf of the University Police Department, as not only is it part of his job description, but it has been so mentioned by the AG, MM in his email, and now the NYT. Why everyone isnt screaming their heads off at him is a mystery to me (ok, its not a mystery why the media hasn’t focused on him (though it seems like even reporters like Sara Ganim haven’t put that together yet) as he’s not the juicier story, but why even people knowledgable with the details of this case havent.).
I'm on the Internet cause I'm an Internet thug.
#OccupyESPN
Follow @134Lounge
by skarocksoi on Nov 17, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
It's Because He's Retired And Keeping His Mouth Shut
Schultz, like most weasels, realizes that in a lightning storm, it’s usually the most visible tree that gets hit.
According to the NYT article
PSU’s lawyer denies knowing about it. If Curley and Schultz discussed the 2002 incident with McQueary and did not have Penn State Counsel present, it boggles the mind. Or speaks volumes as to a) intent, or b) competence.
by CvilleLion on Nov 17, 2011 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Precisely
Once again, if they spoke with MM without the GC around, they weren’t very bright and they seem like bright people. So the easily jumped to conclusion was that they wanted to smother this. Which shows why the AG has filed charges against the two.
Which leads to the next question, if they did actively participate in a cover-up, why? They really weren’t benefitting from keeping this under wraps, nor were they really in a position to decide “hey this can’t get out”..so who told them to cover this up?
/puts tinfoil hat on
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
by jman07 on Nov 17, 2011 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes - I noticed that also.
Leads me to speculate that they either a) were actively trying to cover up or, b) did not think it was that big of a deal. Not worthy of talking to Penn State Counsel about. Hard to believe an activity on Penn State property about an Emeritus member of the staff wouldn’t have at raised enough eyebrows that they would want to speak with PS’s lawyer.
Of course, there is always c) the actual facts are different than what has been presented or different than we think we understand them.
by dontcallmescooter on Nov 17, 2011 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
And That's Where They Go Off The Rails
Once they established there was something sexual going on with a kid, they absolutely should have gone to the general counsel. It’s unbelieveable that they didn’t have him in the meeting with McQueary.
Guess they just sort of hoped the problem would go away once they took the keys away from Sandusky and kicked him off the campus. They’re supposedly very intelligent people, but even intelligent people sometimes decide that hiding their heads in the sand is a legitimate solution to a problem.
Well, it was a legit solution for Schultz so far…he’s still retired, still drawing a pension, and still getting his legal bills paid for by Penn State.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, it's pretty difficult for me to buy into option "b" too.
I’ve worked in Fortune 500’s and then in the music industry (where a lot of questionable deals happen). Having corporate counsel present at sensitive meetings was a given.
That Would Seem To Be A Given In Any Large Company
If a legal problem arises that could damage your company, you immediately ask counsel…you don’t try to play lawyer. At my current job (large corporation) that’s actually part of the orientation for all new hires…you do NOT try to sort through legalities on your own and risk the company’s reputation.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If they don't value...
the GC, then I can see them not having the GC there.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Nov 17, 2011 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Even If They Don't Value The GC
It’s just a common sense CYA move. The lawyer isn’t just there to fix the problem…he’s there for the employees to compartmentalize risk.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I know...
it is, but you’d be surprised at the meetings I find out about after the fact.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Nov 17, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
Probably Not
There are a lot of people I’ve worked with who think that they know enough about the law that they shouldn’t have to bother with attorneys on what they consider relatively minor issues. I come from a family that has quite a few lawyers, doctors, insurance people, other professionals in it and one of the things I learned growing up was that you ALWAYS seek a professional opinion in an area where you aren’t sure and where the consequences could be severe. It’s always kept me out of trouble.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I guess I was fortunate in the companies where I worked
to have access to good attorneys. People who knew the law AND had good business judgment. Plus as others have said, it’s a wise CYA action in any case.
There's No Substitute For A Good Upbringing And Smart People Around You
I think part of the reason people don’t understand the value of lawyers, bankers, doctors, etc. is that they just don’t realize the full scope of what those people provide and what they know. Thus they tend to think those professionals aren’t necessary.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
They probably didn't know the perjury bombshell was coming, but they should have been prepared.
