WTF Penn State?!?!?!

Off Topic
1021

^^ I call the police and Curley and tell them what I’ve heard, then have McQueary meet with both. I also alert the Second Mile and and ask all 3 to keep me updated. I also call Sandusky, the guy I’ve known for 30+ years, and ask him WTF is going on. Next time I see Sandusky on campus, I call up Curley and ask what’s the deal. If he tells me that he is unable to ban Sandusky, I ask him whether he notified the police and I want to know what they told him. I call the police myself and ask about the status of the investigation. If they tell me they’ve exhausted all legal avenues and were unable to build a case, so be it. My conscience is clear.

Paterno was not fired for breaking the law. You don’t have to be guilty of a crime to be considered at fault. The billions and billions paid in negligence cases can attest to this.

1022

Dude, why are you talking shit? I don’t care what Paterno was required by law to do. If you hear that a young boy was being fondled in the shower by a grown man, and after “reporting” it you still see the man in question, you follow up on it. Seems you’re the one here lacking “regular” and “common” sense.

1023

[quote]overstand wrote:

[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. [/quote]

I was kidding you. And your comment included “too” implying all I did was play varsity basketball. That made it funny.

It’s not okay for a 50 year old man to shower with a non-relative child. But it’s a far cry from rape or molestation. It does not deserve the same response and it’s not the same as showering in your home in some bathroom as it is in a large university communal shower. It’s not the same. Period.

And since it’s not the same, it does not require the same response.

1024

[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]

Wrong.

You don’t have Paterno’s testimony. You have a grand jury summary of it. It’s not the same thing.

And horse playing and wrestling is NOT molestation or anal sex.

“The guy knew what was going on and basically did nothing” is horseshit. The allegation is that the boy was being molested and/or anal sex took place. THAT was NOT what was reported to Paterno so he cannot “know what was going on”.

You are correct about one thing; these simple distinctions shouldn’t have to be rehashed. They are simple.

1025

[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]

How the hell do you put horsing around to mean anal sex or molestation? So not only Paterno, but the other two administrators as well failed to “put it together”? So the story you’re most comfortable with and makes the most “common sense” to you is that 3 men not accused of being child molesters would happily cover for a guy committing child abuse?

Really? 3 guys said in essence, “let’s carry this for the team and we’ll trust McQueary to do likewise”. Not only that, but we’ll trust the folks over at Second Mile, the child himself and anyone else that got wind of this. We’ll put the reputation of the PSU on the line, our lives, risk criminal prosecution so that Jerry can continue to molest kids on our watch.

Apparently, the fact that McQueery (a truly bad guy no matter how you view this) has now told at least 3 differing versions of what he saw does not give you a moments pause. That’s troubling to me and brings into question your already questionable critical thinking skills. May I ask what you do for an occupation? Honest question.

If that’s “common sense” to you, I’d ask that you kindly refrain from breeding.

1026

[quote]overstand wrote:
^^ I call the police and Curley and tell them what I’ve heard, then have McQueary meet with both. I also alert the Second Mile and and ask all 3 to keep me updated. I also call Sandusky, the guy I’ve known for 30+ years, and ask him WTF is going on. Next time I see Sandusky on campus, I call up Curley and ask what’s the deal. If he tells me that he is unable to ban Sandusky, I ask him whether he notified the police and I want to know what they told him. I call the police myself and ask about the status of the investigation. If they tell me they’ve exhausted all legal avenues and were unable to build a case, so be it. My conscience is clear.

Paterno was not fired for breaking the law. You don’t have to be guilty of a crime to be considered at fault. The billions and billions paid in negligence cases can attest to this.[/quote]

This just gets better.

First, you’re calling the police because someone told you Sandusky was “horsing around” in the shower with a child he was supervising?

Anyway, he did report what he was told. McQueery than did meet with those folks.

PSU DID report it to Second Mile. You missed that?

Call Sandusky? What do you think he’ll say? Okay Pa, you caught me? How do you know he didn’t call or speak to him? Did you miss that he claimed that Sandusky “had a lot of people fooled?”

