If BG wants to wait for all the information to come to light before making a decision I don’t see the problem.
He’ll just come to the decision most of us already have a little later.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The N.Y. Times with a really good article…this is why investigative writers are still around.
It is a good article. Good find. And it should illustrate for everyone how much we don’t know.
And, the Paterno culpability aside for a moment, I want to know how McQueery explains witnessing an assistance coach having anal sex with a young boy and he continues to work with him. He does not call police. He does not tell the world. Apparently, he continues on as if nothing happened?
Think about the above for a moment. You’re working. You see a superior having anal sex with a 10 year old. And then it’s back to work as normal for the next 10 years? C’mon Lucy…you got some splainin’ to do.
Shit don’t sound right.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I think I did admit my error there.
[/quote]
You didnt admit your error there but I’ll take the above as you admitting you were wrong
I didnt adress your clarification because I wasnt interested I what you said after you initially question what I said. I dont have any issues with wanting to know the facts. I never screwed any of that up… I just didnt address it because we hadnt worked out our initial exchange.
I did
so the part where it says “Joseph V. Paterno testified…” is not his testimony?
again with the attempts at patronizing posts and insults? I guess thats your thing.
I never said anything about a judgment being passed against Paterno. What I said is that he was told about the situation and that he would be fired because of all this.
[/quote]
Save the cut and reply for PWI. I shall not engage you as long as you use this tactic.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The N.Y. Times with a really good article…this is why investigative writers are still around.
It is a good article. Good find. And it should illustrate for everyone how much we don’t know.
And, the Paterno culpability aside for a moment, I want to know how McQueery explains witnessing an assistance coach having anal sex with a young boy and he continues to work with him. He does not call police. He does not tell the world. Apparently, he continues on as if nothing happened?
Think about the above for a moment. You’re working. You see a superior having anal sex with a 10 year old. And then it’s back to work as normal for the next 10 years? C’mon Lucy…you got some splainin’ to do.
Shit don’t sound right. [/quote]
Totally…once you saw him at the facility with OTHER children he should have gone straight to the police. He is just as at fault as Paterno.
Here Greg. Let’s play your game.
I believe this is you insisting that all the facts are indeed “in”. What more “facts” do you want you stated.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Trispeter wrote:
I have read it a couple of times actually, and its not really my spot to have any opinion on Sandusky… thats the job of the trial jury
in the end my opinion is the media is creating a firestorm before all the facts are in and the world needs to pull back and wait to see what the facts are in this case[/quote]
Wait until all the facts are in?
Sandusky admitted to the mother of victim #6 (while two police officers listened) that he inappropriately touched her son in the shower.
JoePa testified that he was told about the sexual abuse.
The Pres and AD testified that JoePa told them what he was told.
What more facts do you want?[/quote]
The following would be you SPECULATING what Paterno could have done, including banning a professor emeritus from the campus. You made this statement and conclusion again, without the knowledge of knowing what Joe knew and when.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[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]
This is you exhorting me to read the report, wherein you again trouble yourself by quoting a summary and presenting it as Joe Paterno’s “testimony” (which it is not). Nowhere is there a first person accounting of Joe’s testimony. It’s a summation.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
I think that there are two groups of people here…
- People who have read the report, are sickened by it and know that JoePa had to go
and
- People who havent read it yet.
“boy” “man” “shower” “inappropriate”… those words were told to JoePa, nothing else needs to be said.[/quote]
post the link. i’ll either admit i’m wrong or i’ll happily illustrate any lack of critical thinking as it relates to said document.
[/quote]
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf
Joe Paterno’s testimony is in the grand jury report that was in the very first post of this thread. Did you read the report? Are you in group number 2 from above?
“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 assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”
“Young Boy” = Boy
“Jerry Sandusky” = Man
“Lasch Building showers” = Shower
“Fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” = Inappropriate[/quote]
Here you are again, talking about “testimony” where there is no such thing. Again, I know it’s repetitive, but it bears repeating 
It’s a summary of testimony.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’ll say it again; I do not believe for one minute that Joe Pa knew abuse was occurring and turned a blind eye. I don’t buy it. If however, after a full airing of the FACTS in this case, it points to Joe Pa knowing, I’ll lead the lynch mob.
