WTF Penn State?!?!?!

Off Topic
981

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Something I read today can sum up some of our differences in a concise paragraph. This is what I was alluding to when I made reference to how things can look with the benefit of hindsight, instead of evaluating an event on its merits as it is occurring, in real time, with imperfect information. The following was written in reference to 9/11 conspiracy theories. You can easily apply it to “PSU conspiracy theories”.

“Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not.”[/quote]

Very true. I’ll admit I’m biased towards Joe Paterno. But biased doesn’t mean waiting to actually see what happens in a trial before judging him is wrong . Espn had the audiotape of an alleged victim talking to Bernie Fiine’s wife but did nothing. They are quick to point out that they were under no legal responsibility to forward the tape to the police. However they were quick to judge Paterno as having some huge moral failing for ratings . That’s were I have a huge problem.

A few posts up I linked an article by a legal scholar on Paterno 's role. No one likes these messy details thingies . There was wrong committed here, the worst by Sandusky . But it’s hard to tell when you see the average news story.[/quote]

Well, I’m not biased for him or against him. I’m having a hard time though reconciling his well documented body of work with the allegation that he didn’t do enough, or turned a blind eye. That’s just inconsistent with the way he lived his life. So, I want to know the full facts. I would think that’s just common sense.

When someone has done a thing all his life a certain way, and someone comes along and claims something completely out of character against the guy, most reasonable people would want the man to have his day in court. They’d want all the facts, and they’d want to hear his side of the deal. Instead, you have people manufacturing culpability from news bites, sound bites and a grand jury summary.

I also don’t believe in the “sainthood” of Joe Pa and if anyone here did, they believe in the tooth fairy too. You see them here now, relishing pointing out the man’s bias for his players during bad behavior or how he ruled his program and wielded his influence. There are no Division 1 saints at any major college sport. They all try to shield their players and all exert their influence. But his record, the entirety of it, was far superior to most.

I also do not believe a conspiracy occurred. You’d be hard pressed to find ONE man willing to “look the other way” and allow a predator to ply his trade under your nose, let alone the half-dozen or so required to make such a “conspiracy” work at PSU. As I said earlier, I know such a man surely exists, but a half-dozen of them at the same institution do not. To posit that PSU football required protecting or that Paterno’s legacy might be tarnished is laughable. There’s likely a pervert at Harvard right now. And the day he gets exposed, Harvard will continue being Harvard.

This puzzle is far from complete. There are far too many missing pieces. I say let the process occur and when it’s complete, we can start tying nooses and searching for good strong tree limbs if need be. I think at the end of the day, what we’re going to find is that only one noose is needed - the one for Sandusky. And I think we’re going to find that McQueery equivocated and that a series of misjudgments and negligence occurred over the years. That’s my guess. No cover up.

982

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Something I read today can sum up some of our differences in a concise paragraph. This is what I was alluding to when I made reference to how things can look with the benefit of hindsight, instead of evaluating an event on its merits as it is occurring, in real time, with imperfect information. The following was written in reference to 9/11 conspiracy theories. You can easily apply it to “PSU conspiracy theories”.

“Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not.”[/quote]

Very true. I’ll admit I’m biased towards Joe Paterno. But biased doesn’t mean waiting to actually see what happens in a trial before judging him is wrong . Espn had the audiotape of an alleged victim talking to Bernie Fiine’s wife but did nothing. They are quick to point out that they were under no legal responsibility to forward the tape to the police. However they were quick to judge Paterno as having some huge moral failing for ratings . That’s were I have a huge problem.

[/quote]

I don’t think ANYBODY is disagreeing with you here.

ESPN covered themselves legally, but are on the hook MORALLY if any abuse happened after 02’ ESPN and the Syracuse paper are very much on the hook going forward in this regard.

Paterno covered himself legally by talking to his superiors, but would be on the hook for not doing everything in his power to make sure that Sandusky was not allowed anywhere near his area of influence…after being told by his ex-quarterback that Sandusky was raping a child in the locker room.

Nobody is saying that Paterno is ANYWHERE on the same planet as Sandusky.

But with great power comes great responsibility.

983

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I’m not letting the University off the hook. But you’d know that if you read the thread and I’m not going to repeat my already well documented position about the affair. Suffice it to say that I do not disagree in principle with what you have written. But I do think any judgement concerning Paterno should be reserved until we have all the facts - meaning we know what he was told, and when, and what was reported back to him.