Do you realize at that point in time, it was only the 2nd alleged victim and that Paterno would not be aware of the first?

You call the police and ask them the status of the investigation? LOL as if they will keep you in the loop. Not.

You’ve got your hindsight glasses firmly affixed to your head.

Try asking these questions in temporal context, with the information available at the time. You cannot do that yet, because guess what…you don’t know…here it is again…

“what and when”.

1027

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Dude, why are you talking shit? I don’t care what Paterno was required by law to do. If you hear that a young boy was being fondled in the shower by a grown man, and after “reporting” it you still see the man in question, you follow up on it. Seems you’re the one here lacking “regular” and “common” sense.[/quote]

You keep reiterating a fallacy. It was NOT reported to Paterno that a young boy was being “fondled” in the shower. The fact remains, we don’t know what was reported to Paterno. But the evidence is pretty strong right now that it did not include “fondle”, “molestation” or “anal sex”.

You keep repeating the same fallacy, and basing your emotional arguments off that fallacy.

Let’s agree to disagree while we both reserve the right to come back with a big fat “I told you so” when the facts emerge.

Based on McQueery’s now 3 different version of events, including an outright lie in an email (claiming he went to police - he did NOT), I’m feeling pretty good about my future :slight_smile:

1028

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Dude, why are you talking shit? I don’t care what Paterno was required by law to do. If you hear that a young boy was being fondled in the shower by a grown man, and after “reporting” it you still see the man in question, you follow up on it. Seems you’re the one here lacking “regular” and “common” sense.[/quote]

TBG has outlined it pretty well. Both of you ate refusing to see facts and act on info as it was presented to Paterno . You know the info we don’t have yet got sure.

The talking shit is the same tone I get when my kid doesn’t turn off the light for the fifteenth time . You have you mind made up and refuse to see any facts that dispute your preconceived notions based on your emotional response to this.

Reread what TBG posted again. Then read it again . Just because you say you’d do this based on knowing nothing doesn’t mean you’d do the same thing with actual certain specific information .

1029

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Dude, why are you talking shit? I don’t care what Paterno was required by law to do. If you hear that a young boy was being fondled in the shower by a grown man, and after “reporting” it you still see the man in question, you follow up on it. Seems you’re the one here lacking “regular” and “common” sense.[/quote]

You keep reiterating a fallacy. It was NOT reported to Paterno that a young boy was being “fondled” in the shower. The fact remains, we don’t know what was reported to Paterno. But the evidence is pretty strong right now that it did not include “fondle”, “molestation” or “anal sex”.

You keep repeating the same fallacy, and basing your emotional arguments off that fallacy.

Let’s agree to disagree while we both reserve the right to come back with a big fat “I told you so” when the facts emerge.

Based on McQueery’s now 3 different version of events, including an outright lie in an email (claiming he went to police - he did NOT), I’m feeling pretty good about my future :)[/quote]

Paterno admitted that McQueary told him those things. He testified this. How has this gotten past ya’ll?

1030

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

How the hell do you put horsing around to mean anal sex or molestation? So not only Paterno, but the other two administrators as well failed to “put it together”? So the story you’re most comfortable with and makes the most “common sense” to you is that 3 men not accused of being child molesters would happily cover for a guy committing child abuse?

Really? 3 guys said in essence, “let’s carry this for the team and we’ll trust McQueary to do likewise”. Not only that, but we’ll trust the folks over at Second Mile, the child himself and anyone else that got wind of this. We’ll put the reputation of the PSU on the line, our lives, risk criminal prosecution so that Jerry can continue to molest kids on our watch.

Apparently, the fact that McQueery (a truly bad guy no matter how you view this) has now told at least 3 differing versions of what he saw does not give you a moments pause. That’s troubling to me and brings into question your already questionable critical thinking skills. May I ask what you do for an occupation? Honest question.

