Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Idoit40fans · Post by **Idoit40fans** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:22 pm

He didn't witness it first hand, so he didn't know for sure that anything happened. Of course if he had seen it first hand, he could have hallucinated, so he still wouldn't have known for sure. Either way, he should be absolved of responsibility.

Post by **Sam's Drunk Dog** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:22 pm

shmenguin wrote:
I think he told him enough to infer sexual abuse of some nature, yes.

Based McQuery's latest testimony he says that he was never sexually graphic about what he saw when he spoke to Paterno. Does that play any part at all in your conclusion?

Post by **shmenguin** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:24 pm

Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:
shmenguin wrote:
I think he told him enough to infer sexual abuse of some nature, yes.
Based McQuery's latest testimony he says that he was never sexually graphic about what he saw when he spoke to Paterno. Does that play any part at all in your conclusion?

I'll take paterno's word for it thanks.

DudeMan2766 · Post by **DudeMan2766** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:26 pm

Lt. Dish wrote:
shmenguin wrote:
What you don't understand that other people on the outside do is that you work very hard to create a narrative that absolves the people you're biased towards. From someone with no dog in the fight, it's silly but it's also just really really frustrating. Paterno happens to be the most unlucky guy in America if your story holds water. In those situations, it means the guy messed up. The Rube Goldberg bad luck machines don't work that way in real life.
And, arguably, to those on the "inside," those on the outside work very hard to create a narrative that persecutes the people they're biased towards. And, to them, it's really frustrating. Paterno happened to be the guy most in control of the whole situation, if their story holds water...

I'm sorry, shmenguin. I'm not trying to be flip, and I certainly don't want to tick you off (not my style or temperament). But it's been going both ways, and I think it does everyone, especially the victims, a disservice. This situation demands more from all of us.

I think there are more in the middle then you think, and they step towards/retreat from either direction related to PSU depending on new information about the subtopics or issues involved in the larger situation. The important thing is to stay proximal to and within eye and ear shot of the victims. You can maneuver like that.

That's a big part of these arguments (not just here) Most on the "inside" can't understand there is a large contingent with no ties to Penn State whatsoever in terms of reasons to have a bias. No ties to a rival school, no B1G ties, nothing. They just see whats in front of their eyes and the information that's been presented. But if you aren't on PSU's/Joe's side, you obviously are completely biased. Meanwhile its near impossible to find a supporter that doesn't have some relationship with PSU, whether alumni, location, etc. Its hilarious to see people associated with a group that marches thru the streets with a cardboard cutout of a dead man, accuse everyone else of obvious biases.

Post by **Sam's Drunk Dog** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:34 pm

10 years after the fact. And after his testimony was possibly influenced by the prosecutor and/or McQuery prior to trial.

This testimony is also from the same Grand Jury report that said McQuery stated he saw anal rape, when he's stated he never said that. Grand Jury reports aren't always completely accurate.

Post by **shmenguin** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:35 pm

Like I said. Unluckiest guy in the world. Couldn't catch a break. Everything happened to fall into place against him.

DudeMan2766 · Post by **DudeMan2766** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:36 pm

Mature man, boy, and the word fondling. From what slappy posted those were the words Joe said he was told. I seriously doubt Paterno knew the law well enough to when he reported whatever he reported he just said "Welp, by law that's all I have to do." You just can't hear the word "fondling" and do the minimum of what you need to do. None of those guys involved can. I too don't think for a second Joe should have been thrown in jail or anything, but this idea that he's the only one not a fault here is ridiculous.

Idoit40fans · Post by **Idoit40fans** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:37 pm

Well I can think of quite a few people from this overall story who had worse luck.

DudeMan2766 · Post by **DudeMan2766** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:38 pm

shmenguin wrote:
Like I said. Unluckiest guy in the world. Couldn't catch a break. Everything happened to fall into place against him.

You forgot feeble, old confused man. The man ran the football program and practically ran the town, but somewhere shortly before this all happened he hit old age and can't be blamed for anything.

Grunthy · Post by **Grunthy** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:41 pm

The sad thing is you guys are arguing about a dead guy, that even if he would have done more nothing would have happened, instead of worrying about the victims affected by an evil *******, sandusky.

slappybrown · Post by **slappybrown** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:43 pm

Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:
10 years after the fact. And after his testimony was possibly influenced by the prosecutor and/or McQuery prior to trial.

This testimony is also from the same Grand Jury report that said McQuery stated he saw anal rape, when he's stated he never said that. Grand Jury reports aren't always completely accurate.