I would never call Spanier and Curley stupid, but it’s clear that no one had any idea how to handle a crisis. It’s not that surprising – academia can be very insulated from the rest of the world. Often, people think the best response is to duck and cover, thinking the problem is going away. Here, covering only exacerbated the issue.
@JPosnanski - I saw a girl crying tonight. When I asked why she said: "Because everybody lost."
#OccupyESPN
by Adam Collyer on Nov 17, 2011 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
And It Exacerbated It On Every Level
It allowed Sandusky to keep molesting children, it dragged the entire school into a firestorm of a scandal, it cost a successful 46 year employee (and major asset for the university) his job, it likely destroyed a very successful and popular charity.
Everything about how Schultz and Curley handled this was wrong…it’s just bizarre how stupidly they apparently acted.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
That's what I'm saying...
Radical departures from character just don’t happen all that often. These guys didn’t suddenly become stupid.
They’re not stupid people, but this very foreseeable problem was handled very stupidly. Which means they must have thought that they were in the clear right up until this thing went public.
(“I don’t believe we should speculate, but I’ll go right ahead and do so anyway”) – My only rational answer is that they had been keeping this thing quiet since 2002 and maybe before and thought McQueary was on board, but he bailed during testimony and didn’t tell anyone. They called Sandusky in, took his keys, said get your shit off our property, then hoped it never happened again because they were already screwed if this story broke. They never told council because they wanted knew they’d have to call the cops. Joe’s role in all this remains unknown until we learn what they told Joe, or it can be proved he was part of the effort.
(Tinfoil cap on, locker full of guns and non-perishable foods secured)
by SkellerDweller06 on Nov 17, 2011 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Or
since we’re speculating….
They knew what Mike’s story was going to be but it would come down to a he said/he said thing. They didn’t think it’d be too big of a deal, they could make it reasonable that he wasn’t sure what he saw.
They expected Joe’s testimony to back up his superiors’ but when he backed Mike instead, all hell broke loose. Hence why he was fired.
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
This might have actually happened
Had the presentment not been made public and the case first really experienced by the media during the trial itself.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
Gotcha
And your speculation is very plausible. But even so, it was a ridiculously stupid move on their parts (which isn’t to say that they’re unintelligent…more that they lack wisdom or common sense and act in a foolish manner). It’s a pedophile they’re dealing with…one who got caught red-handed in the possible commission of a crime. One who has reportedly committed more than one offense (which Schultz allegedly knew about) There’s nothing about that type of situation that will get better if they keep quiet about it…especially since he’s still tied to their university and assaulted a kid on their grounds. That’s something that most general counsels would explain to them.
The negative press from the situation would probably have been bad if they’d reported it to the police, as they were supposed to do. As we’re seeing now, however, the negative press from getting caught hushing it up is far, far worse. They should have reasonable forseen what the consequences of that would be and done what they were supposed to do.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
They should have.
and this is filled with meaning, after we had an in depth conversation earlier this week about the meaning of could have vs. should have. They should have.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
You Know, It Seems A Simple Principle
“Always try to do the right thing, even if you’ll initially get in trouble for it.” Coming forward may be painful, but it’s not nearly as painful as what happens if you keep quiet and people find out later.
But it’s amazing how many intelligent people seem to think it’s smarter to skirt that. It’s almost as if they’ve never heard the old rule of politics that it’s often not the scandal that gets people in trouble…it’s the coverup.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Because a lot of the time
the cover-up works. Or, maybe it does. We don’t know about the times when the cover-up worked, unless you’re talking about penny ante shit we all cover up in our companies from time to time (yes, customer, we already knew we had that bug and were already working on a fix, for instance).
I'll Disagree With That
A guy I knew once said “Any coverup that requires more than five people to keep their mouths shut is destined to fail.” With just the one incident in 2002, you had Paterno, McQueary, Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and whoever else aware of the situation. Paterno and McQueary actually reported it, so they don’t seem predisposed to a coverup. Not to mention all the other incidents involving Sandusky and Second Mile outside of Penn State that Curley and Schultz would have no way of controlling. This was a coverup that would be absolutely destined to fail.
And I'm Sorry I Missed That Conversation
I’m a big believer in ethics…it’s usually a worthwhile discussion topic to engage in.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, it was between myself and SubLime
and I think the takeaway was that Paterno definitely could have done more, since clearly whatever he did didn’t work, and there was at least one alternate option (calling the police directly).