At the end of the day, and what everyone is ignoring - is that the man reported up the chain of command the VERY NEXT DAY regarding a man he worked very closely with for over 20 years. That is not the action of a man wishing to engage in a “cover-up” or “look the other way”. Before or if you retort the foregoing, I dare you to do so WITHOUT SPECULATING. I’m saying we simply do not know. And I’m also willing to be “wrong”. But we don’t know that yet.
[/quote]

To be honest, and maybe I feel this way because I haven’t been immersed in the college football culture over there but I could give two shits about Joe Paterno. I start with Sandusky and move onwards from there. To me, this whole incident, however damaging to Paterno’s reputation and legacy was a gateway for Paterno to leave the PSU football program. People were already saying he was overdue on his coaching career, this was just that final push that sealed his fate.

984

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Something I read today can sum up some of our differences in a concise paragraph. This is what I was alluding to when I made reference to how things can look with the benefit of hindsight, instead of evaluating an event on its merits as it is occurring, in real time, with imperfect information. The following was written in reference to 9/11 conspiracy theories. You can easily apply it to “PSU conspiracy theories”.

“Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not.”[/quote]

Very true. I’ll admit I’m biased towards Joe Paterno. But biased doesn’t mean waiting to actually see what happens in a trial before judging him is wrong . Espn had the audiotape of an alleged victim talking to Bernie Fiine’s wife but did nothing. They are quick to point out that they were under no legal responsibility to forward the tape to the police. However they were quick to judge Paterno as having some huge moral failing for ratings . That’s were I have a huge problem.

[/quote]

I don’t think ANYBODY is disagreeing with you here.

ESPN covered themselves legally, but are on the hook MORALLY if any abuse happened after 02’ ESPN and the Syracuse paper are very much on the hook going forward in this regard.

Paterno covered himself legally by talking to his superiors, but would be on the hook for not doing everything in his power to make sure that Sandusky was not allowed anywhere near his area of influence…after being told by his ex-quarterback that Sandusky was raping a child in the locker room.

Nobody is saying that Paterno is ANYWHERE on the same planet as Sandusky.

But with great power comes great responsibility.[/quote]

Here we go again. You keep falling into the same fallacious trap when you try to make a case against Paterno. The FACT IS you DO NOT know WHAT McQueery told Paterno and we do not know what was reported back to Paterno after he made his report. We really know NOTHING of Paterno’s involvement or knowledge of this matter after the report. NOTHING.

I know you understand this, yet you keep repeating your illogical mistake.

We cannot accept as GOSPEL what McQueery is now claiming as summarized by the grand jury summary. He’s going to have A LOT to explain for claiming he witnessed what he is now apparently claiming, and why he continued working there, silently. Two men stand against him. We have NOTHING other than a grand jury summary to determine who is telling the truth. Those things tend to be decided at TRIAL, with testimony, and CROSS EXAMINATION so that a jury or judge may weigh CREDIBILITY.

What do you supposed might happen to your opinions if McQueery is less than credible? If McQueery equivocated at any time while recounting what he allegedly witnessed? Ever think that maybe it was McQueery himself that did the hemming and hawing in a misguided effort to protect Sandusky? What if victim 2 does NOT corroborate McQueery’s claims? What say you then? Because as it concerns Paterno’s culpability, legal moral or otherwise, it rises and falls around victim 2 and ONLY victim 2.

985

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Something I read today can sum up some of our differences in a concise paragraph. This is what I was alluding to when I made reference to how things can look with the benefit of hindsight, instead of evaluating an event on its merits as it is occurring, in real time, with imperfect information. The following was written in reference to 9/11 conspiracy theories. You can easily apply it to “PSU conspiracy theories”.

“Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not.”[/quote]

Very true. I’ll admit I’m biased towards Joe Paterno. But biased doesn’t mean waiting to actually see what happens in a trial before judging him is wrong . Espn had the audiotape of an alleged victim talking to Bernie Fiine’s wife but did nothing. They are quick to point out that they were under no legal responsibility to forward the tape to the police. However they were quick to judge Paterno as having some huge moral failing for ratings . That’s were I have a huge problem.

A few posts up I linked an article by a legal scholar on Paterno 's role. No one likes these messy details thingies . There was wrong committed here, the worst by Sandusky . But it’s hard to tell when you see the average news story.[/quote]

Well, I’m not biased for him or against him. I’m having a hard time though reconciling his well documented body of work with the allegation that he didn’t do enough, or turned a blind eye. That’s just inconsistent with the way he lived his life. So, I want to know the full facts. I would think that’s just common sense.

