[quote]
WHAT Joe knew and WHEN [/quote]
Agreed.
Sandusky’s lawyer made a snide remark that people “need to dial 1-800-REALITY” if they believe everything that McQueary has said so far.
The funny thing is that if you dial that phone number it connects you to a male phone sex service.
I lol’d
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Sandusky’s lawyer made a snide remark that people “need to dial 1-800-REALITY” if they believe everything that McQueary has said so far.
The funny thing is that if you dial that phone number it connects you to a male phone sex service.
I lol’d[/quote]
that’s hilarious.
and I will either eat crow and say I’m wrong, or I’ll be back here dancing all over this thread when they rip apart McQueary. I don’t know the outcome, but his cross-examination will be fun times.
as far as I’m concerned, there are two people that got some splainin to do…McQueary and Sandusky. the “jury is out” on the others in my opinion.
I have been busy with finals and not really following this much anymore but McQueary’s testimony is really only relevant to the perjury case against the school officials, no?
Testimony of 10 victims, IF CREDIBLE, is more than enough to put Sandusky away. The defense attorney really has no choice but to go after McQueary’s credibility but it seems like it’s just going to be an attempt at distracting the future jury from the victims’ statements.
I know the discussion is mostly focused on the knowledge of the higher-ups. Just mentioning it.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I have been busy with finals and not really following this much anymore but McQueary’s testimony is really only relevant to the perjury case against the school officials, no?
Testimony of 10 victims, IF CREDIBLE, is more than enough to put Sandusky away. The defense attorney really has no choice but to go after McQueary’s credibility but it seems like it’s just going to be an attempt at distracting the future jury from the victims’ statements.
I know the discussion is mostly focused on the knowledge of the higher-ups. Just mentioning it. [/quote]
Yes and No. Of course, I’m interested b/c he’s ground zero to Paterno and I’m not so sure Paterno turned a blind eye to this. And yes, he’s relevant to the defense of the two administrators charged with perjury (which to me seems like a dead case now with 3 differing versions from McQueary) and a “cover-up”.
As it concerns the victims I think you’re largely correct but if he can undermine the one, I think he intends to play the others as opportunists with civil lawyers out for a pay day. That seems to be the strategy and I’m betting that will be the theme of the defense. And, no disrespect to any legitimate victim, but I’m sure there is a “victim” or two that is indeed not a victim and there will be more to come.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
and I will either eat crow and say I’m wrong, or I’ll be back here dancing all over this thread when they rip apart McQueary.
[/quote]
Sandusky and his lawyer are gonna tear mcqreary a new asshole.
Sandusky’s lawyer:
“Anyone who is naive enough to think for a minute that Tim Curley, Joe Paterno and Gary Schultz and, for that matter, Graham Spanier, the university president, were told by Mike McQueary that he observed Jerry Sandusky having anal sex with a 10-year-old-looking kid in a shower at Penn State or Penn State property and their response was to simply tell Jerry Sandusky that, ‘Don’t go in the shower room any more with kids.’ I suggest you dial 1-800-REALITY. Because that makes absolutely no sense.”
Uh, yes, pretty much this is what I’ve been saying. McQueery gonna have a long day on the stand. Mark my words.
I knew the second I heard McQueary’s story change that he was in deep shit. If his embellishing certain elements of the story to make himself seem more “heroic” gets in the way of what’s important - JUSTICE - I’m gonna lose my mind.
It’s going to get real interesting soon. I wonder what espn or ass clowns like Colin Cowherd will have to say later?
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I knew the second I heard McQueary’s story change that he was in deep shit. If his embellishing certain elements of the story to make himself seem more “heroic” gets in the way of what’s important - JUSTICE - I’m gonna lose my mind. [/quote]
I’m not sure it was embellishment.
My concern has always been that he equivocated initially and didn’t tell the full story of what he believes he saw. There would be a world of difference between the University’s and Paterno’s response to “horsing around” and “anal rape”. The “horsing around” version is completely consistent with the PSU’s response and its report to Second Mile (and while we’re at it, if you’re trying to engage in a cover-up, you don’t report outside PSU as they did to Second Mile). “Horsing around” also explains the reaction of 4 men who by all reports seem to be “decent”. I don’t know of a single decent man that would turn their back to this shit, let alone 4. The whole cover-up thing is inconsistent and frankly, PSU didn’t need any such protection - it would have “survived” such a scandal just fine.
The alternative is that he now has a different, more lucid description of what he believed he saw, based on his knowledge of the then investigation and additional and/or prior victims. He may be trying to “make it right” in his mind.