10 years after the fact that a man he worked with for decades and he knew intimately is accused of fondling a minor in a shower on Penn State's campus at athletic facilities. This isn't asking him to recall some inane detail. This is an earth-shattering thing that is told to him. Are you really suggesting that he wouldn't remember being told someone he's known for decades is fondling minors and kinda sorta maybe didn't actually hear that despite testifying to exactly that?

How would he be influenced by what the prosecutor asked him? This isn't a trial. Its a grand jury subpoena. The entirety of the transcript encompasses maybe 10 minutes of testimony by my estimation. He's not on hour 7 of day long, grueling testimony about horrifying child abuse.

Also, are you of the view Paterno didn't have counsel to prepare for his testimony? And that he didn't discuss with that counsel what he would testify to? That nothing he was asked was particularly surprising?

How would McQueary influence his testimony? Do you mean to suggest that McQueary asked him to say that what McQueary told was sexual abuse when he didn't actually tell Paterno that back in 02? Meaning Paterno is doing a solid for McQueary? I don't understand here. Why would Paterno testify to anything other than the truth as he saw it? What motivation would have to make the report to his supervisor as required by PA law if he wasn't told by McQueary that Sandusky is sexually abusing a minor?

This is the transcript as taken down by the court stenographer. There is zero chance that what was transcribed is inaccurate. This is not a "report."

Post by **PghSkins** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:51 pm

Grunthy wrote:
The sad thing is you guys are arguing about a dead guy, that even if he would have done more nothing would have happened, instead of worrying about the victims affected by an evil *******, sandusky.

And rehashing the same arguments for years.

I never hear the victims discussed anywhere anymore (edit: except Dish upthread). Either side. Disappointing.

DudeMan2766 · Post by **DudeMan2766** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:51 pm

Dude, documents stored for years like that change. The paper ages, ink smudges, the Queen's English changes. I mean "selfie" and "twerk" are in the dictionary now. Joe can't prepare for stuff like that. You don't know what his words meant 20 years ago.

Idoit40fans · Post by **Idoit40fans** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:05 pm

PghSkins wrote:
Grunthy wrote:
The sad thing is you guys are arguing about a dead guy, that even if he would have done more nothing would have happened, instead of worrying about the victims affected by an evil *******, sandusky.
And rehashing the same arguments for years.

I never hear the victims discussed anywhere anymore (edit: except Dish upthread). Either side. Disappointing.

I find that to be a bizarre sentiment. People are starving to death and working as slave labor right now, yet you just want to talk about some crimes that happened over a decade ago. Disappointing.

Lt. Dish · Post by **Lt. Dish** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:05 pm

shmenguin wrote:
The other reason I keep popping in is that, if paterno did enough to get him off the moral hook (like plenty of people are saying), then it makes me very upset that people think that way. If it's my kid in that shower and an adult knows that something happened or even just suspects something happened, it's disgusting that people think that telling your boss about it and walking away is A-OK. It's not enough. You all know it. But the Freeh report got everyone's britches in a twist so we now have truthers who need to go overboard in defending what is, objectively, a moral failure because if they show any crack then they think it will justify the sanctions.

Just step away and admit what's what. C2i, you did that plenty and I appreciate it. SDG never did, so ok. Dish is disappointing to me, to be honest.

shmenguin, I'm sorry you feel that way. But not once did I say that Paterno was off the moral hook. Not once. Because I don't feel he is.

Please allow me to be disappointed in return that you interpreted anything I said as such--whether it's disappointed in you for thinking such terrible notions about me, or in myself for not expressing myself more clearly. But let me attempt to clarify a few points. I did do the following:

-->Discuss how I was trained (and how I'm trained annually on the issue)
-->Address the fact, that if we were stick to the law and training, then Paterno could be viewed as doing what he was supposed to
-->Discuss the difference between the legal and the moral, and limits of the law, whether people are in the moral right to go beyond those limits, and can we accept if someone stops at the limit of the law.
-->State that I would want to follow up and "do more," but admitted that I'd be afraid of having a pedophile walk if I did something to mess up the investigation
-->State that I recognize that I don't appear outraged enough for many, but there are reasons for that, including that I can't think unless I'm calmer.
-->State that find the public discourse surrounding the topic upsetting
-->State that, while I agree with the sanctions being lifted, that those things aren't my concern
-->State that I wish we were talk more about child sexual abuse in order to have more direct impact on the victims and on preventing more

I'm trying to have a conversation about nuances, and not just whether Paterno on or off the moral hook. The totality of the case is more important to me than Paterno, and I'm on record w/re that.