When someone has done a thing all his life a certain way, and someone comes along and claims something completely out of character against the guy, most reasonable people would want the man to have his day in court. They’d want all the facts, and they’d want to hear his side of the deal. Instead, you have people manufacturing culpability from news bites, sound bites and a grand jury summary.

I also don’t believe in the “sainthood” of Joe Pa and if anyone here did, they believe in the tooth fairy too. You see them here now, relishing pointing out the man’s bias for his players during bad behavior or how he ruled his program and wielded his influence. There are no Division 1 saints at any major college sport. They all try to shield their players and all exert their influence. But his record, the entirety of it, was far superior to most.

I also do not believe a conspiracy occurred. You’d be hard pressed to find ONE man willing to “look the other way” and allow a predator to ply his trade under your nose, let alone the half-dozen or so required to make such a “conspiracy” work at PSU. As I said earlier, I know such a man surely exists, but a half-dozen of them at the same institution do not. To posit that PSU football required protecting or that Paterno’s legacy might be tarnished is laughable. There’s likely a pervert at Harvard right now. And the day he gets exposed, Harvard will continue being Harvard.

This puzzle is far from complete. There are far too many missing pieces. I say let the process occur and when it’s complete, we can start tying nooses and searching for good strong tree limbs if need be. I think at the end of the day, what we’re going to find is that only one noose is needed - the one for Sandusky. And I think we’re going to find that McQueery equivocated and that a series of misjudgments and negligence occurred over the years. That’s my guess. No cover up.

[/quote]

What I fear is that we (US sheeple) get to wrapped up in the circumstantial peripheral part of this whole mess. Joe Pa and PSU are actually just a side deal, the true problem and issue is the Pedophile himself. This fucker needs to die, cause yes the facts may not be totally in yet but like your own analogy no way that this many men come forward with allegations saying the same thing. There is no witch hunt going on.

986

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I’m not letting the University off the hook. But you’d know that if you read the thread and I’m not going to repeat my already well documented position about the affair. Suffice it to say that I do not disagree in principle with what you have written. But I do think any judgement concerning Paterno should be reserved until we have all the facts - meaning we know what he was told, and when, and what was reported back to him.

At the end of the day, and what everyone is ignoring - is that the man reported up the chain of command the VERY NEXT DAY regarding a man he worked very closely with for over 20 years. That is not the action of a man wishing to engage in a “cover-up” or “look the other way”. Before or if you retort the foregoing, I dare you to do so WITHOUT SPECULATING. I’m saying we simply do not know. And I’m also willing to be “wrong”. But we don’t know that yet.
[/quote]

To be honest, and maybe I feel this way because I haven’t been immersed in the college football culture over there but I could give two shits about Joe Paterno. I start with Sandusky and move onwards from there. To me, this whole incident, however damaging to Paterno’s reputation and legacy was a gateway for Paterno to leave the PSU football program. People were already saying he was overdue on his coaching career, this was just that final push that sealed his fate.[/quote]

I’m not immersed in it either. I don’t think I’ve ever watched a college football game start to finish. Ever.

As for Paterno needing a final push as you say, the man figuratively BUILT PSU (and the football program) to what it is today. You need to understand what PSU was prior to that football program, what it is now, and the money it generates for the University and the State. Not only that, but the reputation, resources and education at PSU all benefited. You remove Joe Paterno and football, you do not have present day PSU. It’s that simple. And it’s not an exaggeration. If anyone deserved and earned the right to leave on his own terms (before this scandal), it was Joe Paterno.

987

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

What I fear is that we (US sheeple) get to wrapped up in the circumstantial peripheral part of this whole mess. Joe Pa and PSU are actually just a side deal, the true problem and issue is the Pedophile himself. This fucker needs to die, cause yes the facts may not be totally in yet but like your own analogy no way that this many men come forward with allegations saying the same thing. There is no witch hunt going on. [/quote]

Very poignant and agreed.

If this were a child or two, I’d say this comes with the territory of the work he did. He’s NOT working with model kids. These are troubled children from less than stellar backgrounds and unfortunately, an allegation like this could come with the territory which is why I wonder why anyone in their right mind would bother, as worthy and important such work is. And a bit of this mentality may have been a theme when the first allegation did not result in any further prosecution and may have set the stage for any negligence that followed by those involved.

