With all the back and forth on this thread, lets take inventory real quick. This is not about BG. It’s not about anyone who is trying to argue with BG for the sake of proving a point. It’s Semantics. All of it. Here’s what matters, and what we need to remember.
Sandusky was a predator. Pipelining young boys to his doorstep. Not afluent kids with good family structure but troubled kids, often with no dads of their own. Preying on the weak and easily influenced to satiate his own deviancy. This was all pre-meditated, planned, probably while the full realization of not getting caught and developing this facade as a philanthropic hero only fueled his arousal and allowed him to go even further into that world. Kids. Young little dudes whose only fault was that they looked vulnerable and easily manipulated to a fairly powerful figurehead at a major university.
Diabolical.
Sociopath.
I don’t want to see this thread spin out into personal opinions regarding one poster to another. It’s fucking dumb and counterproductive, and what I believe is insulting to the young kids who already had a rough homelife only to be buried that much further into madness by this motherfucker.
The ancillary staff need to be prosecuted. Those who knowingly broke the law to cover this motherfuckers’ sheer deviancy need to go down as well. But lets not spin out on that issue without moving forward as a group of dudes nodding at their computer screens in agreement that as men, as fathers or future fathers we are NOT GOING TO LET OUR KIDS GET EXPOSED TO THIS TYPE OF SHIT or turn a blind eye and allow behavior like this to occur all thanks to our silence.
Now, more than ever, men need to be men. Accountable and committed to families that they created.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Does anyone actually believe this sex ring has any real chance of being true?
This is getting dumb. The actual facts are horrific enough without having to make up shit.[/quote]
People said the exact same thing when Madden (the guy who “broke” the sex ring news) wrote about this while Sandusky Sex scandal 7 months ago.
The guy was right about almost everything so far it just took a little time for it to come out to the main stream. I 100% believe that it could be true.[/quote]
I guess, but one guy in a position of power abusing boys is common enough to be true. When was the last time you heard about children being pimped out like prostitutes in North America?
[quote]QuadasarusFlex wrote:
In my humble opinion,there oughta be ALOT more grey boxes.[/quote]
That graph says both McQueary and the wrestling coach at Clinton County High School witnessed Victim #2 but it was my understanding that what happened at that school was in 2009 and eventually lead to the investigation in the first place.[/quote]
I think the Clinton High School is supposed to be Victim 1.
The moral of the story is to never let your kid hang out solo with some older guy (who runs a charity to help troubled teen boys) on numerous occasions and for extended periods of time.
No adult male likes random kids THAT much for purely altruistic reasons. Sorry to sound like a cynical bastard, but c’mon.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Does anyone actually believe this sex ring has any real chance of being true?
This is getting dumb. The actual facts are horrific enough without having to make up shit.[/quote]
People said the exact same thing when Madden (the guy who “broke” the sex ring news) wrote about this while Sandusky Sex scandal 7 months ago.
The guy was right about almost everything so far it just took a little time for it to come out to the main stream. I 100% believe that it could be true.[/quote]
I guess, but one guy in a position of power abusing boys is common enough to be true. When was the last time you heard about children being pimped out like prostitutes in North America?[/quote]
Reading through the testimonies though, it sounds like Sandusky was extremely controlling of these kids and would even get jealous. As sick as it is to even say this - I don’t think he would have wanted to share.
With all the back and forth on this thread, lets take inventory real quick. This is not about BG. It’s not about anyone who is trying to argue with BG for the sake of proving a point. It’s Semantics. All of it. Here’s what matters, and what we need to remember.
Sandusky was a predator. Pipelining young boys to his doorstep. Not afluent kids with good family structure but troubled kids, often with no dads of their own. Preying on the weak and easily influenced to satiate his own deviancy. This was all pre-meditated, planned, probably while the full realization of not getting caught and developing this facade as a philanthropic hero only fueled his arousal and allowed him to go even further into that world. Kids. Young little dudes whose only fault was that they looked vulnerable and easily manipulated to a fairly powerful figurehead at a major university.
Diabolical.
Sociopath.
I don’t want to see this thread spin out into personal opinions regarding one poster to another. It’s fucking dumb and counterproductive, and what I believe is insulting to the young kids who already had a rough homelife only to be buried that much further into madness by this motherfucker.
The ancillary staff need to be prosecuted. Those who knowingly broke the law to cover this motherfuckers’ sheer deviancy need to go down as well. But lets not spin out on that issue without moving forward as a group of dudes nodding at their computer screens in agreement that as men, as fathers or future fathers we are NOT GOING TO LET OUR KIDS GET EXPOSED TO THIS TYPE OF SHIT or turn a blind eye and allow behavior like this to occur all thanks to our silence.
Now, more than ever, men need to be men. Accountable and committed to families that they created.
[/quote]
QFT you are more eloquent that I big guy, I kind have been saying this throughout.
With all the back and forth on this thread, lets take inventory real quick. This is not about BG. It’s not about anyone who is trying to argue with BG for the sake of proving a point. It’s Semantics. All of it. Here’s what matters, and what we need to remember.
Sandusky was a predator. Pipelining young boys to his doorstep. Not afluent kids with good family structure but troubled kids, often with no dads of their own. Preying on the weak and easily influenced to satiate his own deviancy. This was all pre-meditated, planned, probably while the full realization of not getting caught and developing this facade as a philanthropic hero only fueled his arousal and allowed him to go even further into that world. Kids. Young little dudes whose only fault was that they looked vulnerable and easily manipulated to a fairly powerful figurehead at a major university.
Diabolical.
Sociopath.
I don’t want to see this thread spin out into personal opinions regarding one poster to another. It’s fucking dumb and counterproductive, and what I believe is insulting to the young kids who already had a rough homelife only to be buried that much further into madness by this motherfucker.
The ancillary staff need to be prosecuted. Those who knowingly broke the law to cover this motherfuckers’ sheer deviancy need to go down as well. But lets not spin out on that issue without moving forward as a group of dudes nodding at their computer screens in agreement that as men, as fathers or future fathers we are NOT GOING TO LET OUR KIDS GET EXPOSED TO THIS TYPE OF SHIT or turn a blind eye and allow behavior like this to occur all thanks to our silence.
Now, more than ever, men need to be men. Accountable and committed to families that they created.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
OK I’m reading through the entire grand jury document, not just the Paterno-related stuff. I have to ask… his wife had ZERO questions that he would constantly hang out with one boy, have him stay at their house and do everything with him… and change to a new boy every couple years?[/quote]
Well supposedly, The Second Mile was made aware of Victim 2 in 2002 and Sandusky didn’t step down until 2010 (AFTER an investigation has begun). There is screwiness afoot: HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost
Aside: In HS I dated an altar boy and regularly had Sunday dinners with the priest. 5 years later that priest was on trial for abuse. Questions were constantly raised while the priest was there, but no formal charges were brought until he was forced to take a sabbatical.
I had asked my then BF several times about their odd relationship and he swore up and down that it was all on the level and was disgusted by everyone’s assumption that something was going on just because it was a Catholic priest. His family kinda vanished from the area round about the time the story broke. Secrets like this have a way of staying hidden.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Does anyone actually believe this sex ring has any real chance of being true?
This is getting dumb. The actual facts are horrific enough without having to make up shit.[/quote]
People said the exact same thing when Madden (the guy who “broke” the sex ring news) wrote about this while Sandusky Sex scandal 7 months ago.
The guy was right about almost everything so far it just took a little time for it to come out to the main stream. I 100% believe that it could be true.[/quote]
I guess, but one guy in a position of power abusing boys is common enough to be true. When was the last time you heard about children being pimped out like prostitutes in North America?[/quote]
When was the last time you heard about a coach banging little kids in the schools locker room showers?
Just cause you haven’t heard of it before doest mean its not happening.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Before I get sucked into engaging the lynch mob and having to pointlessly debate the fallacious arguments and speculation that is sure to come, my position is as follows:
Before I am ready to pass judgment, assign culpability or have any other firm opinion on a man who’s body of work (largely with kids) EXCEEDS that of anyone in this thread (and likely will continue to exceed), I will need to know all the FACTS. Allegations will not do.
Speculation, while making for newspapers sales and fun message board threads, will not do. As it stands now, I do not believe Joe Pa “looked the other way”. I may however be convinced otherwise when more information and facts are disclosed. The man changed many young lives for the better. His relative contribution to the university (financially and otherwise) is unmatched by anyone. His program, while doing it by the onerous NCAA rules, speaks for itself.
“Turning a blind eye” or otherwise being “culpable” or “complicit” does not fit the man’s record.
I’ll need more information than junk journalism and an indictment against someone else. When and if we get that, and it points to him, I’ll happily join the lynch mob. I’ll even tie the rope to the limb. [/quote]
BG, we get that you’re fixated on the legal aspects here but surely you must see the moral outrage directed at such a “lack of institutional control” and why certain heads must roll??
This is straight out of a Law and Order SVU episode. He has the same fucking pattern with every kid. Victim 6 is particularly disturbing when he told the victim’s mom “I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t from you. I wish I were dead”
This conversation was heard by a detective. In 1998.
edit - that quote is FROM Sandusky, to the mom, over the phone.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Penn State’s interim coach Tom Bradley just said that assistant coach Mike McQueary will coach in the game against Nebraska on Saturday.[/quote]
Taylor Martinez has a poor throwing motion and has accuracy problems. Would be a shame if some of his passes led a Nebraska receiver barrelling directly toward McQueary on the sideline at full speed.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Does anyone actually believe this sex ring has any real chance of being true?
This is getting dumb. The actual facts are horrific enough without having to make up shit.[/quote]
People said the exact same thing when Madden (the guy who “broke” the sex ring news) wrote about this while Sandusky Sex scandal 7 months ago.
The guy was right about almost everything so far it just took a little time for it to come out to the main stream. I 100% believe that it could be true.[/quote]
I guess, but one guy in a position of power abusing boys is common enough to be true. When was the last time you heard about children being pimped out like prostitutes in North America?[/quote]
When was the last time you heard about a coach banging little kids in the schools locker room showers?
Just cause you haven’t heard of it before doest mean its not happening.[/quote]
[quote]QuadasarusFlex wrote:
In my humble opinion,there oughta be ALOT more grey boxes.[/quote]
That graph says both McQueary and the wrestling coach at Clinton County High School witnessed Victim #2 but it was my understanding that what happened at that school was in 2009 and eventually lead to the investigation in the first place.[/quote]
I think the Clinton High School is supposed to be Victim 1.[/quote]
I’m sure it is and those are the guys who reported it to the police and got the investigation started. I don’t see why they are even on the graph. They did what they were supposed to do.
I suppose I am just pointing out that these easily digestible graphs/charts/etc. can be dangerous in very complicated cases like this.
Ummm doesn’t the grand jury report allow us all to move WAY PAST the stage of simple allegations of wrongdoing??
[/quote]
No. Grand jury just determines whether or not there is sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges and an actual trial. Once the trial jury has submitted their verdict then you move past “simple allegations of wrongdoing”.
[quote]Trispeter wrote:
SO this means Joe Pa had reported this to the police… what more could he have done?
[/quote]
What more could he have done? Followed up and made sure this guy was punished. JoePa ran the show. He could have banned Sandusky from the campus if he wanted but he did not.
If you were the head coach and knew an assistant was caught sexually abusing kids in your locker room would you report it to the AD and Campus Police and leave it at that? See the same guy for years to come bringing young kids into your facility and not say anything further?
[quote]scj119 wrote:
This is straight out of a Law and Order SVU episode. He has the same fucking pattern with every kid. Victim 6 is particularly disturbing when he told the victim’s mom “I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t from you. I wish I were dead”
This conversation was heard by a detective. In 1998.
edit - that quote is FROM Sandusky, to the mom, over the phone.[/quote]
I was going to mention this. The pattern in his approach towards each kid is almost identical. That shows me that he picked each kid based off of something he saw and felt them out (sorry for that, couldn’t think of another way to put it) and gauged how far he could push it with each kid. He is a cold, calculating monster who exploited every possible angle to get what he wanted. The fact that others in positions of power allowed him to continue is mind boggling.
[quote]Ulty wrote:
Paterno’s power at Penn State was nearly absolute, [/quote]
Provide factual evidence of the above. His power over the program may have been absolute, but he answered to people. Heck he was almost forced out years ago. [/quote]
A) He’s referring to the grand jury statement and Paterno’s OWN testimony. It is factual evidence.
B) He was told to step down and said “no” and got his way… that’s supposed to prove he didn’t have his way?[/quote]
What testimony. Joe Pa stated that his power at Penn State (and not over the program) was “absolute”?
As for stepping down, public sentiment and other facts weighed in on his retaining his job. He just didn’t say “no” and that was the end of it.
Are you serious?[/quote]
The grand jury testimony where JoePa said “McQueary came to me, visibility upset, and told me of an incident where Sandusky was touching, fondling, or engaging in horse play with a young boy in the shower”.
Where is the ambiguity in that? He had enough to go on.
edit - I realize I quoted the wrong initial post. I meant to respond to where you said we are all speculating on what Paterno knew.[/quote]
Is the direct grand jury testimony available? In the summary, in regards to what Paterno was told, the phrase “horse play” was not used.