BG, there is.a link the the college football thread about transparency you might like.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
BG, there is.a link the the college football thread about transparency you might like.[/quote]
Link it if you care to.
I’m very familiar with “transparency”; I worked for AIG in the wake of the Greenburg fuss and ouster.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
http://m.nypost.com/...eBlm9RSdr9zeutK
I suppose that if Sanduskys lawyer impregnated a gril who gave birth BEFORE her 18th birthday…he might have special input on how to defend a Pedo.
Holy shitballs this just keeps getting worse.[/quote]
I don’t mean to disrupt the flow here (lol) and let facts get in the way…but wtf…
Age of consent in PA is 16. She was “of age”. The lawyer did not break the law and the lawyer is not a “pedophile” under any reasonable analysis of the term properly defined. He fathered two children with the young lady, and they were later married, and then later divorced. The ex-mother-in-law describes him as a very loving father and made no negative statement about him.
I agree it’s troubling for a man in his late 40’s to take up with a teenager. However, it’s doesn’t fit “pedophile”. Pedophilia is generally a sexual interest in pre-pubescent childr[/quote]
Fair enough…
Legal, yes.
Creepy…most certainly.
But also, if you read the story he was the lawyer who handled her Emancipation from her parents.
Conflict of interest? Or just creepy.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The lawyer for Sandusky should be fired for letting him do that interview with Costas last night.
He just sounded turruble.
If somebody asks you if you are sexually attracted to young boys…you do not take 17 seconds to answer.[/quote]
I missed it, but how does that even go on air? [/quote]
Just a VERY bad move on his lawyers part…you are trying to muzzle him at this point, not trot him out on national television.[/quote]
Any merit to the idea that the lawyer is intentionally garnering media attention to set up his reason to excuse jurors who are too familiar with the case, in the event that the potential juror claims he/she can be impartial even though he/she is aware of the facts?
[/quote]
They don’t have much to lose.
I think he’s trying to get his guy’s side of the story out there. Really, what is the downside? The public sentiment against him cannot get any stronger.
He’s already claiming several of the “victims” will be denying the claims against him.
[/quote]
In the grand jury testimony Sandusky said that he could not recall the boy in the shower…then during the interview last night his lawyer said that they had spoken to the boy in question and that he was not pressing charges.
Is that perjury?
Senator Bob Casey wants a federal hearing into why PA does not require adults to report abuse.
Turns out you are required by law to report suspected child abuse in 18 states, unfortunately PA isn’t one of them.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The lawyer for Sandusky should be fired for letting him do that interview with Costas last night.
He just sounded turruble.
If somebody asks you if you are sexually attracted to young boys…you do not take 17 seconds to answer.[/quote]
I missed it, but how does that even go on air? [/quote]
Just a VERY bad move on his lawyers part…you are trying to muzzle him at this point, not trot him out on national television.[/quote]
Any merit to the idea that the lawyer is intentionally garnering media attention to set up his reason to excuse jurors who are too familiar with the case, in the event that the potential juror claims he/she can be impartial even though he/she is aware of the facts?
[/quote]
They don’t have much to lose.
I think he’s trying to get his guy’s side of the story out there. Really, what is the downside? The public sentiment against him cannot get any stronger.
He’s already claiming several of the “victims” will be denying the claims against him.
[/quote]
In the grand jury testimony Sandusky said that he could not recall the boy in the shower…then during the interview last night his lawyer said that they had spoken to the boy in question and that he was not pressing charges.
Is that perjury?[/quote]
tough to prove in this instance.
and if the words used were “can’t recall” then that leaves wiggle room.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The lawyer for Sandusky should be fired for letting him do that interview with Costas last night.
He just sounded turruble.
If somebody asks you if you are sexually attracted to young boys…you do not take 17 seconds to answer.[/quote]
I missed it, but how does that even go on air? [/quote]
Just a VERY bad move on his lawyers part…you are trying to muzzle him at this point, not trot him out on national television.[/quote]
Any merit to the idea that the lawyer is intentionally garnering media attention to set up his reason to excuse jurors who are too familiar with the case, in the event that the potential juror claims he/she can be impartial even though he/she is aware of the facts?
[/quote]
They don’t have much to lose.
I think he’s trying to get his guy’s side of the story out there. Really, what is the downside? The public sentiment against him cannot get any stronger.
He’s already claiming several of the “victims” will be denying the claims against him.
[/quote]
In the grand jury testimony Sandusky said that he could not recall the boy in the shower…then during the interview last night his lawyer said that they had spoken to the boy in question and that he was not pressing charges.
Is that perjury?[/quote]
and did he actually testify to a grand jury? or are they reading his statement into the record or some such thing?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The lawyer for Sandusky should be fired for letting him do that interview with Costas last night.
He just sounded turruble.
If somebody asks you if you are sexually attracted to young boys…you do not take 17 seconds to answer.[/quote]
I missed it, but how does that even go on air? [/quote]
Just a VERY bad move on his lawyers part…you are trying to muzzle him at this point, not trot him out on national television.[/quote]
Any merit to the idea that the lawyer is intentionally garnering media attention to set up his reason to excuse jurors who are too familiar with the case, in the event that the potential juror claims he/she can be impartial even though he/she is aware of the facts?
[/quote]
They don’t have much to lose.
I think he’s trying to get his guy’s side of the story out there. Really, what is the downside? The public sentiment against him cannot get any stronger.
He’s already claiming several of the “victims” will be denying the claims against him.
[/quote]
In the grand jury testimony Sandusky said that he could not recall the boy in the shower…then during the interview last night his lawyer said that they had spoken to the boy in question and that he was not pressing charges.
Is that perjury?[/quote]
and did he actually testify to a grand jury? or are they reading his statement into the record or some such thing? [/quote]
The multiple interviews that gave to investigators was read into the document.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The lawyer for Sandusky should be fired for letting him do that interview with Costas last night.
He just sounded turruble.
If somebody asks you if you are sexually attracted to young boys…you do not take 17 seconds to answer.[/quote]
I missed it, but how does that even go on air? [/quote]
Just a VERY bad move on his lawyers part…you are trying to muzzle him at this point, not trot him out on national television.[/quote]
Any merit to the idea that the lawyer is intentionally garnering media attention to set up his reason to excuse jurors who are too familiar with the case, in the event that the potential juror claims he/she can be impartial even though he/she is aware of the facts?
[/quote]
They don’t have much to lose.
I think he’s trying to get his guy’s side of the story out there. Really, what is the downside? The public sentiment against him cannot get any stronger.
He’s already claiming several of the “victims” will be denying the claims against him.
[/quote]
In the grand jury testimony Sandusky said that he could not recall the boy in the shower…then during the interview last night his lawyer said that they had spoken to the boy in question and that he was not pressing charges.
Is that perjury?[/quote]
and did he actually testify to a grand jury? or are they reading his statement into the record or some such thing? [/quote]
The multiple interviews that gave to investigators was read into the document.[/quote]
can’t be “perjury” then. perjury is lying under oath. you can be charged though for lying to federal authorities; I’m not sure about State. “I can’t recall” isn’t particularly a strong box-you-in kind of statement though.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
http://m.nypost.com/...eBlm9RSdr9zeutK
I suppose that if Sanduskys lawyer impregnated a gril who gave birth BEFORE her 18th birthday…he might have special input on how to defend a Pedo.
Holy shitballs this just keeps getting worse.[/quote]
I don’t mean to disrupt the flow here (lol) and let facts get in the way…but wtf…
Age of consent in PA is 16. She was “of age”. The lawyer did not break the law and the lawyer is not a “pedophile” under any reasonable analysis of the term properly defined. He fathered two children with the young lady, and they were later married, and then later divorced. The ex-mother-in-law describes him as a very loving father and made no negative statement about him.
I agree it’s troubling for a man in his late 40’s to take up with a teenager. However, it’s doesn’t fit “pedophile”. Pedophilia is generally a sexual interest in pre-pubescent childr[/quote]
LOL,
yeah I hate to go off topic, but this is sorta creepy. She is age of consent, and preggo, does anyone have any idea how long they have been in contact with each other?
Even at 16-17, I’d have to see what she looks like before drawing any conclusion about the lawyer having pedo tendencies like his employer does. What irony if so…
Penn State sex abuse scandal
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. A former Penn State graduate assistant cited by a grand jury report as claiming he saw an ex-assistant football coach sexually abusing a young boy in a campus locker room shower says in an email he made sure the act was stopped and then went to police contradicting what the report says.
Mike McQueary’s comments, in an email made available to The Associated Press on Tuesday, appeared to add more confusion to a scandal that has enveloped the university and resulted in the firing of head coach Joe Paterno, the ousting of president Graham Spanier and charges of perjury against the athletic director and a senior vice president.
McQueary, now the football team’s wide receivers coach, told a friend from Penn State that he made sure the 2002 shower assault he witnessed was stopped and went to the police about it. The friend made McQueary’s email, written Nov. 8, available to the AP on Tuesday on the condition he not be identified.
McQueary, who has been placed on administrative leave and did not coach in Saturday’s 17-14 loss to Nebraska, wrote: “I did stop it, not physically … but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room … I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police … no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds … trust me.”
Added McQueary: “Do with this what you want … but I am getting hammered for handling this the right way … or what I thought at the time was right … I had to make tough impacting quick decisions.”
According to the grand jury report, McQueary testified he spoke to his father and then to Paterno before speaking to athletic director Tim Curley and senior vice president Gary Schultz, who oversaw campus police. Paterno has not been charged with any crime, and state prosecutors have said he is not a target. Curley and Schultz are accused of breaking the law by not going to police but maintain their innocence.
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
http://m.nypost.com/...eBlm9RSdr9zeutK
I suppose that if Sanduskys lawyer impregnated a gril who gave birth BEFORE her 18th birthday…he might have special input on how to defend a Pedo.
Holy shitballs this just keeps getting worse.[/quote]
I don’t mean to disrupt the flow here (lol) and let facts get in the way…but wtf…
Age of consent in PA is 16. She was “of age”. The lawyer did not break the law and the lawyer is not a “pedophile” under any reasonable analysis of the term properly defined. He fathered two children with the young lady, and they were later married, and then later divorced. The ex-mother-in-law describes him as a very loving father and made no negative statement about him.
I agree it’s troubling for a man in his late 40’s to take up with a teenager. However, it’s doesn’t fit “pedophile”. Pedophilia is generally a sexual interest in pre-pubescent childr[/quote]
LOL,
yeah I hate to go off topic, but this is sorta creepy. She is age of consent, and preggo, does anyone have any idea how long they have been in contact with each other?
Even at 16-17, I’d have to see what she looks like before drawing any conclusion about the lawyer having pedo tendencies like his employer does. What irony if so…
[/quote]
Way to go American culture…
Shit like 16 and Pregnant is a statement on a ridiculous sub-culture that exists in numerous Western countries. And then you take a look at Asia (and possible the Middle-East) and shit is even more fucked up.
We live in a strange and melancholy world.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The lawyer for Sandusky should be fired for letting him do that interview with Costas last night.
He just sounded turruble.
If somebody asks you if you are sexually attracted to young boys…you do not take 17 seconds to answer.[/quote]
Who gives a shit about Sandusky’s lawyer or his legal defence. The man is going to jail where he belongs. It seems, from that interview, that Sandusky genuinely believes he didn’t do anything wrong. He almost sounds embarrassed that all this stuff is coming out and he’s actions are garnering such out cry. I’m guessing that’s the mentality of most paedophiles - they actually associate love with what they do. They don’t look at it from an external point of view because if they do they cannot live with themselves.
This whole situation kind of makes me believe Michael Jackson was really a paedophile.
Although this guy wasn’t abused by Sandusky, his abuse was ignored by Spanier.
[i]Now, one alleged victim of child sex abuse is speaking publicly about what he calls a culture of secrecy at Penn State.
When he first heard the allegations in the 40-count indictment of Sandusky, “I was enraged, very upset,” Paul McLaughlin said. The 45-year-old Arizona man said he was abused by a former Penn State professor and then ignored by university officials.
McLaughlin said he also brought forward concerns about abuse - unrelated to Sandusky, but instead about a special-education professor, who McLaughlin accused of abusing him when he was a boy in New Jersey.
In a civil lawsuit that McLaughlin later filed - and then settled - in the state of New Jersey, he details allegations of abuse by John T. Neisworth and a California man, Carl Geoke.
McLaughlin went to the dean of education, David Monk, and to then-president Spanier in early 2002. Both men, he said, brushed him off.
Spanier, Monk, Neisworth, Penn State in-house counsel Cynthia Baldwin and spokesman Bill Mahon could not be reached for this story.
Documents obtained by The Patriot-News support McLaughlin’s story.
“I have a tape where [Neisworth] admits the things he’d done,” McLaughlin said. "[Spanier] treated it like an extortion attempt. I told him my concern was solely to get him away from children." [/i]
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
EXCERPT
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2011-11/penn-state-scandal/story/email-tv-talk-add-new-twists-to-penn-state-case
Penn State sex abuse scandal
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. A former Penn State graduate assistant cited by a grand jury report as claiming he saw an ex-assistant football coach sexually abusing a young boy in a campus locker room shower says in an email he made sure the act was stopped and then went to police contradicting what the report says.
Mike McQueary’s comments, in an email made available to The Associated Press on Tuesday, appeared to add more confusion to a scandal that has enveloped the university and resulted in the firing of head coach Joe Paterno, the ousting of president Graham Spanier and charges of perjury against the athletic director and a senior vice president.
McQueary, now the football team’s wide receivers coach, told a friend from Penn State that he made sure the 2002 shower assault he witnessed was stopped and went to the police about it. The friend made McQueary’s email, written Nov. 8, available to the AP on Tuesday on the condition he not be identified.
McQueary, who has been placed on administrative leave and did not coach in Saturday’s 17-14 loss to Nebraska, wrote: “I did stop it, not physically … but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room … I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police … no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds … trust me.”
Added McQueary: “Do with this what you want … but I am getting hammered for handling this the right way … or what I thought at the time was right … I had to make tough impacting quick decisions.”
According to the grand jury report, McQueary testified he spoke to his father and then to Paterno before speaking to athletic director Tim Curley and senior vice president Gary Schultz, who oversaw campus police. Paterno has not been charged with any crime, and state prosecutors have said he is not a target. Curley and Schultz are accused of breaking the law by not going to police but maintain their innocence.
[/quote]
Like I’ve been saying…I want to know what Paterno knew and when…for precisely the reasons above, among others. A grand jury indictment is not the entire story. People need to testify and be cross-examined before we’ll have a more complete picture.
Sandusky’s lawyer allegedly impregnated a minor when he was 44. Some sick club these bastards are in.
[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
Sandusky’s lawyer allegedly impregnated a minor when he was 44. Some sick club these bastards are in.[/quote]
You got’s to read the thread brah…been discussing that for about 3 pages now.
[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
Sandusky’s lawyer allegedly impregnated a minor when he was 44. Some sick club these bastards are in.[/quote]
He didnt ‘allegedly’ impregnant his eventual WIFE. He DID impregnate her, twice.
Obviously, in the U.S., it’s abnormal for a 40 something year old to marry a 16-17 year old but the age of consent in PA is 16.
The age of consent in Mexico is 12 in many states/provinces/regions whatever. 14 for many European countries. Im sure someone can find a place where it’s even lower.
Judge the guy how you please, but it is not in the same universe as raping 20+ prepubescent boys.
Edit.
Canada raised the age of consent from 14 to 16.
Guess when
What’s your point again?
And by the way ladies and gents, some of which are over in PWI doing this thread injustice; there is a difference between grand jury SUMMARY and grand jury testimony. Most of you have been building your “arguments” and “logic” based upon the linked GRAND JURY SUMMARY - NOT TESTIMONY.
Huge difference.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And by the way ladies and gents, some of which are over in PWI doing this thread injustice; there is a difference between grand jury SUMMARY and grand jury testimony. Most of you have been building your “arguments” and “logic” based upon the linked GRAND JURY SUMMARY - NOT TESTIMONY.
Huge difference. [/quote]
Quite correct.
But I still maintain that the firing of Paterno was a moral issue not a legal one.
The leader has to take the fall when something this egregious happens under their watch, fair or not…the buck has to stop someplace.
And Paterno was the most powerful man at Penn State.