At the end of the day though, there is too much smoke around Sandusky for there not to be some fire. He deserves his day in court, but unlike anyone else involved, I’m quite comfortable with HIS guilt.

988

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Its funny uou mentioned harvard . My sister and I talked about this case a lot over the last three weeks. She attended Harvard from 1987- 1991. She said she knew of a Nobel Laureate who was know to adopt foreign boys and pay for their college education . He was reputed to be a child molester from what she told me. Nothing was ever done. These people are everywhere.

Today a patient told me she had heard of her son’s friend bring molested by a prominent member of their small town . The boy is right years old, doesn’t know who his father is , has a mentally ill/ drug addicted mother, but is now bring raised by his grandmother . She told me the lady is trying but not the best and brightest to be kind. The grandson told her but she never reported it. My patient is trying to go through the channels correctly so this is taken care of and the boy is helped.

Prominent scholar , big time coach and big time charity guy, white trash small town “prominent citizen”. They are everywhere people. I’ve experienced it, and know of others personally .

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Something I read today can sum up some of our differences in a concise paragraph. This is what I was alluding to when I made reference to how things can look with the benefit of hindsight, instead of evaluating an event on its merits as it is occurring, in real time, with imperfect information. The following was written in reference to 9/11 conspiracy theories. You can easily apply it to “PSU conspiracy theories”.

“Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not.”[/quote]

Very true. I’ll admit I’m biased towards Joe Paterno. But biased doesn’t mean waiting to actually see what happens in a trial before judging him is wrong . Espn had the audiotape of an alleged victim talking to Bernie Fiine’s wife but did nothing. They are quick to point out that they were under no legal responsibility to Aforward the tape to the police. However they were quick to judge Paterno as having some huge moral failing for ratings . That’s were I have a huge problem.

A few posts up I linked an article by a legal scholar on Paterno 's role. No one likes these messy details thingies . There was wrong committed here, the worst by Sandusky . But it’s hard to tell when you see the average news story.[/quote]

Well, I’m not biased for him or against him. I’m having a hard time though reconciling his well documented body of work with the allegation that he didn’t do enough, or turned a blind eye. That’s just inconsistent with the way he lived his life. So, I want to know the full facts. I would think that’s just common sense.

When someone has done a thing all his life a certain way, and someone comes along and claims something completely out of character against the guy, most reasonable people would want the man to have his day in court. They’d want all the facts, and they’d want to hear his side of the deal. Instead, you have people manufacturing culpability from news bites, sound bites and a grand jury summary.

I also don’t believe in the “sainthood” of Joe Pa and if anyone here did, they believe in the tooth fairy too. You see them here now, relishing pointing out the man’s bias for his players during bad behavior or how he ruled his program and wielded his influence. There are no Division 1 saints at any major college sport. They all try to shield their players and all exert their influence. But his record, the entirety of it, was far superior to most.

I also do not believe a conspiracy occurred. You’d be hard pressed to find ONE man willing to “look the other way” and allow a predator to ply his trade under your nose, let alone the half-dozen or so required to make such a “conspiracy” work at PSU. As I said earlier, I know such a man surely exists, but a half-dozen of them at the same institution do not. To posit that PSU football required protecting or that Paterno’s legacy might be tarnished is laughable. There’s likely a pervert at Harvard right now. And the day he gets exposed, Harvard will continue being Harvard.

This puzzle is far from complete. There are far too many missing pieces. I say let the process occur and when it’s complete, we can start tying nooses and searching for good strong tree limbs if need be. I think at the end of the day, what we’re going to find is that only one noose is needed - the one for Sandusky. And I think we’re going to find that McQueery equivocated and that a series of misjudgments and negligence occurred over the years. That’s my guess. No cover up.

[/quote]

989

This is the type of thing that is going to start popping up as all these lawsuits move forward.

Merely bad timing? Or not?

990

Case is coming up for Preliminary Hearing. And what’s this I read in the paper today? McQueery’s version of what he saw in the shower as reported to his Dad DID NOT INCLUDE SEXUAL CONTACT??? Hmmm. I wonder how long before or if we find out his version to Joe Paterno and Administrators did NOT include sexual contact.

991

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Case is coming up for Preliminary Hearing. And what’s this I read in the paper today? McQueery’s version of what he saw in the shower as reported to his Dad DID NOT INCLUDE SEXUAL CONTACT??? Hmmm. I wonder how long before or if we find out his version to Joe Paterno and Administrators did NOT include sexual contact. [/quote]

The truth will come out.