I don’t know how many times I can repeat the same fucking thing.
[/quote]
What the hell are you even talking about? You can’t be this dense, you have to be trolling at this point.
You don’t believe for one minute that JoePa knew about abuse and turned a blind eye? He was told (he testified to this) that he was told by McQueary that Sandusky was fondling a young boy in the shower. JoePa continues to tolerate the presence of Sandusky for almost another decade. How is that not turning a blind eye?[/quote]
This would be you again, citing “testimonies” and begging me to admit some error. I’ll say again, where is my error? You have no testimony, only a summary. A summary which does NOT address my point all along…“WHAT DID JOE KNOW AND WHEN”. In case you weren’t paying attention for the “about 20 pages”, this has always been my point.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’ll say it again; I do not believe for one minute that Joe Pa knew abuse was occurring and turned a blind eye. I don’t buy it. If however, after a full airing of the FACTS in this case, it points to Joe Pa knowing, I’ll lead the lynch mob.
I don’t know how many times I can repeat the same fucking thing.
[/quote]
What the hell are you even talking about? You can’t be this dense, you have to be trolling at this point.
You don’t believe for one minute that JoePa knew about abuse and turned a blind eye? He was told (he testified to this) that he was told by McQueary that Sandusky was fondling a young boy in the shower. JoePa continues to tolerate the presence of Sandusky for almost another decade. How is that not turning a blind eye?[/quote]
Now who’s being dense? I’ve said this before…many times now…maybe you’re trolling (as usual), or, you’re not as cute/clever as you fancy yourself…I’ve said, more than once…
And what was Joe Pa told of the results of any such investigation? We don’t know. What if it was reported back to him that it was “unfounded” or a misunderstanding or something less than what it really wa? What we do know, is it is alleged that his superiors engaged in a cover-up. What if Paterno was similarly misled? Paterno IS a witness for the prosecution. He runs a national D1 football program. Are you going to argue he should have spearheaded the investigation too? Or was it unreasonable to rely upon the University to conduct an appropriate investigation? Answer.
Again, I want to know what he knew, and when.
[/quote]
LOL… You try so hard BG. I thought you were going to admit you were wrong (about 20 pages ago) when I posted the testimonies from the report… But That hasn’t happened. You’re just scrambling trying to grasp onto anything you can to try and “save face”. It’s just the Internet… No harm in admitting you’re wrong (like you said you would)[/quote]
This is you claiming you provided some “proof” to address my questions and addressing my point which was …da da da…“what did joe know and when”. You still maintain your summary did that. It did not. Sorry. Are you “trying to hard”…or just trying hard to miss the point?
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
There are still people here, when confronted with the FACT that THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY FACTS, building arguments (speculation really) on a house of cards. But don’t worry, so-called “journalists” are doing the same thing so it must be right :)[/quote]
you have “said from the beginning” that you “want to know what Joe Pa knew and when.”
I said “the words ‘man’ ‘boy’ ‘show’ and ‘inappropriate’ were told to Joe and thats all he needed to know” the day after the incident happened (and gave the reference you asked for… two separate times)
You said that you wanted me to produce some proof the above and that you’d admit you were wrong about joe pa not knowing or gladly refute the evidence that wasnt actually evidence (which were two different peoples testimonies, one of which was Joe Pa himself)
Then you disappeared from the thread for a few pages, completely skipped over actually addressing my posts (which you asked me for) and came back with an attempt to insult me (which is exactly what happened in one of the “F the police” threads that we ‘debated’ in)
Do you want me to quote those posts for you?[/quote]
No GregRon, I’m quoting them for you.
This is you again missing the mark by a mile. You keep quoting a summary, and representing it as testimony. And you keep hammering away (or your head into a wall, I don’t know which) about what was reported to Joe by McQueery, when my REPEATED point for …oh about “20 pages” is wanting to know what Joe knew and when AFTER the report. Get it?