If that’s “common sense” to you, I’d ask that you kindly refrain from breeding. [/quote]

Describe to me a single perfectly innocent scenario where a 50 year old man is “horsing around” with a naked 10 year old boy. Better yet, imagine this: Your son comes home one day and tells you that his PE teacher took him aside after class and they took a shower together. How do you react? I guarantee you’d be kicking down doors and don’t even try to tell me otherwise.

As for McQueary, I’ve already said multiple times I don’t give a shit exactly what he said to Paterno or how many times he’s changed his story. I think McQueary is a scumbag and was promoted up the chain for keeping his mouth shut (which I understand is pure speculation). HOWEVER, we know from Paterno’s own mouth that he was aware that Sandusky was horsing around with a naked 10 year old boy in the Penn State showers. The fact that you keep avoiding this point troubles me and I have to question your already questionable reading comprehension skills. What Paterno claims he learned from McQueary was more than enough to raise plenty of red flags. If you disagree with this, I’d also have to question your grasp on reality.

And I’m a college student. I’ll be doing reinsurance for an insurance brokerage after I graduate.

1031

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Dude, why are you talking shit? I don’t care what Paterno was required by law to do. If you hear that a young boy was being fondled in the shower by a grown man, and after “reporting” it you still see the man in question, you follow up on it. Seems you’re the one here lacking “regular” and “common” sense.[/quote]

You keep reiterating a fallacy. It was NOT reported to Paterno that a young boy was being “fondled” in the shower. The fact remains, we don’t know what was reported to Paterno. But the evidence is pretty strong right now that it did not include “fondle”, “molestation” or “anal sex”.

You keep repeating the same fallacy, and basing your emotional arguments off that fallacy.

Let’s agree to disagree while we both reserve the right to come back with a big fat “I told you so” when the facts emerge.

Based on McQueery’s now 3 different version of events, including an outright lie in an email (claiming he went to police - he did NOT), I’m feeling pretty good about my future :)[/quote]

Paterno admitted that McQueary told him those things. He testified this. How has this gotten past ya’ll?
[/quote]

Exhausting WF really.

We do NOT have his testimony. We have a GRAND JURY SUMMARY. I’ve repeated this now and explained it numerous times, yet you keep referencing “testimony”.

And, McQueery’s OWN VERSION of the event has now differed by THREE stories.

Mark my words, the perjury case against the two administrators, along with the “cover up” talk will evaporate. You don’t engage in a “cover-up” and then turn around and report it to a third party agency (Second Mile). It. Makes. No. Sense.

And once McQueary is actually cross-examined, AND when Joe finally testifies, we will know what is what. Not until then.

1032

College student, gotcha . I’m a 48 year old self employed chiropractor that deals with rules and laws now. You can’t do what you think is “right”, you follow tfe laws. Paterno followed the laws of pa. State employees are required to tell their supervisor this stuff and that is how it’s handled . You are not supposed to do more because of the potential problems . Like lawsuits etc. The supposed thing is the law. Running around and doing more is illegal.

Explain again to me oh do wise college student how Paterno should have take away Sandusky 's retirement package when he was 1. Not his boss 2. He can’t do it without legal means.

Are you seriously this thick ?? I mean really?

Answer , most likely. As for Paterno , we’ll get his testimony soon enough. TBG is right, most likely the perjury case is a not guilty based on McQeary( notice the spelling guys) telling three different stories. His credibility is sinking fast.

You don’t in a public position start a witch hunt against a public figure based on some shaky story.

[quote]overstand wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

How the hell do you put horsing around to mean anal sex or molestation? So not only Paterno, but the other two administrators as well failed to “put it together”? So the story you’re most comfortable with and makes the most “common sense” to you is that 3 men not accused of being child molesters would happily cover for a guy committing child abuse?

Really? 3 guys said in essence, “let’s carry this for the team and we’ll trust McQueary to do likewise”. Not only that, but we’ll trust the folks over at Second Mile, the child himself and anyone else that got wind of this. We’ll put the reputation of the PSU on the line, our lives, risk criminal prosecution so that Jerry can continue to molest kids on our watch.