992

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Case is coming up for Preliminary Hearing. And what’s this I read in the paper today? McQueery’s version of what he saw in the shower as reported to his Dad DID NOT INCLUDE SEXUAL CONTACT??? Hmmm. I wonder how long before or if we find out his version to Joe Paterno and Administrators did NOT include sexual contact. [/quote]

Nope, just “sex sounds” an adult arm grabbing the boy around the waist and pulling him back into the shower…Mcqueary seeing Sandusky walk out of the shower…nobody else in the building.

I will say that I give more credence to what was said in a Grand Jury testimony than what he told a friend afterwards…only assuming that the grand jury testimony is more accurate that what was overheard by a family friend.

I still don’t get how the sex sounds coupled with the Sandusky arm yoinking the kid back in (vomits) is changes anything about this case.

993

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Case is coming up for Preliminary Hearing. And what’s this I read in the paper today? McQueery’s version of what he saw in the shower as reported to his Dad DID NOT INCLUDE SEXUAL CONTACT??? Hmmm. I wonder how long before or if we find out his version to Joe Paterno and Administrators did NOT include sexual contact. [/quote]

Nope, just “sex sounds” an adult arm grabbing the boy around the waist and pulling him back into the shower…Mcqueary seeing Sandusky walk out of the shower…nobody else in the building.

I will say that I give more credence to what was said in a Grand Jury testimony than what he told a friend afterwards…only assuming that the grand jury testimony is more accurate that what was overheard by a family friend.

I still don’t get how the sex sounds coupled with the Sandusky arm yoinking the kid back in (vomits) is changes anything about this case.[/quote]

And this is the problem with yours and everyone else’s lack of understanding how these things go. It’s called credibility and telling a consistent story.

First, it was not his “friend”, it was his father and it’s the FIRST person he recounted any incident to. That’s “ground zero” and it’s important because of its temporal relation to the incident.

Since that time, his story has morphed. That’s called “inconsistency”.

And we have yet to hear from Joe Paterno or the administrators and McQueery has yet to be cross-examined.

McQueery has also yet to account for the inexplicable 10 or so years he allegedly carried this information around without doing anything.

Finally, you do realize you used the words “assuming” when referring to the grand jury testimony.

My point from the beginning. Lots of assumptions. Plenty of speculation. None of which constitutes facts and none of which gives us enough to judge what Joe should have done or not done.

Now, I may end up wrong at the end of the day, but I cannot be wrong until all the facts are aired. That’s just simple logic.

994

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Case is coming up for Preliminary Hearing. And what’s this I read in the paper today? McQueery’s version of what he saw in the shower as reported to his Dad DID NOT INCLUDE SEXUAL CONTACT??? Hmmm. I wonder how long before or if we find out his version to Joe Paterno and Administrators did NOT include sexual contact. [/quote]

BTW McQueary is scheduled to testify tomorrow.

995

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Case is coming up for Preliminary Hearing. And what’s this I read in the paper today? McQueery’s version of what he saw in the shower as reported to his Dad DID NOT INCLUDE SEXUAL CONTACT??? Hmmm. I wonder how long before or if we find out his version to Joe Paterno and Administrators did NOT include sexual contact. [/quote]

BTW McQueary is scheduled to testify tomorrow.[/quote]

I know. Should be interesting b/c I believe Sandusky’s attorney will do some cross on him. This should really start to illuminate and/or set the foundation for any inconsistencies in his story. Remember the two Penn State Admins have also denied his claims as stated.

I love how everyone here just assumed that McQueery’s version of the events is the Gospel.

I hear screams of “cover up” when none was necessary and I can’t imagine 3 average people turning a blind eye to such heinous shit, let alone fairly decent people. You’d have to be a special kind of evil to turn your back on that shit and I say you’d have a hard fucking time finding 3 or more in one institution willing to do that.

What WE DO KNOW is that by McQueery’s own admission, HE IS just that kind of evil man because he either claims to have witnessed it and remained silent for 10 years or he has LIED about what he saw and has cost good people their reputations. We do know this much. Under any reasonable analysis, McQueery is a no-good cocksucker.

996

He waived the hearing:

Fairly standard in PA. There was no way a judge wasn’t going to rule there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed to trial. Interesting comments regarding McQueary though. They will be attacking him full bore. Should prove interesting.