Whatever the case, I think irreparable damage has been done to his credibility. First, the two Administrators absolutely walk on the perjury charges and rightfully so. As far as the entirety of the case, his waffling may hurt victim #2 but it shouldn’t affect the other victims whose claims shall be judged on their own credibility.
What I do hate is that I think McQueary is at the center of taking down a decent man, Joe Paterno. Joe was not perfect. None of us are. And you don’t coach big time college sports for as long as he did and not have a few warts and a few things you’d rather have done differently. But overall, the man lead a decent upstanding life, contributed heavily to PSU, the community and kids. I never believed in the “sainthood” of Joe Pa; that was a media creation and frankly, one that was used derisively at times whenever something happened at PSU (as will happen with big time football and its players). I do think that man had earned the right to leave on his own terms. And if McQueary waffled, if his version of what happened to victim 2 was “version-lite” instead of “anal rape”, well then shame on that motherfucker and all those that happily smeared Joe Pa.
That man will likely die before this clears. He’s 85. He’s lost his occupation. He’s just broken a hip. And he has lung cancer. Any of the foregoing coupled with his age can be the start to a rapid deterioration and death. He’s got 4 things working against him.
If McQueary has been less than forthcoming (and it appears he has), you can count Joe Pa as a VICTIM too.
And for those of you that so righteously called for the man’s head, I hope you are never judged by the “hindsight” standard - morally, legally or otherwise.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And for those of you that so righteously called for the man’s head, I hope you are never judged by the “hindsight” standard - morally, legally or otherwise. [/quote]
Agreed, we see very few arguing with you right now. Facts are funny things.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And for those of you that so righteously called for the man’s head, I hope you are never judged by the “hindsight” standard - morally, legally or otherwise. [/quote]
Agreed, we see very few arguing with you right now. Facts are funny things.[/quote]
Get out of here. You two are acting like “horsing around” in the shower with a little boy is somehow more acceptable than full on rape. All he needed to hear was Sandusky/Naked/Horsing around/Little boy. The details of what McQueary actually told him are irrelevant in my mind.
“AHA! Joe Pa didn’t know a child was being raped! All he knew is that one was being molested! EXONERATED!”
That is what you two sound like right now.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And for those of you that so righteously called for the man’s head, I hope you are never judged by the “hindsight” standard - morally, legally or otherwise. [/quote]
Agreed, we see very few arguing with you right now. Facts are funny things.[/quote]
Get out of here. You two are acting like “horsing around” in the shower with a little boy is somehow more acceptable than full on rape. All he needed to hear was Sandusky/Naked/Horsing around/Little boy. The details of what McQueary actually told him are irrelevant in my mind.
“AHA! Joe Pa didn’t know a child was being raped! All he knew is that one was being molested! EXONERATED!”
That is what you two sound like right now.[/quote]
Explain in detail what Paterno should have done instead of what he did do . Take in account exactly what ge was told, his legal responsibility, Sandusky’s legal rights in regards to his retirement
, the laws in regards to this case and get back to us. Explain in detail what exactly McQueary told him and how you would do things differently.
Thing is you don’t know exactly what Paterno was told. You’re just a reactionary dumbass who’s shooting his mouth off but knows very little . I’m sure you would hear a story, report it to your supervisor than run through hell and back based on a hearsay story risking your employment and a civil lawsuit against you and your employer over it.
No you wouldn’t . Even a fool like you is smarter than that .
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And for those of you that so righteously called for the man’s head, I hope you are never judged by the “hindsight” standard - morally, legally or otherwise. [/quote]
Agreed, we see very few arguing with you right now. Facts are funny things.[/quote]
Get out of here. You two are acting like “horsing around” in the shower with a little boy is somehow more acceptable than full on rape. All he needed to hear was Sandusky/Naked/Horsing around/Little boy. The details of what McQueary actually told him are irrelevant in my mind.
“AHA! Joe Pa didn’t know a child was being raped! All he knew is that one was being molested! EXONERATED!”
That is what you two sound like right now.[/quote]
Wow. Really? So you think “horsing around” = “molesting”? Insert “molesting” for “anal rape” and the response still doesn’t fit. Horsing around is NOT molesting.
Of course, you did play varsity basketball and presumably you might know more about molesting in the showers than I do.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And for those of you that so righteously called for the man’s head, I hope you are never judged by the “hindsight” standard - morally, legally or otherwise. [/quote]
Agreed, we see very few arguing with you right now. Facts are funny things.[/quote]
Get out of here. You two are acting like “horsing around” in the shower with a little boy is somehow more acceptable than full on rape. All he needed to hear was Sandusky/Naked/Horsing around/Little boy. The details of what McQueary actually told him are irrelevant in my mind.
“AHA! Joe Pa didn’t know a child was being raped! All he knew is that one was being molested! EXONERATED!”
That is what you two sound like right now.[/quote]
Explain in detail what Paterno should have done instead of what he did do . Take in account exactly what ge was told, his legal responsibility, Sandusky’s legal rights in regards to his retirement
, the laws in regards to this case and get back to us. Explain in detail what exactly McQueary told him and how you would do things differently.
Thing is you don’t know exactly what Paterno was told. You’re just a reactionary dumbass who’s shooting his mouth off but knows very little . I’m sure you would hear a story, report it to your supervisor than run through hell and back based on a hearsay story risking your employment and a civil lawsuit against you and your employer over it.
No you wouldn’t . Even a fool like you is smarter than that .[/quote]
Whoa, of course he knows what Paterno was told - he played varsity basketball!!!
He didn’t even realize what he himself put in front of his feet and then stepped on when he said “all he had to hear”. We don’t know what the fuck he was told.
Funny how that simple little hurdle that is open and obvious keeps tripping up the same people.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And for those of you that so righteously called for the man’s head, I hope you are never judged by the “hindsight” standard - morally, legally or otherwise. [/quote]
Agreed, we see very few arguing with you right now. Facts are funny things.[/quote]
Get out of here. You two are acting like “horsing around” in the shower with a little boy is somehow more acceptable than full on rape. All he needed to hear was Sandusky/Naked/Horsing around/Little boy. The details of what McQueary actually told him are irrelevant in my mind.
“AHA! Joe Pa didn’t know a child was being raped! All he knew is that one was being molested! EXONERATED!”
That is what you two sound like right now.[/quote]
Wow. Really? So you think “horsing around” = “molesting”? Insert “molesting” for “anal rape” and the response still doesn’t fit. Horsing around is NOT molesting.
Of course, you did play varsity basketball and presumably you might know more about molesting in the showers than I do.[/quote]
In what world is it acceptable for a 50 year old man to do anything involving a naked 10 year old boy who is not his own son? Especially a 50 year old man who had already been investigated for child molestation?
P.S. I don’t know why you think my varsity basketball comment was so hilarious, go back and reread my post. My point was past experience doesn’t mean anything if you aren’t keeping up with current events. The comment was self-deprecating if anything.
Fellas, Paterno testified that McQueary told him that he saw Sandusky in the shower with a young boy, horse playing & wrestling, something to that effect. It’s pretty obvious Paterno knew enough to know that Sandusky was up to no good. You can defend him all you want, but the guy knew what was going on and basically did nothing. I shouldn’t have to rehash this.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Fellas, Paterno testified that McQueary told him that he saw Sandusky in the shower with a young boy, horse playing & wrestling, something to that effect. It’s pretty obvious Paterno knew enough to know that Sandusky was up to no good. You can defend him all you want, but the guy knew what was going on and basically did nothing. I shouldn’t have to rehash this.[/quote]
That would be the common sense way to look at it, but these guys are acting like Paterno was incapable of putting 2 and 2 together.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Fellas, Paterno testified that McQueary told him that he saw Sandusky in the shower with a young boy, horse playing & wrestling, something to that effect. It’s pretty obvious Paterno knew enough to know that Sandusky was up to no good. You can defend him all you want, but the guy knew what was going on and basically did nothing. I shouldn’t have to rehash this.[/quote]
That would be the common sense way to look at it, but these guys are acting like Paterno was incapable of putting 2 and 2 together. [/quote]
Both you and white flash lack both regular and common sense. I asked you what Paterno should have done taking in account the laws of Pa and Sandusky’s retirement package. You suggested nothing . Why? That would involve knowing the laws. That would mean you would know according to pa state law that pa state employees like Paterno are supposed to report things like this to his superior which he did. And that’s all you are supposed to do by law. You don’t carry on your own investigation . It’s sort of grounds for tremendous civili liability for you( on hearsay ), for the university , and grounds for termination( you’re not doing your job).
Sandusky had the right to use the facilities as part of his state retirement pscksge( professor emeritus status , look it up). You cannot take that away unless you go through legal channels. nd Paterno can’t do it because he was not , pay attention here now slow folk, Sandusky’s boss at the time, Tim Curley was. Hence the retirement thing.
So what more should he have done? Spell it out exactly taking in account what Paterno was told. Stating explicitly what he was told. Make sure you take in all the legal things you have to account for in this instance. Since you two know so much and claim to “have common sense”, tell us.
I’ll be waiting , but I won’t hold my breath .