[quote]concrete wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]concrete wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]concrete wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
We have the benefit of HINDSIGHT and who wouldn’t do something different with the benefit of HINDSIGHT?
[/quote]
How can an adult male, given the facts in the grand jury summary, not have the FORESIGHT to realize that if appropriate action wasn’t taken, a sexual predator would continue to prey upon children? [/quote]
and if there was a cover-up, how do you know the limits of information did not extend to joe pa? do you know what he knew and when? he reported it. what if he was lead to believe afterward it was baseless? that doesn’t change your opinion about what he should or shouldn’t do?
it’s a simple concept. what did he know and WHEN. not with the benefit of HINDSIGHT. [/quote]
Granted, the information comes from the grand jury summary and not the actual transcripts of the testimony. Whoever composed the summary had to decide which facts to include and how to interpret them. There is certainly room for disagreement as to how this second hand account could be interpreted. I don’t think there is so much room that an interpretation that includes a justification for Paterno’s action can fit.
Curley and Schultz were questioned with regards to exactly what McQueary told them he had witnessed. There is no indication of any similar questioning of Paterno. There is mention of Paterno’s testimony as to what he told Curley had been reported to him by McQueary, not what Paterno testified McQueary told him. I don’t think that distinction is pedantic, it’s why he wasn’t charged with perjury.
The only mention of the contents of what McQueary told paterno is in a sentance on page 7:
“The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno’s home, where he reported what he saw.”
Exactly what McQuery reported isn’t known from the summary. Why wouldn’t someone make the natural inference Paterno was given the full details? The facts that it was the next morning and a Saturday, conveying some sense of urgency were included. Would McQueary have an urgency to give Paterno a watered down version of what he witnessed? If he did give a diminished version, wouldn’t there at least be some hint of it? it’s hard to believe the people responsible for the report were oblivious to the importance and ramifications of that sentence. It would have been composed with great care. Someone reading it can’t be oblivious to the political and career pressures weighing on the people responsible for it. That’s true for the entire summary, not just that particular sentence.
Also, there is this sentence from the Nov. 10 NY Times:
“A person familiar with his[McQueary’s] account said McQueary did not spare the details when he met with Paterno.”
The reliability of the source is not known, but it lends credence to the belief Paterno knew the details and McQuery did address what he reported to Paterno in his testimony.
From page 7 of the grand jury summary:
Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley [“Curley”], Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistanthad seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.
An aside, previous posters have mentioned McQueary may have been designated a “whistleblower”. The fact McQueary, unlike everyone else, except obviously the victims, is not named, the term “graduate assistant” is used, supports this.
In the quoted paragraph above, there are no specifics to " the graduate assistant’s report". The phrase “Paterno called Tim Curley… to his home” speaks to who has the real power in their relationship.
There is no mention of “horseplay”. You mentioned a chasm in an earlier post. I agree there is a critical chasm between “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy” and horseplay. On one side is the indefensible, on the other the plausibly defensible. There is no way the people responsible for the summary did not appreciated that chasm.If Paterno mentioned horseplay at that time it would be in the summary. “Horseplay” was only introduced in Paterno’s recent public statements. Under oath, Paterno only testified to the indefensible.
[/quote]
With respect, you just posted a wall of text to prove to me what I had already known and conceded; that Joe Pa was informed of the incident. It matters not to my argument exactly what he was told, including full or partial details. What matters to me is what Joe Pa was told when the University presumably completed it’s investigation (which we now know was more a review or cover-up). What we don’t know, and this has been my continuing point all along is whether or not Joe Pa was also misled. Again, what if Joe Pa was told it was a misunderstanding or unfounded?
I realize I’m speculating with my closing but so is concluding that Joe SHOULD have known and SHOULD have done more. I’m simply saying (again) we don’t know what he knew or when he knew it. I think his good body of work deserves a full airing of the facts before we rush to tear down a legend. And, if after that full airing, the man deserves to be torn down, I’ll lead the mob. I find it hard to believe that based upon his body of work, which IS considerable, that such a man would turn a blind eye to abuse.
I allow I could be wrong. But I also maintain we don’t yet know. [/quote]
I’ll try to be as concise as possible. If Joe Pa was misled, wouldn’t he have to have been misled to the conclusion that McQueary was, if not an outright liar, at best, unreliable in matters of critical importance? Yet Paterno promoted him the next year.
[/quote]
I’ll try to reciprocate; The above is speculation, which is the only thing you can engage in without the facts. I know that’s apparently very frustrating for the herd.
The only thing I’ve said is the man’s body of work, which is considerable, and the life he has lead, is wholly inconsistent with ignoring such a thing, condoning it, covering up, or looking the other way. Based on that considerable body of work and the life he has lead (which by the way is more than anyone in this thread criticizing him will ever accomplish), I will wait for full disclosure of the FACTS before I pass judgment on him.