There are 11 alleged victims with embarrassing tales to tell along with their identification and publication. I wouldn’t be surprised if some type of plea deal is not pulled off but given Sandusky’s relatively advanced age, I can’t see what possible plea deal doesn’t involve him spending the rest of his life in jail, in which case he has nothing to gain by a plea deal.

997

Apparently there are THREE versions of McQueery’s story of the 2002 incident and Paterno has denied that the version related to him contained anything sexual which is consistent with the FIRST report according to the source.

Does the Paterno lynch mob care to comment??

998

Not sounding so much like this fantastic cover-up any longer is it??? Unless of course you believe McQueery (and his 3 different versions of the events), who now has reason to lie, and you believe that 4 men at one single institution would be willing to turn their backs on “rape”.

I say no.

999

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Not sounding so much like this fantastic cover-up any longer is it??? Unless of course you believe McQueery (and his 3 different versions of the events), who now has reason to lie, and you believe that 4 men at one single institution would be willing to turn their backs on “rape”.

I say no. [/quote]

You say no…I say that given the two investigations conducted at Penn State (the one after the janitors saw inappropriate action, after which Sandusky “retired” and the McQueery investigation that concluded with Sandusky being barred from the football facilities and from bringing children on campus) would be more than enough for Paterno to make sure that Sandusky was kept off campus, and specifically the football facilities…and yet Sandusky still showed up at the football facilities WITH children on Paterno’s watch after his supposed Bannin’.

Again it’s a moral issue NOT a legal one…if Paterno feels wronged by the firing he should sue to get his job back…if he did his legal duty (which I happen to agree he did…he did the bare minimum) the he should be re-employed promptly.

He will not do that though, because he failed to keep a predator out of his facilities with children…that’s why he was fired.

And now I will read your restating of all your previous points and we will be at the same place we were before.

1000

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Not sounding so much like this fantastic cover-up any longer is it??? Unless of course you believe McQueery (and his 3 different versions of the events), who now has reason to lie, and you believe that 4 men at one single institution would be willing to turn their backs on “rape”.

I say no. [/quote]

You say no…I say that given the two investigations conducted at Penn State (the one after the janitors saw inappropriate action, after which Sandusky “retired” and the McQueery investigation that concluded with Sandusky being barred from the football facilities and from bringing children on campus) would be more than enough for Paterno to make sure that Sandusky was kept off campus, and specifically the football facilities…and yet Sandusky still showed up at the football facilities WITH children on Paterno’s watch after his supposed Bannin’.

Again it’s a moral issue NOT a legal one…if Paterno feels wronged by the firing he should sue to get his job back…if he did his legal duty (which I happen to agree he did…he did the bare minimum) the he should be re-employed promptly.

He will not do that though, because he failed to keep a predator out of his facilities with children…that’s why he was fired.

And now I will read your restating of all your previous points and we will be at the same place we were before.

[/quote]

You’re wrong, and we wouldn’t be right back where we started from. Critical thinking my friend…use it.

First, as to the janitor:

“A temporary worker whose job as a janitor at Penn State lasted only eight months, Calhoun told co-workers and a supervisor in 2000 that he witnessed Sandusky engaging in sexual activity with a boy in a campus locker-room shower.”

There is NO allegation that a report by the janitor included a report to Joe Paterno. There is NO allegation that Joe Paterno was aware of such a report and legally, he likely would not have been advised. He didn’t supervise Sandusky at that time. Sandusky had retired then and as Professor Emeritus enjoyed certain CONTRACTUAL privileges at the University and Paterno is unlikely in that loop. So you’re wrong on that account.

The ONLY thing linking Paterno to any of this sordid mess other than some ambiguous “on his watch” theory is the report of McQueary. Since the GJ summary that everyone was so violently waiving about during this debate, we now understand that McQueary has told 3 different versions of the event, and that the initial version told to his father IMMEDIATELY after the event DID NOT include allegations of rape or sexual contact and that 3 men deny he made any such report (including Paterno).

Paterno’s knowledge of this “scandal” centers on the report of McQueary. And it also centers on what was relayed back to him by the University after Paterno reported it upward.

You can continue to attempt to walk this illusory moral/legal line if you’d like, but like I’ve been saying from the onset; this boils down to WHAT Joe knew and WHEN. The “what” has now been cast in serious doubt. Not only has the “what” been cast in doubt, the floor just fell out of the prosecutions case against the two administrators for alleged perjury and the “cover-up” allegation lost its engine.

If you cannot concede the above, you are stubborn or just don’t understand it - no disrespect.