Yeah, even if it's a giant conspiracy and everyone who's testified so far has lied through their teeth, I don't see the benefit of putting him on the stand. A decent prosecutor would still rip him up because he put himself in the position to have this type of accusation brought by so many people.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter PoliSciGuy
- Start date
When considering whether to put a witness on the stand, the standard isn't "how can it hurt?" it's "does it help?"
Last edited by a moderator:
Question - how could McQuery (the asst coach whose name I am misspelling) look at himself in the mirror knowing what he saw in 2001 in the shower with Sandusky? Every day, for the next so many years, he did nothing. I would have given my bosses a few days tops to do something, and if Sandusky is still around, you know their assurance that they are doing something doesn't hold much credibility.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
His story about slamming the locker loudly in an attempt to stop the molestation is very lame. When he saw what was happening he should have confronted Sandusky right there.McQuery was simply looking out for himself and was a willing partner in the coverup. He is a scumbag IMO.
B-Deep
Footballguy
People make choices, and usually learn to live with them. Perhaps he was just able to burry it, perhaps he convinced himself he did enough. No one here can answer that question, though it is a question many have wondered about.Perhaps there are a lot more people than him who should be asking that in light of the earlier investigation. Many people seem to have enabled this, intentionally or not.
B-Deep
Footballguy
LAWYER QUESTION
What do our lawyer folks think is most likely true about Sandusky's lawyer:
1) he truly thinks Sandusky is innocent
2) he thinks sandusky committed these acts
3) he knows sandusky committed these acts
4) other
I am not looking to crush this guy, I recognize the right of everyone to a defense and that someone has to defend everyone for that right to mean something. I am just curious which seems most likely, or if it is impossible to know
thanks
What do our lawyer folks think is most likely true about Sandusky's lawyer:
1) he truly thinks Sandusky is innocent
2) he thinks sandusky committed these acts
3) he knows sandusky committed these acts
4) other
I am not looking to crush this guy, I recognize the right of everyone to a defense and that someone has to defend everyone for that right to mean something. I am just curious which seems most likely, or if it is impossible to know
thanks
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Denial. "I did the right thing. It's not my fault that the Campus Police decided not to arrest him."
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Really I think it's pretty clear that this stuff lasted way longer than it should have because the guy in charge of the campus police, Schultz, was dirty as hell. If you have a guy with that power who is not in on the coverup, I think it ends sooner. That guy should be in jail for a long time as well.
Part of me wants to see character witnesses for the defense just to see who is that freaking stupidThe more you read this the more you want to see him burned at the stake and made a required broadcast for every person living in that area.
CrossEyed
Footballguy
At the very least he's a jellyfish. Because nobody with a spine could have seen that happening and not confronted that piece of garbage.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
I agree that if Schultz refused to play along, then Sandusky would have been arrested sooner. But I think you could have said the same thing about half a dozen people. Schultz, Curley and Spanier were active participants in the cover-up, but Paterno, McQueary, McQueary's dad, the janitors, and others were all passive participants in the cover-up. Any one of them could have gone to the FBI or a newspaper reporter and blown the case wide open. But they all assumed that the police were on the case. They were all thinking something along the lines of "If Sandusky hadn't been arrested yet, it must have been due to a lack of evidence."People tend to avoid conflict. It's the same reason why so many cars will drive by a wreck without stopping. They don't want to get involved.%26%2339%3BConstruxBoy%26%2339%3B said:
Last edited by a moderator:
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Great point. And I think the other side of that, if you will, is what were those passive people told by Schultz? Did he tell them that it wasn't illegal or there was nothing the police could do or some sort of BS to get anyone off his case? It seems somewhat odd to me that a guy who wasn't a cop and had no training or experience in that arena could be the head of campus police. For some reason I think that a long time cop who happened to be in charge wouldn't go along on the coverup because they probably would have seen the results of child abuse at some time in their career.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
When are the perjury trials of Schultz and Curley?
General Malaise
Footballguy
Here's where I get all confused again....isn't he going to like some aspects of prison?'Tackling Dummies said:
General Malaise
Footballguy
I hear you. I had to change mine from "RhythmicSlappingSounds" last December.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
No doubt. I had to change mine from "ChildRapistEnabler"....bummer.I hear you. I had to change mine from "RhythmicSlappingSounds" last December.
tri-man 47
Footballguy
Coaching the prison football team? Oh, for sure. "Good practice, guys ...hit the showers."Here's where I get all confused again....isn't he going to like some aspects of prison?
By the law, McQueary and Paterno did the right thing.In Paterno's case, there is interesting activities by him in the late 1990's that suggest he knew then about Sandusky's child pedapphile activities, but even if we say that both know in 2001, they made uncountless decisions, every day, day after day, to say nonthing, both knowing how horrible of a person Sandusky was, and knew he was doing it in the locker room, and on campus.I understand telling your bosses and letting them deal with it, but how long does it take to figure out that nothing is happening?How long does it take for McQueary to justify in his mind that he did enough?For Paterno, he is/was the program, he's the most powerful person in the state. If he wanted Sandusky to go away, he would have, but, instead, he chose to cover up, say nothing and protect the program.All of this is just disgusting.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
I still don't see why people blame Paterno. Paterno never saw anything (that we know of) nor did he have proof other than circumstantial.
Paterno's job was football. Coaching, scouting, whatever... football was his job. Yeah, he saw Sandusky with kids around campus and on trips but his main focus was football. Paterno, more than likely, thought things were on the up-and-up since others had not reported anything to the police.
I am not giving Paterno carte blanche here but if he never saw anything and/or witnessed anything, why would he go to higher authorities? The police would have shrugged their shoulders if a guy walks in with circumstantial evidence and third/fourth hand knowledge of whatever activities.
The higher ups at the university are much more to blame as is McQuery as are the janitors. People that actually saw things going on should have gone to the police. Yet, people like to blame Paterno. Why?
Paterno's job was football. Coaching, scouting, whatever... football was his job. Yeah, he saw Sandusky with kids around campus and on trips but his main focus was football. Paterno, more than likely, thought things were on the up-and-up since others had not reported anything to the police.
I am not giving Paterno carte blanche here but if he never saw anything and/or witnessed anything, why would he go to higher authorities? The police would have shrugged their shoulders if a guy walks in with circumstantial evidence and third/fourth hand knowledge of whatever activities.
The higher ups at the university are much more to blame as is McQuery as are the janitors. People that actually saw things going on should have gone to the police. Yet, people like to blame Paterno. Why?
Joe Summer
Footballguy
That's not quite true. According to the law, Paterno was required to either report his suspicions directly to the university president (Graham Spanier) OR he was required to report them to the department of public welfare. He did neither.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
1. because it's the law.2. because McQueary told him that a child was raped. You don't let that get ignored. Ever.
1. You don't get to decide what's worth investigating, and neither does Joe Paterno.2. even if you believe that the police will do nothing, what is the harm in making a 30 second phone call?
3. it is this EXACT attitude ("the police would have shrugged their shoulders") that allowed Sandusky to continue molesting little boys for years and years.
4. The law requires people like Paterno to report these EXACT types of suspicions, even when they're "third hand" suspicions. So if the police DID "shrug their shoulders", then THEY would be breaking the law, too.
People like to blame Paterno because he deserves some of the blame. The other guys deserve blame too. I don't see anyone defending the other guys in this thread, do you?
Mario Kart
Footballguy
No, but the "blame Paterno" fan club is out in full force when it should not be. The guy saw nothing (presumably) and informed the person (McQueary) who did see it to do more.Paterno did what he could do.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
That's an interesting way of phrasing it, because it is technically correct. You are right that he did what he "could" do.But he didn't do what he SHOULD HAVE done, and he didn't do what he was REQUIRED to do by law.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I certainly agree with the first part of that sentence and I saw where you explained the second part, but if that is the case, why did the DA say he did nothing legally wrong? Is PA different than other states on that law?
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Who the #### let's their kids stay at an old man's house?
mad sweeney
Footballguy
The fact that he ousted Sandusky from the football program greatly suggests that Paterno knew plenty and did nowhere near enough.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Objection. Speculation your honor. Sustained.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
I would have locked Paterno up for life and let him die alone in solitary confinement. He is a vile pathetic child rape enabler and child rapist protector who directly and indirectly caused vast amounts of pain and suffering in the lives of children. I would not be surprised if one or more of Sandusky's victims have killed themselves over the years.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
I am not a court of law.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
'proninja said:
Child rape is not some petty accusation that you let slide for lack of first hand evidence.Joe Summer
Footballguy
The DA used a liberal interpretation of the law, in my opinion. If you read the text of the Pennsylvania Mandatory Reporting Law, there are enough loopholes there to let Paterno off the hook if you really wanted to.
Furious Styles
Footballguy
That is true, sad and pathetic. The whole environment around "Happy Valley" is weird and creepy.'proninja said:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Oh for the love of God . . .
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
OK, I don't know enough about the law to argue. Is the suggestion that it was unreasonable and he did it just to let Paterno walk?
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
At the risk of starting more arguments, and of looking like a fool, let me give a different perspective on the Sandusky ouster. Take this with a grain of salt as I'm a PSU alum. From a local/fan/alumni point of view, it was a bit of a surprise when it happened. But it wasn't the huge surprise it's being made out to be. Rumors were that Paterno was getting tired of Sandusky spending so much time with Second Mile and thought it interfered with his DC duties. Speculation was that Sandusky was getting tired/too old of waiting to take over for Paterno. When it happened, the official word was that Sandusky wanted to spend more time with Second Mile (I know, I know). Whispers were that he more or less demanded a timetable to become Head Coach and Paterno told him to screw off.
In retrospect, clearly all that could have been a cover up by Spanier, Curley, Paterno to get Sandusky out quietly. But the truth is that Sandusky really was spending more and more time with the Second Mile and Paterno really had no intention of stepping down anytime soon. So it certainly could have just been a move by Curley to get Sandusky out by telling him to go ask Joe for a timetable knowing that Joe would tell him to screw off. Probably not, but it's possible that they really did keep the 1998 news from Paterno and this is how it went down.
Finally, a couple of articles about his departure. First here is the eerie and sort of sick article at the time:
SI at Sandusky's departure
A couple of interesting parts, to me: Him saying it really hurt not to be a head coach; him saying he turned down other jobs because of wanting to be close to family and the Second Mile (I know, just makes you sick); him saying he didn't really get along with Paterno and Joe wouldn't miss him; and finally the sort of half-hearted comment about not wanting to follow "Papa". I think that last one is BS and he desperately wanted to be the Head Coach at PSU and only at PSU.
In interest of fairness, here is the recent article by the same author:
SI now
bagger
Footballguy
this x 1,000
timschochet
Footballguy
If it's true that Joe Paterno knew about what Sandusky was doing, but covered up for him and allowed him to remain connected with Penn State in order to avoid staining the school's reputation, then he (Paterno) deserves all of the scorn that posters like Todd Andrews and bagger has expressed, and we should revile his memory. And if others at Penn State knew about this and covered it up in order to protect Paterno, then they need to be condemned as well. And possibly prosecuted.
But unless there's clear cut proof of this stuff, then I think we should refrain from the accusations against these people. ConstruxBoy's post suggests a different possibilty in the case of Paterno, and there may also be different possibilities in the case of the others as well. What I absolutely reject is the argument that several people here have made, to the effect that, "Of course they knew, how could they NOT have known?" Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. People are stupid. People blind themselves to unpleasant facts. People are gullible. These things make them guilty of nothing except stupidity, blindness and gullibility. It doesn't make them evil.
If you're going to call people "vile pathetic child rape enablers" you had better have clear-cut evidence to demonstrate it, otherwise you're just as vile as you claim they are.
But unless there's clear cut proof of this stuff, then I think we should refrain from the accusations against these people. ConstruxBoy's post suggests a different possibilty in the case of Paterno, and there may also be different possibilities in the case of the others as well. What I absolutely reject is the argument that several people here have made, to the effect that, "Of course they knew, how could they NOT have known?" Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. People are stupid. People blind themselves to unpleasant facts. People are gullible. These things make them guilty of nothing except stupidity, blindness and gullibility. It doesn't make them evil.
If you're going to call people "vile pathetic child rape enablers" you had better have clear-cut evidence to demonstrate it, otherwise you're just as vile as you claim they are.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Serious question -- Is there anybody out there who is NOT a Penn State fan/alumn who really thinks that Paterno didn't know about this and cover it up? In my casual reading about this case, it seems like Paterno's guilt is universally acknowledged by everybody except Penn State partisans.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I'm wondering if this is a black/white thing for some people and a gray area for me. Now don't get me wrong, Paterno certainly didn't do the right or best thing. But I see 4 levels of covering something up:1) Not knowing about it at all2) Having a little bit of knowledge but not getting more involved and more curious about it although you should3) Having a pretty good idea of what is going on and ignoring it but not actually lying or enabling lies to cover it up4) Knowing almost exactly what is going on and purposely covering it upPretty clear by now that Schultz is in level 4 and I think it certainly sounds like Spanier and Curley are as well, although I suppose Spanier could be level 3. Paterno is clearly not at level 1. He claims in his interview in the WaPo before he died that he was at level 2. I think the people most vocal in this thread think he's at level 4 and they may be right. No evidence yet. Most probably think he's at level 3 and they're probably right. There is a slim chance that he really is at level 2 but I would need some good evidence to convince me of that, just like I personally (and maybe because I'm a PSU alum) would need some good evidence to convince me that he was level 4. I think we really need to wait for the perjury trials for more real evidence about Paterno. The Sandusky trial probably won't have any.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Paterno admitted that he was told of a child being raped by Sandusky.Paterno admitted that he continued to associate with Sandusky afterwards.What would you call that?
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I'm a PSU alum but see my post below yours. Knowing and actively covering up are different I think. I can't imagine how anyone could think he didn't know when he's testified about what McQueary told him.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I don't know why I'm bothering but both of those statements are kind of wrong. He was told about something that looked sexual in nature, which is my opinion is different that being told he saw something I don't want to type here. And I thought we established pretty well earlier in the thread that he didn't really associate with Sandusky after the 2001/2 incident? He pretty much talked to him one or two times if that over the course of a decade. Lots of people think that's a tell that he knew what was going on.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Paterno's own Grand Jury testimony alone shows that he knew what was going on. I don't know how much more clear-cut that can be.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
What was going on is that over a number of years Sandusky was systematically befriending and abusing a number of young boys through his charity. Where in Paterno's testimony does he say that?
mad sweeney
Footballguy
He was told of "fondling' and "something of a sexual nature" (of course after he was fired his statement to the press tried to claim he wasn't told anything that specific). That's sexual assault at a minimum even if it was committed against an adult. He still saw Sandusky with children at football activities and didn't do anything about it, that's enabling.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
He doesn't, but he does show that he knew specifically about one incident and yet Sandusky continued to be around the football team with young children and JoPa did nothing about it.