Apparently, the fact that McQueery (a truly bad guy no matter how you view this) has now told at least 3 differing versions of what he saw does not give you a moments pause. That’s troubling to me and brings into question your already questionable critical thinking skills. May I ask what you do for an occupation? Honest question.

If that’s “common sense” to you, I’d ask that you kindly refrain from breeding. [/quote]

Describe to me a single perfectly innocent scenario where a 50 year old man is “horsing around” with a naked 10 year old boy. Better yet, imagine this: Your son comes home one day and tells you that his PE teacher took him aside after class and they took a shower together. How do you react? I guarantee you’d be kicking down doors and don’t even try to tell me otherwise.

As for McQueary, I’ve already said multiple times I don’t give a shit exactly what he said to Paterno or how many times he’s changed his story. I think McQueary is a scumbag and was promoted up the chain for keeping his mouth shut (which I understand is pure speculation). HOWEVER, we know from Paterno’s own mouth that he was aware that Sandusky was horsing around with a naked 10 year old boy in the Penn State showers. The fact that you keep avoiding this point troubles me and I have to question your already questionable reading comprehension skills. What Paterno claims he learned from McQueary was more than enough to raise plenty of red flags. If you disagree with this, I’d also have to question your grasp on reality.

And I’m a college student. I’ll be doing reinsurance for an insurance brokerage after I graduate.[/quote]

1033

Have I ever once said he should have taken Sandusky’s retirement package? NO. Learn to fucking read. At this point all you and BG are doing are attacking strawman arguments you’ve conjured in your own imaginations. Read my actual post and respond to what I’ve actually said.

I told you what I would have done. Had Paterno done the same, the public would have been satisfied that he AT LEAST took a passing interest in the welfare of this kid. He did not, he was fired, end of story. I’ve already pointed out you don’t have to be guilty of a crime to be found negligent. And please explain to me, oh wise middle aged self employed chiropractor/lawyer, how any of the things I said I would have done in this situation constitute a “witch hunt”. I didn’t say I’d go to the media or attack him publicly. Following up on suspected child abuse is not grounds for a law suit. In fact, by NOT acting JoePa/Penn State WILL face civil suits.

And for the last time, I don’t give a shit what McQueary said or didn’t say or how many times he changed his story. I think he’s a liar and just as guilty as Paterno and Curley/Schultz. I’m basing my reaction on what Paterno himself testified before the grand jury.

Right here I’ll go ahead and predict you and BG are going to try to tell me that the grand jury summary isn’t actual testimony, and then in the same breath use the grand jury summary of McQueary’s story to argue your point. You won’t realize this hypocrisy because you are half retarded, BG might realize it but he’ll continue to fight strawmen because he’ll never admit he’s wrong.

1034

[quote]overstand wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

How the hell do you put horsing around to mean anal sex or molestation? So not only Paterno, but the other two administrators as well failed to “put it together”? So the story you’re most comfortable with and makes the most “common sense” to you is that 3 men not accused of being child molesters would happily cover for a guy committing child abuse?

Really? 3 guys said in essence, “let’s carry this for the team and we’ll trust McQueary to do likewise”. Not only that, but we’ll trust the folks over at Second Mile, the child himself and anyone else that got wind of this. We’ll put the reputation of the PSU on the line, our lives, risk criminal prosecution so that Jerry can continue to molest kids on our watch.

Apparently, the fact that McQueery (a truly bad guy no matter how you view this) has now told at least 3 differing versions of what he saw does not give you a moments pause. That’s troubling to me and brings into question your already questionable critical thinking skills. May I ask what you do for an occupation? Honest question.

If that’s “common sense” to you, I’d ask that you kindly refrain from breeding. [/quote]

Describe to me a single perfectly innocent scenario where a 50 year old man is “horsing around” with a naked 10 year old boy. Better yet, imagine this: Your son comes home one day and tells you that his PE teacher took him aside after class and they took a shower together. How do you react? I guarantee you’d be kicking down doors and don’t even try to tell me otherwise.

As for McQueary, I’ve already said multiple times I don’t give a shit exactly what he said to Paterno or how many times he’s changed his story. I think McQueary is a scumbag and was promoted up the chain for keeping his mouth shut (which I understand is pure speculation). HOWEVER, we know from Paterno’s own mouth that he was aware that Sandusky was horsing around with a naked 10 year old boy in the Penn State showers. The fact that you keep avoiding this point troubles me and I have to question your already questionable reading comprehension skills. What Paterno claims he learned from McQueary was more than enough to raise plenty of red flags. If you disagree with this, I’d also have to question your grasp on reality.

And I’m a college student. I’ll be doing reinsurance for an insurance brokerage after I graduate.[/quote]

Sigh.

There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension but I do believe your critical thinking skills are lacking. I say that in earnest.

As for me personally, if my son was working out at a University (as this young man was reportedly doing) and he thereafter took a shower in a communal locker room shower with the coach, I would not approve. I would believe it inappropriate, especially if it were just them two. However, at the end of the day, horsing around is NOT molestation. And if Joe Paterno were merely told they were “horsing around” - and you’re also forgetting Sandusky’s explanation against this backdrop and you’re also forgetting that the “victim” didn’t exactly go home and/or to the police and cry “rape”, well then you’re not left with very much to do. And that simple fact is consistent with what Paterno did, what PSU did, its administrators and yes, even Second Mile.

If you think McQueary got promoted b/c he “kept his mouth shut” you believe in Unicorns and you also likely believe in other conspiracies like the WTC attacks. Amiright?

The only thing you said that was accurate was “raise red flags”. Yes it did. And it was reported up the chain of command and investigated. You still do not know what was reported back to Joe and I already illuminated what likely was reported back. Nothing. Insofar as there was no “crime” alleged, a “red flag” doesn’t mean running to the police. If my 12 year old boy returned home from showering with coach, I’d have questions I’d want answered. But if my son and the coach deny any “rape” or “sex” or inappropriate anything, what is it I’m going to tell the police? What crime occurred?

Let’s just agree to disagree. We’re all going in circles right now. I feel pretty good about where this is going for the Administrators of PSU and Joe Paterno. McQueary is going to go down in flames. Mark my words.

1035

[quote]tom63 wrote:
College student, gotcha . I’m a 48 year old self employed chiropractor that deals with rules and laws now. You can’t do what you think is “right”, you follow tfe laws. Paterno followed the laws of pa. State employees are required to tell their supervisor this stuff and that is how it’s handled . You are not supposed to do more because of the potential problems . Like lawsuits etc. The supposed thing is the law. Running around and doing more is illegal.

Explain again to me oh do wise college student how Paterno should have take away Sandusky 's retirement package when he was 1. Not his boss 2. He can’t do it without legal means.

Are you seriously this thick ?? I mean really?

Answer , most likely. As for Paterno , we’ll get his testimony soon enough. TBG is right, most likely the perjury case is a not guilty based on McQeary( notice the spelling guys) telling three different stories. His credibility is sinking fast.

You don’t in a public position start a witch hunt against a public figure based on some shaky story.

[quote]overstand wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

How the hell do you put horsing around to mean anal sex or molestation? So not only Paterno, but the other two administrators as well failed to “put it together”? So the story you’re most comfortable with and makes the most “common sense” to you is that 3 men not accused of being child molesters would happily cover for a guy committing child abuse?

Really? 3 guys said in essence, “let’s carry this for the team and we’ll trust McQueary to do likewise”. Not only that, but we’ll trust the folks over at Second Mile, the child himself and anyone else that got wind of this. We’ll put the reputation of the PSU on the line, our lives, risk criminal prosecution so that Jerry can continue to molest kids on our watch.

Apparently, the fact that McQueery (a truly bad guy no matter how you view this) has now told at least 3 differing versions of what he saw does not give you a moments pause. That’s troubling to me and brings into question your already questionable critical thinking skills. May I ask what you do for an occupation? Honest question.

If that’s “common sense” to you, I’d ask that you kindly refrain from breeding. [/quote]

Describe to me a single perfectly innocent scenario where a 50 year old man is “horsing around” with a naked 10 year old boy. Better yet, imagine this: Your son comes home one day and tells you that his PE teacher took him aside after class and they took a shower together. How do you react? I guarantee you’d be kicking down doors and don’t even try to tell me otherwise.

As for McQueary, I’ve already said multiple times I don’t give a shit exactly what he said to Paterno or how many times he’s changed his story. I think McQueary is a scumbag and was promoted up the chain for keeping his mouth shut (which I understand is pure speculation). HOWEVER, we know from Paterno’s own mouth that he was aware that Sandusky was horsing around with a naked 10 year old boy in the Penn State showers. The fact that you keep avoiding this point troubles me and I have to question your already questionable reading comprehension skills. What Paterno claims he learned from McQueary was more than enough to raise plenty of red flags. If you disagree with this, I’d also have to question your grasp on reality.

And I’m a college student. I’ll be doing reinsurance for an insurance brokerage after I graduate.[/quote]
[/quote]

Presumably, Joe Paterno could have informed the police. I believe that would have been legal. However, what everyone is forgetting is that its becoming more clear that a “crime” may not have been reported to Paterno. I’m willing to bet a sizable sum that McQueery didn’t mention “fondling”, “anal sex”, “rape”, “molestation” or any permutation thereof to Joe Paterno. I’m willing to bet the same sum he did not mention to the PSU administrators when he met with them. People are also forgetting that you do not have “victim #2” claiming at that time to be a “victim”.

As for Paterno “barring” him from the facility or school, Tom is correct; he cannot do that, no matter how much power you think he has.

Anyway, it’s pounding your head on the wall at this point when people can look at this and still honestly think “conspiracy”. Conspiracies that involve half a dozen people are usually not successful. Conspiracies that exist where no one but the one that committed a crime benefits is illogical. PSU did not require “protection” from a scandal. Neither did Joe. And I find it incredulous that otherwise intelligent adults actually believe a half dozen men turned their backs so a child molester could continue to ply his trade. Then they turned around and reported it to Second Mile, thereby bringing more people into this dark “conspiracy”. And let’s not forget murdered prosecutors. Hell, while we’re at it, I’m sure bin laden was around the campus somewhere too.

1036

[quote]overstand wrote:

And I’m a college student. I’ll be doing reinsurance for an insurance brokerage after I graduate.[/quote]

And I didn’t ask this to attack you. I knew you were not presently involved in anything where critical thinking was the tool or your trade (occupation). Also understand that I’m bringing the same questions to bear that I would if these civil suits against PSU were to pass my desk (and they would if I worked for the carrier insuring PSU).

You cannot take what you know now, and apply it in reverse. You need to know EXACTLY what people were told and when and what they did in response and whether that response was reasonable at that time, given the information available. You cannot say, the outcome is now apparently “x” and you SHOULD have known or you should have done more. That’s not how it works.

That’s why it’s so important to nail down EXACTLY what Paterno was told and what the administrators were told. I’ll be very surprised if much of this was not reduced to writing. They did abridge his facility privileges in some manner and informed Second Mile so I’m pretty sure there is a file somewhere. When that file is produced, we’ll know much more. Likewise when PSU answers the NCAA inquiries.

1037

[quote]overstand wrote:
Have I ever once said he should have taken Sandusky’s retirement package? NO. Learn to fucking read. At this point all you and BG are doing are attacking strawman arguments you’ve conjured in your own imaginations. Read my actual post and respond to what I’ve actually said.

I told you what I would have done. Had Paterno done the same, the public would have been satisfied that he AT LEAST took a passing interest in the welfare of this kid. He did not, he was fired, end of story. I’ve already pointed out you don’t have to be guilty of a crime to be found negligent. And please explain to me, oh wise middle aged self employed chiropractor/lawyer, how any of the things I said I would have done in this situation constitute a “witch hunt”. I didn’t say I’d go to the media or attack him publicly. Following up on suspected child abuse is not grounds for a law suit. In fact, by NOT acting JoePa/Penn State WILL face civil suits.

And for the last time, I don’t give a shit what McQueary said or didn’t say or how many times he changed his story. I think he’s a liar and just as guilty as Paterno and Curley/Schultz. I’m basing my reaction on what Paterno himself testified before the grand jury.

Right here I’ll go ahead and predict you and BG are going to try to tell me that the grand jury summary isn’t actual testimony, and then in the same breath use the grand jury summary of McQueary’s story to argue your point. You won’t realize this hypocrisy because you are half retarded, BG might realize it but he’ll continue to fight strawmen because he’ll never admit he’s wrong. [/quote]

The entirety of the above is illogical and factually incorrect. We can disagree, and you’re entitled to an opinion, but your argument above is just wrong.

First, you’re saying what you would have done based on your PRESENT understanding of what has now transpired. You do NOT know what the information was at that time, and you do not know what was communicated to Paterno. It is logically IMPOSSIBLE for you to state with certainty what should have been done. You can see that can’t you? This is now a simple logical exercise, opinions aside.

In addition to not knowing WHAT was reported to Paterno, you do NOT know what was reported back to him if anything. What if the “victim” denied any wrongdoing? Are you still making a federal case of it then?

I don’t need you to provide me with a treatise on negligence. I’m an expert on it. Been so for 23 years. It was my job. And that’s a fact.

You said, “following up on suspected child abuse”…again, assuming it was “suspected” at the time. You do not even know what was reported, what was determined or what the outcome was at the time. It’s NOW “suspected child abuse”. It may very well have been then too, but we DO NOT KNOW because we do not have the information necessary to determine that.

You don’t care what McQueery said or didn’t say? Well then you ARE missing the point. Because to judge Paterno, and the response by the University, we have to know EXACTLY what McQueery said, what Sandusky said, and if possible, what “victim 2” said (if anything).

You are the only one engaging in a straw man. I’m not using the Grand Jury Summary. I’m pointing out that the same does not constitute TESTIMONY. I’m also pointing out that there are now at least 3 differing versions of McQueary’s story. The only “argument” is and has been that we DO NOT KNOW WHAT MCQUEERY TOLD PATERNO AND THE UNIVERSITY. I’ve been making that argument for 20 pages, even before the different versions were published. I’m looking like a fortune teller now. But if you’ve done what I’ve done long enough, you can tell where this shit is going.

Now, as for being wrong, I’ve already stated that I may be proven wrong, but the argument as it stands is a logical exercise and it cannot be refuted without information - information that you do not have.

Put aside your emotion, and put aside your opinion, and treat this as a logical exercise. You cannot reach the conclusion you have logically. Your opinion AND conclusion are based on an unknown. Does that make sense to you?

If you were here saying “I think”, “my opinion”, “the hairs on the back of my neck” - that’s entirely different. At least such an argument would not be as flawed as your present one.

1038

McQueary testified this morning, says he made it clear to Paterno that the acts were “sexual in nature” and “clearly crossed the line”, but didn’t describe what he saw in detail out of respect. He did give Curley/Schultz details. Either way, all 3 were aware it was Sandusky doing something sexual with a 10 year old kid.

Curley/Schultz also facing civil suits.

1039

[quote]overstand wrote:
McQueary testified this morning, says he made it clear to Paterno that the acts were “sexual in nature” and “clearly crossed the line”, but didn’t describe what he saw in detail out of respect. He did give Curley/Schultz details. Either way, all 3 were aware it was Sandusky doing something sexual with a 10 year old kid.

Curley/Schultz also facing civil suits.

[/quote]

I saw that on the ESPNZZ…he said that Paterno was “visibly shaken” and said that "he was sorry that McQueary “Had to witness something that sick”.

1040

They also unsealed the grand jury testimony. Paterno testified that the acts described to him by McQueary were “sexual in nature”. Curley/Schultz also testified that they were aware back in 2002 that Sandusky had been investigated in 1998.