[quote]gregron wrote:
again with attempt at personal attacks. I never went after you in any thread (which if I had would apparently make me a “dick rider”). I just answered your question and you got butt hurt like you seem to do quite a bit.
the parts of the SUMMARY that I quoted were TESTIMONIES. You said you didnt believe that Joe Pa knew those pieces of information. I quoted where Joe Pa and Schultz TESTIFIED that they did have that info.
Hater? thats funny coming from you. You’ve tried to come at me personally several times and in different threads before this. They seem to always end with you getting frustrated and trying to drag me into your game of insults.
again you just cant ever admit that you were/are wrong… even when you said that you would.
I dont expect you to actually respond to what I said in the quoted posts… that seems to be your style, so feel free to commence with your insults and patronizing posts.[/quote]
I think this pretty much leaves us at an impasse. You like to quote, and then cherry pick, instead of attempting to have a reasonable, intelligent debate. Wake me up when you want one.
I will not repeat MY position. I have made my position so abundantly clear, a caveman from fucking GEICO could understand it. If you want to debate MY position, please proceed. Otherwise, stop wasting our time and bicker with someone else.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The N.Y. Times with a really good article…this is why investigative writers are still around.
It is a good article. Good find. And it should illustrate for everyone how much we don’t know.
And, the Paterno culpability aside for a moment, I want to know how McQueery explains witnessing an assistance coach having anal sex with a young boy and he continues to work with him. He does not call police. He does not tell the world. Apparently, he continues on as if nothing happened?
Think about the above for a moment. You’re working. You see a superior having anal sex with a 10 year old. And then it’s back to work as normal for the next 10 years? C’mon Lucy…you got some splainin’ to do.
Shit don’t sound right. [/quote]
Totally…once you saw him at the facility with OTHER children he should have gone straight to the police. He is just as at fault as Paterno.[/quote]
Whoa.
“Just as at fault as Paterno”?
On what planet? Paterno did not witness the alleged molestation. Paterno took the report, and sent it up the chain. What’s key to Paterno is what was Paterno informed of thereafter. What was Paterno told, if anything, as to the outcome of any investigation? Did McQueery and Paterno speak of it ever again? There is so much WE DON’T KNOW.
In other words, Paterno could have been informed it was unfounded. McQueery can claim no such thing. Either McQueery witnessed anal sex or he witnessed “horsing around”. And let’s not pretend that McQueery’s testimony will be unchallenged. There are at least two men that will challenge it. And I don’t know about you, but from where I sit, a man that claims he witnessed anal sex and a 10 year old and remains silent for 10 years about it is just not credible in my book. His story may turn out to be true, but it’s a damn fantastic story.
Anyway, we’re a far cry from knowing enough to say what Paterno’s culpability is or isn’t. However, McQueery’s claims, even if accepted at face value, renders his lack of action inexcusable.
Paterno and mcqueeny were fucking the kids too…fucking duh
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The N.Y. Times with a really good article…this is why investigative writers are still around.
It is a good article. Good find. And it should illustrate for everyone how much we don’t know.
And, the Paterno culpability aside for a moment, I want to know how McQueery explains witnessing an assistance coach having anal sex with a young boy and he continues to work with him. He does not call police. He does not tell the world. Apparently, he continues on as if nothing happened?
Think about the above for a moment. You’re working. You see a superior having anal sex with a 10 year old. And then it’s back to work as normal for the next 10 years? C’mon Lucy…you got some splainin’ to do.
Shit don’t sound right. [/quote]
Totally…once you saw him at the facility with OTHER children he should have gone straight to the police. He is just as at fault as Paterno.[/quote]
Whoa.
“Just as at fault as Paterno”?
On what planet? Paterno did not witness the alleged molestation. Paterno took the report, and sent it up the chain. What’s key to Paterno is what was Paterno informed of thereafter. What was Paterno told, if anything, as to the outcome of any investigation? Did McQueery and Paterno speak of it ever again? There is so much WE DON’T KNOW.
In other words, Paterno could have been informed it was unfounded. McQueery can claim no such thing. Either McQueery witnessed anal sex or he witnessed “horsing around”. And let’s not pretend that McQueery’s testimony will be unchallenged. There are at least two men that will challenge it. And I don’t know about you, but from where I sit, a man that claims he witnessed anal sex and a 10 year old and remains silent for 10 years about it is just not credible in my book. His story may turn out to be true, but it’s a damn fantastic story.
Anyway, we’re a far cry from knowing enough to say what Paterno’s culpability is or isn’t. However, McQueery’s claims, even if accepted at face value, renders his lack of action inexcusable. [/quote]
Agreed the McQuery is very much at fault…but here is the root of our disagreement. Paterno is the highest authority in the Program IF NOT THE SCHOOL. He must do more than the MINIMUM to ensure the safety of his program and the children that were abused after 2002.
To me it’s that simple, minimum effort is not enough.
His own testimony shows that he knew enough to not let the matter go…the minimum cover-your-own-ass pass the buck is not enough for a legendary leader of men.
I’m sure you are going to say WHEN DID HE KNOW?? He knew in 2002…the latest victims (as per the N.Y. Times) to come forward were in the football facility with Sandusky as late as 2008.
He is going to get sued civilly…hence him putting assets in his wife’s name…he knows its coming.
Paterno was not in charge of Sandusky in 2002 , Curley was. Also there is “leaked actual”, rumored to be Paterno’s actual testimony where he actually followed up repeatedly and was rebuffed .
This is a rumor so I classify it as speculation , but if so there are many people who will look incredibly stupid. Supposed reason Paterno hasn’t spoke out yet. He still has to testify in the trial. Duhhhh.
I’ll try to link the site .
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=8279380&p=1
Again, this is a rumor. But it’s as credible or more so than speculation or guessing. This is what I expect a guy who just won a national championship and goes into a board of trustees meeting and demands upgrades in the library and academic facilities . They did rename the library after him. He’s donated 3.5 million plus to the university . And not football , academic facilities
So let’s see how the actual testimony goes and we’ll have that truth thing.
Again, we do not know yet all these details. Summation as opposed to actual testimony. But Paterno is not on trial here. Curley is . Schultz is. Him speaking out now will not help and could potentially hurt the case. Why do you think the AG’s office say his firing was potentially troubling?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The N.Y. Times with a really good article…this is why investigative writers are still around.
It is a good article. Good find. And it should illustrate for everyone how much we don’t know.
And, the Paterno culpability aside for a moment, I want to know how McQueery explains witnessing an assistance coach having anal sex with a young boy and he continues to work with him. He does not call police. He does not tell the world. Apparently, he continues on as if nothing happened?
Think about the above for a moment. You’re working. You see a superior having anal sex with a 10 year old. And then it’s back to work as normal for the next 10 years? C’mon Lucy…you got some splainin’ to do.
Shit don’t sound right. [/quote]
Totally…once you saw him at the facility with OTHER children he should have gone straight to the police. He is just as at fault as Paterno.[/quote]
Whoa.
“Just as at fault as Paterno”?
On what planet? Paterno did not witness the alleged molestation. Paterno took the report, and sent it up the chain. What’s key to Paterno is what was Paterno informed of thereafter. What was Paterno told, if anything, as to the outcome of any investigation? Did McQueery and Paterno speak of it ever again? There is so much WE DON’T KNOW.
In other words, Paterno could have been informed it was unfounded. McQueery can claim no such thing. Either McQueery witnessed anal sex or he witnessed “horsing around”. And let’s not pretend that McQueery’s testimony will be unchallenged. There are at least two men that will challenge it. And I don’t know about you, but from where I sit, a man that claims he witnessed anal sex and a 10 year old and remains silent for 10 years about it is just not credible in my book. His story may turn out to be true, but it’s a damn fantastic story.
Anyway, we’re a far cry from knowing enough to say what Paterno’s culpability is or isn’t. However, McQueery’s claims, even if accepted at face value, renders his lack of action inexcusable. [/quote]
Agreed the McQuery is very much at fault…but here is the root of our disagreement. Paterno is the highest authority in the Program IF NOT THE SCHOOL. He must do more than the MINIMUM to ensure the safety of his program and the children that were abused after 2002.
To me it’s that simple, minimum effort is not enough.
His own testimony shows that he knew enough to not let the matter go…the minimum cover-your-own-ass pass the buck is not enough for a legendary leader of men.
I’m sure you are going to say WHEN DID HE KNOW?? He knew in 2002…the latest victims (as per the N.Y. Times) to come forward were in the football facility with Sandusky as late as 2008.
He is going to get sued civilly…hence him putting assets in his wife’s name…he knows its coming.[/quote]
LOL @ “I shall not engage you as long as you are using this tactic” and then scouring through 33 pages to pick out my quotes and address them one by one.
And you say I’m the “dick rider” and “hater”? LOLOLOL
You’re a funny guy BG. At least you managed to keep the insults and patronization to a minimum.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The N.Y. Times with a really good article…this is why investigative writers are still around.
It is a good article. Good find. And it should illustrate for everyone how much we don’t know.
And, the Paterno culpability aside for a moment, I want to know how McQueery explains witnessing an assistance coach having anal sex with a young boy and he continues to work with him. He does not call police. He does not tell the world. Apparently, he continues on as if nothing happened?
Think about the above for a moment. You’re working. You see a superior having anal sex with a 10 year old. And then it’s back to work as normal for the next 10 years? C’mon Lucy…you got some splainin’ to do.
Shit don’t sound right. [/quote]
Totally…once you saw him at the facility with OTHER children he should have gone straight to the police. He is just as at fault as Paterno.[/quote]
Whoa.
“Just as at fault as Paterno”?
On what planet? Paterno did not witness the alleged molestation. Paterno took the report, and sent it up the chain. What’s key to Paterno is what was Paterno informed of thereafter. What was Paterno told, if anything, as to the outcome of any investigation? Did McQueery and Paterno speak of it ever again? There is so much WE DON’T KNOW.
In other words, Paterno could have been informed it was unfounded. McQueery can claim no such thing. Either McQueery witnessed anal sex or he witnessed “horsing around”. And let’s not pretend that McQueery’s testimony will be unchallenged. There are at least two men that will challenge it. And I don’t know about you, but from where I sit, a man that claims he witnessed anal sex and a 10 year old and remains silent for 10 years about it is just not credible in my book. His story may turn out to be true, but it’s a damn fantastic story.
Anyway, we’re a far cry from knowing enough to say what Paterno’s culpability is or isn’t. However, McQueery’s claims, even if accepted at face value, renders his lack of action inexcusable. [/quote]
Agreed the McQuery is very much at fault…but here is the root of our disagreement. Paterno is the highest authority in the Program IF NOT THE SCHOOL. He must do more than the MINIMUM to ensure the safety of his program and the children that were abused after 2002.
To me it’s that simple, minimum effort is not enough.
His own testimony shows that he knew enough to not let the matter go…the minimum cover-your-own-ass pass the buck is not enough for a legendary leader of men.
I’m sure you are going to say WHEN DID HE KNOW?? He knew in 2002…the latest victims (as per the N.Y. Times) to come forward were in the football facility with Sandusky as late as 2008.
He is going to get sued civilly…hence him putting assets in his wife’s name…he knows its coming.[/quote]
What you wrote above is proof you don’t get where I’m coming from. What we DO NOT KNOW is what was reported back to him as a result of his report. Get it?
[quote]gregron wrote:
LOL @ “I shall not engage you as long as you are using this tactic” and then scouring through 33 pages to pick out my quotes and address them one by one.
And you say I’m the “dick rider” and “hater”? LOLOLOL
You’re a funny guy BG. At least you managed to keep the insults and patronization to a minimum.[/quote]
let me know when you have an actual cogent point you can make. do you have one? or do you just get your jollies by nitpicking and bickering?
going through 15 or so pages was the ONLY way to shut you up. your tactic is to cherry pick shit from pages ago, and then count on everyone’s short memory and the person’s not wanting to be bothered with going back thru pages of your drivel and quoting it back to set the record straight.
now that we got that out of the way…i double fucking dare you to actually express a point or counterpoint. do it in a single paragraph. do it without relying on anything i said.
the only thing funny is someone with no grasp of logic or debate trying to argue a point. you’re not even arguing a point. you’re bickering. you confuse bickering with actually making a point.
i won’t hold my breath.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
He still has to testify in the trial. Duhhhh.
.[/quote]
fucking exactly. although i’ve mentioned more than once now that Joe is a witness for the PROSECUTION, it appears to be wholly lost on most people here. like a herd of sheep, all they can do in response is “baaah” (like sheep) that “but he was the most powerful, the almighty, the head groundskeeper in charge and he should have done MOAR!!!”.
at the end of the day, he may be culpable, morally or otherwise. that day is not yet here. not without ALL the facts and testimony. at best, he was “captain of the ship” and it happened on his watch and for that, he must be fired.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
He is going to get sued civilly…hence him putting assets in his wife’s name…he knows its coming.[/quote]
before you go running with the conspiracy thing let me clarify a few things for you.
first, it’s difficult to shield your assets in such a profane manner. any such attempt would most certainly be challenged.
next, Paterno was acting within the course and scope of his employment for the University. therefore, he is covered under the University coverage which probably provides staggering limits of coverage. he has not been charged with any crime or intentional conduct (about the only argument that could be made to expose him personally and leave him unshielded by the University policy) so it’s very probable he will face no “personal exposure”.
if he really wanted to liquidate his assets he could have done better than just deed it to the wife.
Hold onto your hats boys and girls . Syracuse basketball is facing the same thing. Let’s see how espn handles this. And the rest of the media.
A former ball boy is alleging abuse by assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine. Let’s see the wild ass speculation now.
IMO you’re going to see a lot more of this coming to light,
[quote]tom63 wrote:
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=8279380&p=1
Again, this is a rumor. But it’s as credible or more so than speculation or guessing. This is what I expect a guy who just won a national championship and goes into a board of trustees meeting and demands upgrades in the library and academic facilities . They did rename the library after him. He’s donated 3.5 million plus to the university . And not football , academic facilities
So let’s see how the actual testimony goes and we’ll have that truth thing.[/quote]
I think the above link is better served quoted in it’s entirety:
"If this rumor turns out to be true I will be extremely angry.
For the non-facebookers:
“the rumor mill says that the grand jury testimony shows (not appearing in the indictment since these are not facts relevant to the indictments of sandusky, cey, schultz) that 3 days after mcqueary’s meeting with cey/schultz, paterno followed up and was told that a full investigation was occurring. having heard nothing, approx. 3 months later, paterno followed up again and was told that the police and the DA were not going to pursue the matter. It is reported that Paterno’s reaction was one of anger and that he demanded that Sandusky be barred from campus. Paterno was told that he didn’t have that authority as the football coach. Paterno then said he was going to bar Sandusky from all football facilities and was told that he did have that authority. (4th hand from the AG’s office. Assign veracity accordingly.)”
Now, granted this is a “rumor”. It’s “speculation” no better than the speculation that I’ve been shooting down in this thread. However, the above scenario is EXACTLY why I stated I want to know what Joe knew and when - what was reported BACK to Joe, etc.
If the above rumor were true, and it doesn’t change your mind about Joe, you’re just intent on tearing down an icon for the sake of doing so.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
A former ball boy is alleging abuse by assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine. Let’s see the wild ass speculation now.
IMO you’re going to see a lot more of this coming to light,[/quote]
I’m glad these guys are finding the courage to finally speak out. I can’t even imagine the shame and embarassment I would feel if that had happened to me.
I talked to my dad about PSU last week and he said he wasn’t terribly shocked. He used to work for an insurance company that insured the YMCA. He said he dealt with hundreds of these types of claims. Pedos gravitate towards these types of positions. He also said 90% of the cases were men abusing boys. Girl victims were much rarer.