I don't know what you want me to admit. If you want me to admit that Paterno is on the moral hook, then I don't need to. Because I stated that I was disappointed that he didn't do more, meaning that yes, I feel he did have a moral obligation. But, unlike some, I'm also able to admit that I can see why he didn't (whether I agree with him or not) because of the state law and reporting guidelines of the time.

The Freeh report has many peoples' "britches in a twist" because of (a) its reliance of inference, (b) the fact that it was the foundation for punishments by a body that arguably shouldn't have been involved in punishing to begin with, and (c) now because of reports about collusion with the NCAA. I won't apologize for that at all. It was presented as research, and it wasn't research. I know plenty of people who couldn't care less about PSU, Paterno, or the football program who agree that it was sloppily constructed and methodologically unfounded, especially to arrive at the conclusions. Put it this way: I can't think of any of my profs at the undergrad or grad levels who would've accepted that as a term research paper.

I should step away from this thread, as I had planned over the weekend. I'm concerned that I'm either misrepresenting myself (I don't think I am) or what I'm saying is being misinterpreted. Either way, if it leads to anyone here thinking that I'm on the "Saint Joe" end of the spectrum and letting anyone off the moral hook, then I simply can't have it, because it's untrue.

I hope this helps, shmenguin. Thanks, everyone.

Lt. Dish · Post by **Lt. Dish** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:13 pm

DudeMan2766 wrote:
Lt. Dish wrote:
shmenguin wrote:
What you don't understand that other people on the outside do is that you work very hard to create a narrative that absolves the people you're biased towards. From someone with no dog in the fight, it's silly but it's also just really really frustrating. Paterno happens to be the most unlucky guy in America if your story holds water. In those situations, it means the guy messed up. The Rube Goldberg bad luck machines don't work that way in real life.
And, arguably, to those on the "inside," those on the outside work very hard to create a narrative that persecutes the people they're biased towards. And, to them, it's really frustrating. Paterno happened to be the guy most in control of the whole situation, if their story holds water...

I'm sorry, shmenguin. I'm not trying to be flip, and I certainly don't want to tick you off (not my style or temperament). But it's been going both ways, and I think it does everyone, especially the victims, a disservice. This situation demands more from all of us.

I think there are more in the middle then you think, and they step towards/retreat from either direction related to PSU depending on new information about the subtopics or issues involved in the larger situation. The important thing is to stay proximal to and within eye and ear shot of the victims. You can maneuver like that.

That's a big part of these arguments (not just here) Most on the "inside" can't understand there is a large contingent with no ties to Penn State whatsoever in terms of reasons to have a bias. No ties to a rival school, no B1G ties, nothing. They just see whats in front of their eyes and the information that's been presented. But if you aren't on PSU's/Joe's side, you obviously are completely biased. Meanwhile its near impossible to find a supporter that doesn't have some relationship with PSU, whether alumni, location, etc. Its hilarious to see people associated with a group that marches thru the streets with a cardboard cutout of a dead man, accuse everyone else of obvious biases.

This is fair, imo, DM.

FWIW, I found the marching with the Cardboard Joe positively embarrassing. I'd like to think college kids are old enough and mature enough to look at the big picture, but...

Lt. Dish · Post by **Lt. Dish** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:15 pm

Grunthy wrote:
The sad thing is you guys are arguing about a dead guy, that even if he would have done more nothing would have happened, instead of worrying about the victims affected by an evil *******, sandusky.

Not all of us guys, Grunthy.

Post by **shmenguin** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:16 pm

I'll say this much...I wasn't really clear on where you stood, Dish. And it may have been me not paying attention. So apologies if I offended you.

I'm still not 100% clear on your POV, but from your response I think we may be close to being on the same page.

Beveridge · Post by **Beveridge** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:19 pm

I could read stuff but I won't.

Here's my 2 cents (if it's worth that)

I don't know who knew what, how much, when, first hand, second hand, third hand, etc.

I don't care what the chain of command is whether it's the branch of the armed forces, a college university or the local McDonalds. There is only one place you go if you think a child is in danger and that is the P-O-L-I-C-E. Anything short of that is a complete failure. Tell them the information you know and how you got it and let them decide if it's worth looking into. I rather be known as someone who made a stink over nothing (if nothing is happening) than take a chance that it's something.

I'm not going at what point of knowledge should constitute jail, not up to me to decide. But anyone who had information, no matter how small, and did nothing, those people are guilty of failing at being an Adult.