But whether or not he should have done more comes down to learning a lot of unknown information, then making an informed value judgment on the position he was in in 2002, viewing it prospectively, from his vantage point. It also depends on the individual making the judgment.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Nov 17, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Fully Agreed
There’s just so much we don’t know about what happened, what Paterno was or wasn’t told, what he did or didn’t do…it’s not really possible at this point to make an objective judgment on whether or not he acted as a reasonable person might have. Which isn’t stopping people from making those judgments, however.
For myself, I think there are a lot of questions to be answered by Paterno (and if he’s smart, he’ll do it through a lawyer), but considering his history (46 years running a football program, by all accounts following the rules) I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt until the evidence indicates he knew more than we’ve been led to believe at this point.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
And I Should Probably State, In The Interest Of Full Disclosure
I’m not a Penn State fan…KU Jayhawk. But witch hunts and coverups just strike a raw nerve with me and that’s what this entire thing has struck me as in regards to Paterno and the university leadership, respectively.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't care who your team is...
as long as you don’t just regurgitate what ESPN and Nancy Grace are spoon-feeding the country, you’re okay in my book.
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I Despise Nancy Grace
She’s just a more shrill Bill O’Reilly. Not a fan of pundits in general, actually
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Nancy Grace during the Duke lacrosse scandal
set the standard for hack journalism.
by CvilleLion on Nov 17, 2011 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
considering his history (46 years running a football program, by all accounts following the rules) I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt until the evidence indicates he knew more than we’ve been led to believe at this point.
If you said that in any other forum but here, you would not be seen as reasonable. Not yet, at least, until the howling dies down.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Nov 17, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I Got Ridiculed For It On The KU Blog
And I was surprised just how much confirmation bias had set in over there…with people who in just about any other discussion are reasonable and rational in their arguments. Several of them seemed to suspect that I harbored sympathies towards pedophiles just for saying that I thought Paterno had been fired prematurely.
I guess with this particular topic, though, it’s difficult for people to separate the emotion from their judgments. In fairness, it’s a pretty horrible subject to have to do that on.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Everybody's an Internet Tough Guy...
and they all seem to think that Paterno’s clean image was just a facade hiding what was in fact the crookedest, most manipulative mind in all of College Football.
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
You Know, Though
I think that’s also just a part of human nature. We like to root for the underdog, but once the underdog gets on top we just can’t wait to start oicking at him and pulling him back down. Bill James, the baseball writer and statistician, once did a piece where he noted how there was a common narrative that followed star baseball players…they start out being idolized as good and pure, then we celebrate how well they do what they do, then we start looking for the flaws and can’t wait to tear them down for almost god-like qualities that we ourselves attribute to them.
From my outsider perspective, Joe Paterno is just a very, very good football coach who has spent his career following the rules as best he can, who seems to take the “student” part of student-athlete seriously, and who’s impressively never gotten in trouble with the NCAA in 46 years. I don’t see any of those things as being an anomaly or some well-thougth out scheme that Paterno hatched just to trick everyone. He isn’t perfect, but he also doesn’t strike me as someone who was putting on an act for half a century.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 8 recs
Yes, well...
We’re in the minority opinion with our feelings on Joe.
My personal feeling is that if he did turn a blind eye to Sandusky, it was because he didn’t want to bring down Second Mile. I don’t believe that he participated in any coverup, though – the easiest way to cover it up would have been to tell McQueary to just forget about what he had seen. I think the worst thing he did was to trust that his superiors in the University would actually do their jobs.
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
If He Turned A Blind Eye Purposely
I’d be one of the first to rip him. I do agree that when it comes to this particular crime, there isn’t much of a rationale for not reporting. But from what I’ve seen, it appears Paterno did report it and tried to do what he was supposed to do.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
And I Agree About Paterno's Actions
I think he just did what a lot of us would do in the same situation. We’re confronted with something bad at work and we’re not sure how to proceed, so we go talk to our boss to get guidance. And when our boss tells us it has been handled and nobody else tells us different, we accept our boss’ word for it. Very few of us would expect someone we’ve worked with that long to lie to us, and it’s not like Paterno was a cop, attorney, detective or judge. He’s just a football coach who followed procedure and got raked over the coals for it. If he knew more than has come out so far, that’s a different story, but from what I’ve seen he did what most reasonable people would likely do. Most of us simply don’t assume our bosses are lying and go to the cops…that’s something you usually only see in the movies.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
"his boss"
This is the part where the rest of the world stops listening. Curley was not Paterno’s boss in anything but the most disingenuous of ways. Paterno hired Curley to do the job Paterno didn’t want to do any more; and Curley clearly did not have the power to tell Paterno to do anything. He wasn’t “his boss” in the way that most people would understand that term.
Statutorily, Or Is This An Assumption?
Because this assumes that Curley was just a figurehead. I’ll admit that I’m not as familiar with the internal dynamics of Penn State athletics as you guys are, or the relationship between Curley and Paterno. Care to enlighten me?
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Now that's funny...
You’ve been here for how long? and you’re already on troll patrol…
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 9:26 PM EST up reply actions
Where you're wrong
is in saying Curley didn’t have the power to tell Paterno to do anything. He most certainly had the authority to do something. He could have fired him, or refused to sign a new contract. I’m sure if you look at Curley’s contract, he had the authority to do these things.
He did not have the leverage to do these things. So he did a cost/benefit and decided it would be better to stick with him.
This is pretty fundamental.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Nov 17, 2011 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Self-serving rationalization
You cling to this false separation between power and leverage because it’s apparently the only way to avoid confronting a painful truth here, and it’s sad.
Paterno was my hero, too. I know the temptation to stretch every possible angle to defend him here. But the difference is I recognize when I’m about to engage in rationalization whose only purpose is to serve cognitive dissonance.
I have no doubt that if we had had a conversation centering around whether Curley was Paterno’s boss in anything but name a couple of years ago, you’d have been on the side that he was not.
(sigh) nevermind
Done with this.
To those reading comments: read and make your own conclusion. I’m not trying to get into asinine arguments.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Nov 18, 2011 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
If I could rec every comment you posted here at BSD, I would.
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
by jman07 on Nov 17, 2011 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Done
and done.
And a +1 to you for the thought.
Level headed college football fan that thinks just MAYBE Paterno got railroaded without all the facts? UNPOSSIBLE!
It takes courage to stand behind someone you believe in when it’s this bad outside. It takes courage to stand up for a man in peril, even if he stood up for you. - JoePo on JoePa
by nylyst on Nov 17, 2011 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You've been through what a lot of us have, then
and I fully agree with you on the difficulty of separating emotion. I’m not even really mad at people who are mad…I understand why.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
I Get Frustrated With Them
But I get why they’re upset too. It’s tough too look objectively at things that make your skin crawl, and this certainly qualifies.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Just bat it back at them.
I told off an ND fan that feelings would be no different at:
Alabama if this was Bryant, ND if it was Rockne or Holtz, or Bowden at FSU.
When you have a guy who is THE MAN at a university you’ll be torn on stuff like this.
I know I am. I love Joe Pa. And was honored to see him when we played you at Beaver Stadium.
by Durdens Wrath on Nov 17, 2011 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks man.
I’ve wanted to make the comparison to ‘what you’d do if it was The Bear’ a few times, but it seems like emotions are still too high.
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 9:32 PM EST up reply actions
It's an honest comparison.
And can really point out the hypocrisy in a fan base.
Those who would throw stones at Penn State fans, had best check themselves. Because they’d do the same thing for their own “sacred cows”.
by Durdens Wrath on Nov 18, 2011 9:20 AM EST up reply actions
Lets slow our roll regarding The Bear.
Fact is, none of this, not anything like this, happened during Bears reign or any of the other legends mentioned.
I tend to believe this terrible mess will take years to sort out and there will be battle lines drawn the entire way. People will view facts in many different ways.
In the end, IMO JoePa will to a large extent regain his image. Of course, that and any other image related issue pales in comparison to the hell experienced by the victims of Sandusky’s predation.
Proud mini-Saban.
by Tidee Whitee on Nov 18, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
That NYT article was surprisingly refreshing
actual investigative reporting. I had been wondering what Madeira’s conflict of interest was that caused him to pass the case up to the AG. Now we know.
Madeira looks like he might be one of the only people to survive this.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
Ironically, by reporting it up the chain of command.
by CvilleLion on Nov 17, 2011 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Funny...
how things work when people do what they are supposed to do.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Nov 17, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
But Madeira's chain
only worked when a certain individual (cough Corbett cough) was no longer there. So the chain worked, only a few years later. Of course, this isn’t a big deal because Joe had told him to not do anything about it. Since he is the Emperor of Pa.
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
by jman07 on Nov 17, 2011 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
LEGAL TEAM UPDATE
The Board of Trustees has retained Reed Smith out of Pittsburgh (that’s not one guy, that’s a giant firm).
The rest of the players:
Joe Paterno: Attorney who defended George HW Bush in the Iran-Contra Affair
Mike McQueary: Unfortunately named, but regionally respected employment firm from Harrisburg
Jerry Sandusky: Dude from “I Can’t Believe It’s A Law Firm!”
Any reason...
why the Pittsburgh office of Reed Smith was chosen over the Philly office?
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Nov 17, 2011 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
I imagine the Pittsburgh office is far larger, with a deeper bench
Plus the Philly office presumably employs people who live in or around Philly.
by kijana's acl on Nov 17, 2011 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
It is a larger office.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Nov 17, 2011 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
They All Know What's Coming
This isn’t going to get settled just telling your side of the story and hoping the public looks objectively at the facts. There’s going to be ugly spinoff and after that there will likely be civil suits. Based on what I’ve seen, I think where Paterno really screwed up was in not retaining counsel before he submitted his resignation. I think he figured that if he announced he was out, they’d give him the benefit of the doubt based on his history there and the rest would sort itself out. But that’s not what happens in scandals…especially once the press gets ahold of it.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The press is part of the problem.
You’d have never seen Cronkite overblowing something like this.
News is about ratings, and not truth. And it makes me wish the whole media conglomerate would burn.
by Durdens Wrath on Nov 17, 2011 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
It Was Always About Ratings...Don't Let Anyone Tell You Different
And, not to get too deeply into politics, but back when Cronkite was there the only reason he seemed objective is because the Fairness Doctrine limited the ability of other viewpoints to challenge what people in network journalism said. Thus, it was more readily accepted as “truth”.
I thought the Fairness Doctrine
ENSURED that both sides of a controversial topic were covered in a balanced and fair (not FOX News) way.
by Durdens Wrath on Nov 17, 2011 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
That Was The Premise
It never happened that way in practice. In practice, politicians from both parties used it to silence opposition, and since the Democrats controlled Congress for most of the latter half of the 20th century, as television was coming into its own, that’s the ideological viewpoint that dominated that medium. That’s not to say that the Democrats were the only abusers of it…Richard Nixon loved to use it against political enemies and rivals (along with a lot of other, often illegal, tactics). Reagan finally abolished it in 1986 under the basic argument that free speech doesn’t need the government to balance itself out. That’s when you started seeing the rise of conservatives in talk radio (and, a decade or so later, libertarians on the Internet). Diversity of opinion tends to thrive much more in the absence of government control and regulation.
Okay…done with politics. I know it’s verboten here and I can respect that.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2011 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Huh huh...
Strokoff…
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Wonder if they came up with that name prematurely?
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This really
is turning into a Family Guy episode more and more with each passing day.
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
I'm sorry...
your response did not contain an ejaculation pun that I could discern.
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I'll let those strokes of genius up to the professionals
Let's go State
Beat Wisconsin!
by jman07 on Nov 17, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
they're all hoping to get off
"my dad says Michigan used to be good"
by hbeach08 on Nov 17, 2011 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I just can't see a happy ending.
What the hell just happened?
by Pete the Streak on Nov 17, 2011 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Sandusky
is basically like the promoter that pitted Rocky Balboa against Apollo Creed in Rocky I. Except instead of profiting, he’s going to go to jail.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
At somepoint..
Sandusky has to change attorneys, right?
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Nov 17, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
I can already..
see him appealing based on ineffective counsel.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Nov 17, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
I considered that for two seconds the other night.
But it’s a really low bar.
by Chris Grovich on Nov 17, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
If he doesn't want to go to jail.
But his interview on NBC may have already sealed the deal.
by dontcallmescooter on Nov 17, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
doubtful
anyone who saw that interview will be disqualified from the jury pool immediately.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
Maybe that's the strategy.
You can’t have a trial if you can’t get past voir dire.
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
And That's Certainly Grounds For An Appeal If You Can Demonstrate Your Attorney Was Incompetent
Letting Sandusky run his mouth to Bob Costas was definitely an incompetent move. It certainly didn’t generate any sympathy for his scumbag client.
In the meantime
Can’t we just put Sandusky in Gen Pop?
by Durdens Wrath on Nov 17, 2011 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
And like Dahmer he can "fall down" about 20 times.
by Durdens Wrath on Nov 17, 2011 5:29 PM EST up reply actions
Dahmer Didn't Fall Down
He got beaten to death by another inmate who had a psychotic break from reality and thought he was doing God’s work. Not that I’d cry bitter tears if that happened to Sandusky…
I always thought Dahmer got offed by his cellmate.
…something about jumping off the top bunk and coming down with both feet on Dahmer’s head.
"I don’t know who to believe – A used car salesman or the OSU Chief of Compliance."
-rahpsu92
by leeharvey418 on Nov 17, 2011 9:36 PM EST up reply actions
Nope, Got Attacked While On Extra Duty
The guy who killed him had attacked another prisoner as well, as I recall.
Yeah, but you missed the point entirely of the joke.
I was aware of what actually happened.
by Durdens Wrath on Nov 18, 2011 9:23 AM EST up reply actions
Note the air quotes.
/that’s the joke.gif
by Durdens Wrath on Nov 18, 2011 9:22 AM EST up reply actions
We definitely live in a culture of ignorance.
Almost every article I’ve seen has been written based on conjecture and speculation of the real “facts.”
The truth is that we don’t know the real facts yet. Hell, we don’t even know the Commonwealth’s version of the facts yet. The only thing we know is what the GJ touched upon in their report, which is not even a comprehensive revelation of the witnesses’ testimony at the GJ proceedings.
All the articles I’m reading show how our culture is an ignorant and impatient culture. People are so outraged at the allegations, that they have completely failed in their “moral responsiblity” to do a prudent investigation into the “facts” of the case, which have not yet been determined. Our society is so hell-bent on punishing someone for the allegations, that they don’t care who gets punished, just as long as someone gets punished.
I agree with Franco Harris. Firing Paterno was an act of cowardice by the BoT. It’s not bad enough that PSU looks bad enough over this entire ordeal, but now we also look like a bunch of pussies because we did what everyone else wanted us to do instead of acting in a reasonable manner following a full investigation. The BoT has acted like a puppet for the outraged. And don’t give me that shit about “they must know something they aren’t telling us.” That’s just more of the speculation jibberish that has fed this monster since it started. Sad to say, but right now PSU looks like an institution with no backbone.
by rodney20 on Nov 17, 2011 3:50 PM EST reply actions 10 recs
I don't think they knew something that they are not telling us.
I believe at the press conference, the vice chair said that they had no other information other than the Grand Jury report and media accounts.
by dontcallmescooter on Nov 17, 2011 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
And with the communications age being what it is, it’s so much easier to jump to conclusions based on half the story or less.
Of course, 20 years ago, would a story like this even have gotten out? Before the Internet and the level of access to public records, it was a lot easier for dirt to stay buried.
Have you ever heard of the sexual abuse case involving the Boston Red Sox?
Serious question.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
Not Really
I do follow the Red Sox, even though I’m a Royals fan, but I’m not familiar with that incident
Well it makes your point for you
Some would say the details and the number of people who knew about this – and the affirmative actions that were taken to cover it up – dwarf what’s going on at Penn State.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
You Know, It's Something That Psychologists Noted In The Kitty Genovese Case
The more people who know about or witness horrific acts going on, the less likely they are to report it.
Most here have passed this around as well
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
I'll Have To Check It Out
Bystander effect, of course, does not excuse inaction. If Paterno knew what was going on and did nothing, he’d still be wrong. But I think it’s something that people who use the argument of “I would have done x…” in passing judgment should familiarize themselves with.
Good Article
And I think Brooks is absolutely right…we do tend to deceive ourselves in a lot of ways, and allow those deceptions to color both our judgment and our reality.
Yeah he was a hateful, miserable man
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
Always Liked To Be Seen As A Happy Go-Lucky Guy, Everyone's Pal
Also reportedly a virulent racist, alcoholic, vindictive, etc.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Black Shoe Diaries
Related FanShots on Black Shoe Diaries
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE BLACK SHOE DIARIES STORE