Lt. Dish · Post by **Lt. Dish** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:27 pm

shmenguin wrote:
Lt. Dish wrote:
shmenguin wrote:
What you don't understand that other people on the outside do is that you work very hard to create a narrative that absolves the people you're biased towards. From someone with no dog in the fight, it's silly but it's also just really really frustrating. Paterno happens to be the most unlucky guy in America if your story holds water. In those situations, it means the guy messed up. The Rube Goldberg bad luck machines don't work that way in real life.
And, arguably, to those on the "inside," those on the outside work very hard to create a narrative that persecutes the people they're biased towards. And, to them, it's really frustrating. Paterno happened to be the guy most in control of the whole situation, if their story holds water...

I'm sorry, shmenguin. I'm not trying to be flip, and I certainly don't want to tick you off (not my style or temperament). But it's been going both ways, and I think it does everyone, especially the victims, a disservice. This situation demands more from all of us.

I think there are more in the middle then you think, and they step towards/retreat from either direction related to PSU depending on new information about the subtopics or issues involved in the larger situation. The important thing is to stay proximal to and within eye and ear shot of the victims. You can maneuver like that.
Paterno wasn't villain #1. I have no bias against anyone. I don't care about the sanctions being enforced. So why is it so blatantly obvious to me that he failed as a human in this situation?

I guess you've seen too many Pitt people in this thread or people with something up their craw about PSU culture in general to think that a casual observer could come in a spit venom like I have. But I think the perspective of the unbiased 3rd party is that paterno did wrong. Mcqueary did worse. If the Freeh report holds water, the guys above him did even worse. But I don't have to include that caveat in every post. And a bunch of numb skull college kids aren't parading around chanting those guys' names either.

Aside:

Pitt people: I'm one of them, too.

Half of my family is.

I follow Pitt football with a morbid curiosity. I'm not a huge BB fan at all. But, yeah, half of me is all hailing Pitt an' 'at.

Lt. Dish · Post by **Lt. Dish** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:31 pm

shmenguin wrote:
I'll say this much...I wasn't really clear on where you stood, Dish. And it may have been me not paying attention. So apologies if I offended you.

I'm still not 100% clear on your POV, but from your response I think we may be close to being on the same page.

Closer than you think, shmenguin. We're just coming at it from different directions.

Thank you. We're good--always. We're all here in the first place to support our favorite hockey team, and that makes us a community. People in a community should endeavor to understand each other. I try to do that. Sounds cornball, but it's something I believe in.

Grunthy · Post by **Grunthy** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:14 pm

Idoit40fans wrote:
PghSkins wrote:
Grunthy wrote:
The sad thing is you guys are arguing about a dead guy, that even if he would have done more nothing would have happened, instead of worrying about the victims affected by an evil *******, sandusky.
And rehashing the same arguments for years.

I never hear the victims discussed anywhere anymore (edit: except Dish upthread). Either side. Disappointing.
I find that to be a bizarre sentiment. People are starving to death and working as slave labor right now, yet you just want to talk about some crimes that happened over a decade ago. Disappointing.

[youtube][/youtube]

Post by **Sam's Drunk Dog** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:28 pm

I don't have the time to respond to all of your questions right now slappy, but I'll try to explain at some point in the future.

I will say that Paterno should have had McQuery contact the police directly if he felt McQuery had seen something inappropriate instead of just reporting it to his supervisor. I also believe McQuery's dad should have done the same thing instead of having him contact Paterno. To me, McQuery and his Dad's decision to speak to Paterno instead of the police doesn't make sense if McQuery saw a young boy being fondled.

Post by **shmenguin** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:27 pm

You don't have to respond to ALL of his questions. ANY of them would suffice.

Orlando Penguin · Post by **Orlando Penguin** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:53 pm

I don't think this has been posted anywhere on the last few pages but if it's been addressed somewhere else, I apologize. Just another interesting twist to this whole situation. At this link https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/file ... ention.pdf is the NCAA's policy for handling reports of abuse. I highlight the main points made on the opening page of the document. This was passed on August 6, 2014. Enjoy.

• Comply with campus authorities and ensure that all athletics
staff, coaches, administrators and student-athletes maintain
a hostile-free environment for all student-athletes regardless
of gender or sexual orientation; know and follow campus
protocol for reporting incidents of sexual violence; report
immediately any suspected sexual violence to appropriate
campus offices for investigation and adjudication;

• Educate all student-athletes, coaches and staff about
sexual violence prevention, intervention and response;

• Assure compliance with all federal and applicable state
regulations related to sexual violence prevention and
response; and

• Cooperate with but not manage, direct, control or interfere
with college or university investigations into allegations
of sexual violence ensuring that investigations involving
student-athletes and athletics department staff are
managed in the same manner as all other students and
staff on campus.

Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

Re: Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials