Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Nice that Yudkin chose to lock the other thread after putting in his opinion.

I didn't lock it and don't know who did.

 

[MikeIke]

I didn't lock it and don't know who did.

My apologies, then. I just assumed.

 

[TexanFan02]

Nice that Yudkin chose to lock the other thread after putting in his opinion.

I didn't lock it and don't know who did.

Ah, it just looked that way because you posted in it after it was locked.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Nice that Yudkin chose to lock the other thread after putting in his opinion.

I didn't lock it and don't know who did.

Ah, it just looked that way because you posted in it after it was locked.

Well, since Paterno is all powerful, HE must have locked it...

 

[squistion]

Nice that Yudkin chose to lock the other thread after putting in his opinion.

I didn't lock it and don't know who did.

Ah, it just looked that way because you posted in it after it was locked.

Hmmm...if a thread is locked, shouldn't it be locked for further comments from everyone, including moderators - or do they get to revisit any thread and literally get the last word after a thread is closed?I have seen threads where a moderator says "Enough I am locking this," and nothing is posted after that - but this was the first thread ever that was locked and then another moderator puts in his two cents. That doesn't seem right to me, but that is my opinion.

 

[TexanFan02]

Nice that Yudkin chose to lock the other thread after putting in his opinion.

I didn't lock it and don't know who did.

Ah, it just looked that way because you posted in it after it was locked.

Hmmm...if a thread is locked, shouldn't it be locked for further comments from everyone, including moderators - or do they get to revisit any thread and literally get the last word after a thread is closed?I have seen threads where a moderator says "Enough I am locking this," and nothing is posted after that - but this was the first thread ever that was locked and then another moderator puts in his two cents. That doesn't seem right to me, but that is my opinion.

Seems wrong, but it's such a long diatribe he might have been typing it when it got locked, but super mod powers allowed him to post it.

 

[Dragons]

Nice that Yudkin chose to lock the other thread after putting in his opinion.

I didn't lock it and don't know who did.

Ah, it just looked that way because you posted in it after it was locked.

Hmmm...if a thread is locked, shouldn't it be locked for further comments from everyone, including moderators - or do they get to revisit any thread and literally get the last word after a thread is closed?I have seen threads where a moderator says "Enough I am locking this," and nothing is posted after that - but this was the first thread ever that was locked and then another moderator puts in his two cents. That doesn't seem right to me, but that is my opinion.

I would expect that mods would have the power to post in a thread that's locked. For example, maybe they want to give an explanation as to why they're locking it, should they allow discussion that has already gone off the tracks to continue while they type up a thoughtful response and then lock it when they're finished?

 

[squistion]

Nice that Yudkin chose to lock the other thread after putting in his opinion.

I didn't lock it and don't know who did.

Ah, it just looked that way because you posted in it after it was locked.

Hmmm...if a thread is locked, shouldn't it be locked for further comments from everyone, including moderators - or do they get to revisit any thread and literally get the last word after a thread is closed?I have seen threads where a moderator says "Enough I am locking this," and nothing is posted after that - but this was the first thread ever that was locked and then another moderator puts in his two cents. That doesn't seem right to me, but that is my opinion.

I would expect that mods would have the power to post in a thread that's locked. For example, maybe they want to give an explanation as to why they're locking it, should they allow discussion that has already gone off the tracks to continue while they type up a thoughtful response and then lock it when they're finished?

That is all very fine, but David says he didn't lock it to stop discussion that went off the tracks. After it was locked by another moderator, then he opened it to put in his position that no one can respond to.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Nice that Yudkin chose to lock the other thread after putting in his opinion.

I didn't lock it and don't know who did.

Ah, it just looked that way because you posted in it after it was locked.

Hmmm...if a thread is locked, shouldn't it be locked for further comments from everyone, including moderators - or do they get to revisit any thread and literally get the last word after a thread is closed?I have seen threads where a moderator says "Enough I am locking this," and nothing is posted after that - but this was the first thread ever that was locked and then another moderator puts in his two cents. That doesn't seem right to me, but that is my opinion.

I would expect that mods would have the power to post in a thread that's locked. For example, maybe they want to give an explanation as to why they're locking it, should they allow discussion that has already gone off the tracks to continue while they type up a thoughtful response and then lock it when they're finished?

That is all very fine, but David says he didn't lock it to stop discussion that went off the tracks. After it was locked by another moderator, then he opened it to put in his position that no one can respond to.

Mods can reply to locked topics. He didn't have to open it back up. In all fairness, there is probably a pretty good chance he didn't realize it was locked.

 

[David Yudkin]

Mods can post in any thread, locked or not. At the time I started posting the thread was still open. By the time I finished it was locked by someone else. But yes, mods can post even in locked threads. Don't ask me why, I didn't design the system.

 

[Joe Summer]

Next to Sandusky, Mcqueary is the biggest piece of #### in this whole atrocity. What McQueary chose to do and NOT do is worse than anything Paterno might have done.

So you're blaming McQueary because he chose to panic?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Leaving for vacation for the rest of the week. Everyone have a safe and happy holiday and don't think about this thread.

 

[CrossEyed]

Reminds me of a quote that I have had in my office for quite a while. "Character is who you are when no one is watching."

 

[The Commish]

Why was it deleted?

Because we have a perfectly good thread right here to discuss this stuff in. That's my guess

 

[Maude]

Next to Sandusky, Mcqueary is the biggest piece of #### in this whole atrocity. What McQueary chose to do and NOT do is worse than anything Paterno might have done.

So you're blaming McQueary because he chose to panic?

Yeah, and then he chose NOT to say or do anything for the next 10 years. Real stand up dude. Good on ya mate.You defending him?

 

[Joe Summer]

Next to Sandusky, Mcqueary is the biggest piece of #### in this whole atrocity. What McQueary chose to do and NOT do is worse than anything Paterno might have done.

So you're blaming McQueary because he chose to panic?

Yeah, and then he chose NOT to say or do anything for the next 10 years. Real stand up dude. Good on ya mate.You defending him?

I disagree with your belief that he's worse than Schultz, Curley, or Spanier. And I can't discount the fact that McQueary did some good things (he interrupted the rape; he reported it to Paterno and Curley; he told the truth to the grand jury) -- the same can't be said of Schultz, Curley, or Spanier. Those guys conspired to protect and cover-up evil.

 

[Furious Styles]

The evolution of the Paterno apologists is interesting to say the least

 

[fatness]

Next to Sandusky, Mcqueary is the biggest piece of #### in this whole atrocity. What McQueary chose to do and NOT do is worse than anything Paterno might have done.

McQueary told 5 people about it at the time. Who else even did that much?

 

[fatness]

The evolution of the Paterno apologists is interesting to say the least

This is just a re-run. It's back to blaming McQueary again.

 

[mad sweeney]

Next to Sandusky, Mcqueary is the biggest piece of #### in this whole atrocity. What McQueary chose to do and NOT do is worse than anything Paterno might have done.

So you're blaming McQueary because he chose to panic?

Yeah, and then he chose NOT to say or do anything for the next 10 years. Real stand up dude. Good on ya mate.You defending him?

I disagree with your belief that he's worse than Schultz, Curley, or Spanier. And I can't discount the fact that McQueary did some good things (he interrupted the rape; he reported it to Paterno and Curley; he told the truth to the grand jury) -- the same can't be said of Schultz, Curley, or Spanier. Those guys conspired to protect and cover-up evil.

He did?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

This looks really bad. It's not 100% conclusive, but it looks really bad. And I feel awful about it, because I have always been a Paterno fan from afar. Never worshipped the guy, but I always admired him.My question for him, and for Curley and Spanier and the other enablers is: why? How could they possibly have thought that funds coming into the university was more important than to reveal what this monster was doing? How could they condone it? What were they possibly thinking?

You love Paterno, the child rapist protector and child rape enabler.

It's awful to watch my thread get shut down and then to see folks post this filth...how is this thread still open? I don't even know TA, but this is not funny to me. I know Tim a little and I know he pushes it for some folks, but I also respect him and would never post something like this towards him unless I wanted to make a complete ### out of myself. Disgusting to call him that. If this is a joke then the laugh is on me but since this thread is pretty deadly serious I'm thinking this is not a joke.

 

[fatness]

Disgusting to call him that. If this is a joke then the laugh is on me but since this thread is pretty deadly serious I'm thinking this is not a joke.

You can make the case that Paterno did that, or didn't do that. I'm not sure what's surprising you. I realize you wanted your locked topic to avoid any unsavory details like, you know, child rape when talking about kids who got raped. But it's not being avoided here.

 

[squistion]

This looks really bad. It's not 100% conclusive, but it looks really bad. And I feel awful about it, because I have always been a Paterno fan from afar. Never worshipped the guy, but I always admired him.

My question for him, and for Curley and Spanier and the other enablers is: why? How could they possibly have thought that funds coming into the university was more important than to reveal what this monster was doing? How could they condone it? What were they possibly thinking?

You love Paterno, the child rapist protector and child rape enabler.

It's awful to watch my thread get shut down and then to see folks post this filth...how is this thread still open? I don't even know TA, but this is not funny to me. I know Tim a little and I know he pushes it for some folks, but I also respect him and would never post something like this towards him unless I wanted to make a complete ### out of myself.

Disgusting to call him that. If this is a joke then the laugh is on me but since this thread is pretty deadly serious I'm thinking this is not a joke.

Exactly, and you were discussing a side issue there and I agree that this thread should be closed.

 

[crewmember]

The evolution of the Paterno apologists is interesting to say the least

This is just a re-run. It's back to blaming McQueary again.

You just defended McQueary in your post before this one. Doesn't make sense.

 

[Todd Andrews]

This looks really bad. It's not 100% conclusive, but it looks really bad. And I feel awful about it, because I have always been a Paterno fan from afar. Never worshipped the guy, but I always admired him.My question for him, and for Curley and Spanier and the other enablers is: why? How could they possibly have thought that funds coming into the university was more important than to reveal what this monster was doing? How could they condone it? What were they possibly thinking?

You love Paterno, the child rapist protector and child rape enabler.

It's awful to watch my thread get shut down and then to see folks post this filth...how is this thread still open? I don't even know TA, but this is not funny to me. I know Tim a little and I know he pushes it for some folks, but I also respect him and would never post something like this towards him unless I wanted to make a complete ### out of myself. Disgusting to call him that. If this is a joke then the laugh is on me but since this thread is pretty deadly serious I'm thinking this is not a joke.

Earlier in this thread Tim was defending Paterno which makes me sick. Paterno protected a vile child rapist and enabled multiple children to be violated and raped. Not sure why you have a problem with me criticizing someone who defends a scumbag who protects child rapists, but dont really care, either.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Those of you that spare Joe at the expense of McQueary have to contexualize what HE is going through and what the janitors who've I've seen criticized go through.

I think you have to consider the machine of Penn State Football and what it means to the campus, town and entire Central PA region and even PA as a whole. Why the guy didn't go straight to the cops, I don't know, but he went to someone who should have been BETTER than the police as far as wielding stroke. He took this to Joe. And it died.

Forgetting the personal implications of his family connections to the program and his own background as a player and an assistant and his choice to blow the whistle for doing the one thing that everyone at the TOP didn't want to do, disrupt the machine, you have to I think consider his position. He told Joe, it went nowhere. That was as clear a message as you could hope have sent. If the guy who defenders and detractors could agree "ran the town", put this thing on ice, in essence meaning the word from on high is that this story is not a story, what kind of change is McQueary supposed to affect by going to police who answer to JoePa.

With the press and clippings on "Saint Jerry", this seems like it would have been seen as a pretty wild accusation in State College in 2001. His word against McQueary's. Joe Pa clearly not having his back.

You can and should ask very valid questions as to how and why McQueary would stay involved with PSU post that situation, and how he himself could tolerate seeing Sandusky bring children around, but to anyone who says that a Jabroni's inaction is worse than what looks like it may well be a coordinated coverup by the king, is not looking at the big picture.

 

[Daywalker]

Those of you that spare Joe at the expense of McQueary have to contexualize what HE is going through and what the janitors who've I've seen criticized go through. I think you have to consider the machine of Penn State Football and what it means to the campus, town and entire Central PA region and even PA as a whole. Why the guy didn't go straight to the cops, I don't know, but he went to someone who should have been BETTER than the police as far as wielding stroke. He took this to Joe. And it died. Forgetting the personal implications of his family connections to the program and his own background as a player and an assistant and his choice to blow the whistle for doing the one thing that everyone at the TOP didn't want to do, disrupt the machine, you have to I think consider his position. He told Joe, it went nowhere. That was as clear a message as you could hope have sent. If the guy who defenders and detractors could agree "ran the town", put this thing on ice, in essence meaning the word from on high is that this story is not a story, what kind of change is McQueary supposed to affect by going to police who answer to JoePa. With the press and clippings on "Saint Jerry", this seems like it would have been seen as a pretty wild accusation in State College in 2001. His word against McQueary's. Joe Pa clearly not having his back.You can and should ask very valid questions as to how and why McQueary would stay involved with PSU post that situation, and how he himself could tolerate seeing Sandusky bring children around, but to anyone who says that a Jabroni's inaction is worse than what looks like it may well be a coordinated coverup by the king, is not looking at the big picture.

How can you cover something up more then witnessing a boy being raped and not going to the police? JoPa just as bad but he probably got the PG-13 version of the events and didn't have to personally witness it like McQueary did. To see it with your own eyes and do nothing is about as bad as it gets.

 

[Raider Nation]

Who posted in: Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestationMember name PostsCrossEyed 443Aaron Rudnicki 237ConstruxBoy 237Joe Summer 176Leeroy Jenkins 170mad sweeney 144B-Deep 133AmosMoses 119Parrothead 114Todd Andrews 101proninja 95Christo 91timschochet 87Sinn Fein 85Chase Stuart 80fatness 78Billy Bats 75
I only pop into this thread now and then. Cliffs on CE's prolific work in here?

 

[Smack Tripper]

Those of you that spare Joe at the expense of McQueary have to contexualize what HE is going through and what the janitors who've I've seen criticized go through. I think you have to consider the machine of Penn State Football and what it means to the campus, town and entire Central PA region and even PA as a whole. Why the guy didn't go straight to the cops, I don't know, but he went to someone who should have been BETTER than the police as far as wielding stroke. He took this to Joe. And it died. Forgetting the personal implications of his family connections to the program and his own background as a player and an assistant and his choice to blow the whistle for doing the one thing that everyone at the TOP didn't want to do, disrupt the machine, you have to I think consider his position. He told Joe, it went nowhere. That was as clear a message as you could hope have sent. If the guy who defenders and detractors could agree "ran the town", put this thing on ice, in essence meaning the word from on high is that this story is not a story, what kind of change is McQueary supposed to affect by going to police who answer to JoePa. With the press and clippings on "Saint Jerry", this seems like it would have been seen as a pretty wild accusation in State College in 2001. His word against McQueary's. Joe Pa clearly not having his back.You can and should ask very valid questions as to how and why McQueary would stay involved with PSU post that situation, and how he himself could tolerate seeing Sandusky bring children around, but to anyone who says that a Jabroni's inaction is worse than what looks like it may well be a coordinated coverup by the king, is not looking at the big picture.

How can you cover something up more then witnessing a boy being raped and not going to the police? JoPa just as bad but he probably got the PG-13 version of the events and didn't have to personally witness it like McQueary did. To see it with your own eyes and do nothing is about as bad as it gets.

Because Joe was supposedly a paragon of virtue and morally "right" AND he wielded great influence, ultimate influence in the town. I think you can argue that McQueary may have feared reprisals for going directly to the PD. That doesn't justify his choice to not do it, but it does make it somewhat more understandable. He's a 22 year old guy making 22,000 a year, right or wrong I can see him being worried about his future.Joe Paterno was only worried about his past, and more concerned with protecting his legacy.

 

[mad sweeney]

Those of you that spare Joe at the expense of McQueary have to contexualize what HE is going through and what the janitors who've I've seen criticized go through. I think you have to consider the machine of Penn State Football and what it means to the campus, town and entire Central PA region and even PA as a whole. Why the guy didn't go straight to the cops, I don't know, but he went to someone who should have been BETTER than the police as far as wielding stroke. He took this to Joe. And it died. Forgetting the personal implications of his family connections to the program and his own background as a player and an assistant and his choice to blow the whistle for doing the one thing that everyone at the TOP didn't want to do, disrupt the machine, you have to I think consider his position. He told Joe, it went nowhere. That was as clear a message as you could hope have sent. If the guy who defenders and detractors could agree "ran the town", put this thing on ice, in essence meaning the word from on high is that this story is not a story, what kind of change is McQueary supposed to affect by going to police who answer to JoePa. With the press and clippings on "Saint Jerry", this seems like it would have been seen as a pretty wild accusation in State College in 2001. His word against McQueary's. Joe Pa clearly not having his back.You can and should ask very valid questions as to how and why McQueary would stay involved with PSU post that situation, and how he himself could tolerate seeing Sandusky bring children around, but to anyone who says that a Jabroni's inaction is worse than what looks like it may well be a coordinated coverup by the king, is not looking at the big picture.

How can you cover something up more then witnessing a boy being raped and not going to the police? JoPa just as bad but he probably got the PG-13 version of the events and didn't have to personally witness it like McQueary did. To see it with your own eyes and do nothing is about as bad as it gets.

Because Joe was supposedly a paragon of virtue and morally "right" AND he wielded great influence, ultimate influence in the town. I think you can argue that McQueary may have feared reprisals for going directly to the PD. That doesn't justify his choice to not do it, but it does make it somewhat more understandable. He's a 22 year old guy making 22,000 a year, right or wrong I can see him being worried about his future.Joe Paterno was only worried about his past, and more concerned with protecting his legacy.

I believe he was actually 26 or 27. A grown ### man who walked in on a predator raping a kid. No excuses whatsoever for not going straight to the police instead of his daddy and then Joe. If he'd have done the right thing and beaten Sandusky senseless and called the police, they'd have all the evidence they needed that to put him in jail and others would come out during the process. There are some things that supersede using job security as an excuse. And there's nothing, no excuse at all, for sticking around after seeing nothing happen to Sandusky. Nothing happened because he didn't have the balls to do the right thing and he allowed them to cover it up. I rank him #2 in the ####heel rankings behind JoePa (Sandusky would have to be human to be in the rankings, he's something different altogether). Spanier can have the 3rd spot, but none of this happens if the coward McQueary had been a man about things.

 

[fatness]

The ranking of the villians here:

1. Sandusky

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2. (tie) McQueary

2. (tie) Paterno

2. (tie) Curley

2. (tie) Schultz

2. (tie) Spanier

And you can easily make the argument that McQueary did more than any of the other villians to get Sandusky convicted. He reported it to 5 people. He testified at the grand jury and at trial. Sandusky was convicted on 3 out of 4 charges related to what McQueary testified about.

 

[Billy Bats]

The ranking of the villians here:1. Sandusky...............2. (tie) McQueary2. (tie) Paterno2. (tie) Curley2. (tie) Schultz2. (tie) SpanierAnd you can easily make the argument that McQueary did more than any of the other villians to get Sandusky convicted. He reported it to 5 people. He testified at the grand jury and at trial. Sandusky was convicted on 3 out of 4 charges related to what McQueary testified about.

I disagree. McQueary owns more responsibility because he was the only eyewitness. His story is hearsay to everyone else, although the leaders he reported it to own a great responsibility to report it, more burden falls on McQueary for seeing it firsthand. He could've gone to authorities by himself and had an investigation done just by what he saw. Again I'm not absolving Joe, Spanier, Schultz and Curley whatsoever, just that McQ ranks a bit higher on the loser/scumbag/fail scale.

 

[Smack Tripper]

The ranking of the villians here:

1. Sandusky

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2. (tie) McQueary

2. (tie) Paterno

2. (tie) Curley

2. (tie) Schultz

2. (tie) Spanier

And you can easily make the argument that McQueary did more than any of the other villians to get Sandusky convicted. He reported it to 5 people. He testified at the grand jury and at trial. Sandusky was convicted on 3 out of 4 charges related to what McQueary testified about.

I disagree. McQueary owns more responsibility because he was the only eyewitness. His story is hearsay to everyone else, although the leaders he reported it to own a great responsibility to report it, more burden falls on McQueary for seeing it firsthand. He could've gone to authorities by himself and had an investigation done just by what he saw. Again I'm not absolving Joe, Spanier, Schultz and Curley whatsoever, just that McQ ranks a bit higher on the loser/scumbag/fail scale.

This is a fallacy. McQueary is not a detective or a DA, how is he supposed to bring charges and prosecute him? I don't mean to defend the guy, I would like to think I would have left that old queen in a pool of his own blood in the shower, but as far as getting people to act, look at the progression of this case. The is a chronology of investigations that end up abandoned, and I remain convinced that people around the program perhaps had an instinct something was off with this guy. But the public perception of Sandusky was to be a saint in the community. He started a great charity, he was the backbone of Linebacker U, he was active and involved on campus(obviously and sadly). So if you're Mike McQueary, you take your story to the State College PD, and say yes, I saw Jerry Sandusky going to town on a boy and the answer becomes, well, what's your evidence.

And thats obviously presuming he didn't rescue the child. And we can have our thoughts and debates on that, I feel pretty concrete that I would have acted in the moment, perhaps you do to, but psychologist after psychologist said not so fast to that instinct, essentially saying what you would see would be both so vile and foreign as a concept that you might be frozen in panic. So I'm giving him that much of a benefit of the doubt. But unfortunately, when McQueary left, and the kid left unidentified, you get what we had in the trial.

I mean, the only thing Sandusky was acquitted of was the "eye witness" account of Sandusky which is crazy when you think about it but in a framework of reasonable doubt and a burden of proof and all that, well, it how does he prove it. This guy was at the time a pillar of the community. On the word of McQueary I don't think they're going to run out and press charges, although putting him under suspicion and investigating him would have obviously been better than inaction.

 

[Billy Bats]

The ranking of the villians here:

1. Sandusky

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2. (tie) McQueary

2. (tie) Paterno

2. (tie) Curley

2. (tie) Schultz

2. (tie) Spanier

And you can easily make the argument that McQueary did more than any of the other villians to get Sandusky convicted. He reported it to 5 people. He testified at the grand jury and at trial. Sandusky was convicted on 3 out of 4 charges related to what McQueary testified about.

I disagree. McQueary owns more responsibility because he was the only eyewitness. His story is hearsay to everyone else, although the leaders he reported it to own a great responsibility to report it, more burden falls on McQueary for seeing it firsthand. He could've gone to authorities by himself and had an investigation done just by what he saw. Again I'm not absolving Joe, Spanier, Schultz and Curley whatsoever, just that McQ ranks a bit higher on the loser/scumbag/fail scale.

This is a fallacy. McQueary is not a detective or a DA, how is he supposed to bring charges and prosecute him?

I said by going to authorites he couldve gotten an investigation. Considering it would be the second time Sandusky was reported, I would think they would take it pretty damn seriously, especially having an eyewitness account.

 

[Smack Tripper]

The ranking of the villians here:

1. Sandusky

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2. (tie) McQueary

2. (tie) Paterno

2. (tie) Curley

2. (tie) Schultz

2. (tie) Spanier

And you can easily make the argument that McQueary did more than any of the other villians to get Sandusky convicted. He reported it to 5 people. He testified at the grand jury and at trial. Sandusky was convicted on 3 out of 4 charges related to what McQueary testified about.

I disagree. McQueary owns more responsibility because he was the only eyewitness. His story is hearsay to everyone else, although the leaders he reported it to own a great responsibility to report it, more burden falls on McQueary for seeing it firsthand. He could've gone to authorities by himself and had an investigation done just by what he saw. Again I'm not absolving Joe, Spanier, Schultz and Curley whatsoever, just that McQ ranks a bit higher on the loser/scumbag/fail scale.

This is a fallacy. McQueary is not a detective or a DA, how is he supposed to bring charges and prosecute him?

I said by going to authorites he couldve gotten an investigation. Considering it would be the second time Sandusky was reported, I would think they would take it pretty damn seriously, especially having an eyewitness account.

ok thats fair enough, I read it as he could have had the guy prosecuted.

 

[bagger]

Those of you that spare Joe at the expense of McQueary have to contexualize what HE is going through and what the janitors who've I've seen criticized go through. I think you have to consider the machine of Penn State Football and what it means to the campus, town and entire Central PA region and even PA as a whole. Why the guy didn't go straight to the cops, I don't know, but he went to someone who should have been BETTER than the police as far as wielding stroke. He took this to Joe. And it died. Forgetting the personal implications of his family connections to the program and his own background as a player and an assistant and his choice to blow the whistle for doing the one thing that everyone at the TOP didn't want to do, disrupt the machine, you have to I think consider his position. He told Joe, it went nowhere. That was as clear a message as you could hope have sent. If the guy who defenders and detractors could agree "ran the town", put this thing on ice, in essence meaning the word from on high is that this story is not a story, what kind of change is McQueary supposed to affect by going to police who answer to JoePa. With the press and clippings on "Saint Jerry", this seems like it would have been seen as a pretty wild accusation in State College in 2001. His word against McQueary's. Joe Pa clearly not having his back.You can and should ask very valid questions as to how and why McQueary would stay involved with PSU post that situation, and how he himself could tolerate seeing Sandusky bring children around, but to anyone who says that a Jabroni's inaction is worse than what looks like it may well be a coordinated coverup by the king, is not looking at the big picture.

the fact that mcqueary rose so rapidly up the coaching ladder leaves no doubt in my mind he got compensated for keeping mum.he basically sold out future victims so he could have personal gain.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The ranking of the villians here:1. Sandusky...............2. (tie) McQueary2. (tie) Paterno2. (tie) Curley2. (tie) Schultz2. (tie) SpanierAnd you can easily make the argument that McQueary did more than any of the other villians to get Sandusky convicted. He reported it to 5 people. He testified at the grand jury and at trial. Sandusky was convicted on 3 out of 4 charges related to what McQueary testified about.

I'd argue you might have this backwards. There is a decent chance that Sandusky, vile as he may be, could not help himself - they way an alcoholic, or any other addiction-afflicted person acts.On the other hand, the other folks on your list had choices they could make, and chose self-interest over the interest of others. You could make the same argument for Sandusky - at some point he had to know he had a problem, and chose not to seek help, but chose self-interest over others. But I don't think Sandusky-the-child-moletster is any more culpable than those that were in position to keep him from acting again.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Those of you that spare Joe at the expense of McQueary have to contexualize what HE is going through and what the janitors who've I've seen criticized go through. I think you have to consider the machine of Penn State Football and what it means to the campus, town and entire Central PA region and even PA as a whole. Why the guy didn't go straight to the cops, I don't know, but he went to someone who should have been BETTER than the police as far as wielding stroke. He took this to Joe. And it died. Forgetting the personal implications of his family connections to the program and his own background as a player and an assistant and his choice to blow the whistle for doing the one thing that everyone at the TOP didn't want to do, disrupt the machine, you have to I think consider his position. He told Joe, it went nowhere. That was as clear a message as you could hope have sent. If the guy who defenders and detractors could agree "ran the town", put this thing on ice, in essence meaning the word from on high is that this story is not a story, what kind of change is McQueary supposed to affect by going to police who answer to JoePa. With the press and clippings on "Saint Jerry", this seems like it would have been seen as a pretty wild accusation in State College in 2001. His word against McQueary's. Joe Pa clearly not having his back.You can and should ask very valid questions as to how and why McQueary would stay involved with PSU post that situation, and how he himself could tolerate seeing Sandusky bring children around, but to anyone who says that a Jabroni's inaction is worse than what looks like it may well be a coordinated coverup by the king, is not looking at the big picture.

the fact that mcqueary rose so rapidly up the coaching ladder leaves no doubt in my mind he got compensated for keeping mum.he basically sold out future victims so he could have personal gain.

This is valid. As I said, I don't mean to defend McQueary. There is a difference between being the man that pushes the destruct button on a program and institution that you were raised in, and being the man who's silence was for sale with professional advancement and salary presumably. In reflecting upon him, I had forgotten his advancement. I guess what I'm saying is, I can see a progression where he didn't drop the dime to the authorities on Sandusky, but I can not see how he himself allowed himself to see Sandusky continue to bring children around that program. You don't have to kill it but you certainly don't have to stay. And just to clarify, I defend McQueary strictly in solely in contrast to Joe. There IS a difference between being a soldier and a general.

 

[Joe Summer]

The Paterno family is now claiming that the email leaks are designed to smear Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley.

Here is the statement in full:

"From the moment the Jerry Sandusky crisis erupted, Joe Paterno patiently and persistently called for a thorough and professional investigation. He abhorred the rush to judgment that occurred last November and he spoke out forcefully for a comprehensive review that protected no one while preserving due process for everyone. Coach Paterno emphasized that the best way to serve the victims and protect the reputation of Penn State was by a total commitment to uncovering the full truth.

With the leaking of selective emails over the last few days, it is clear that someone in a position of authority is not interested in a fair or thorough investigation. To be clear, the Paterno family does not know the source or sources of these leaks. The question that needs to be asked is why this breach of confidentiality, which seeks to preempt the Freeh report and undermine the courts, is not being objected to or otherwise addressed by those in a position of authority. It should not be the responsibility of the Paterno family to call for an honest, independent investigation. Given the seriousness and complexity of this case, everyone should be demanding the full truth, not just carefully selected excerpts of certain emails.

Releasing these emails in this way is not intended to inform the discussion but to smear former Penn State officials, including Joe Paterno. The truth is Joe Paterno reported the 2001 incident promptly and fully. He was interviewed by the Grand Jury for a total of 8 minutes and told the truth to the best of his recollection. He was never interviewed by the University. He was not afforded due process and his story was never fully told. And he was never allowed to see the files and records that are now in question. In spite of these facts, however, numerous pundits and critics are exploiting these disconnected and distorted records to attack Joe Paterno.

Accordingly, the Paterno family today is calling on the Freeh Group and the Attorney General's office to immediately release all emails and records they have related to this case. The public should not have to try and piece together a story from a few records that have been selected in a calculated way to manipulate public opinion. Joe Paterno didn't fear the truth, he sought the truth. His guidance to his family and his advisors was to pursue the full truth. This is the course we have followed for 9 months. It is the course we will follow to the end."

 

[CrossEyed]

The ranking of the villians here:1. Sandusky...............2. (tie) McQueary2. (tie) Paterno2. (tie) Curley2. (tie) Schultz2. (tie) SpanierAnd you can easily make the argument that McQueary did more than any of the other villians to get Sandusky convicted. He reported it to 5 people. He testified at the grand jury and at trial. Sandusky was convicted on 3 out of 4 charges related to what McQueary testified about.

I'd argue you might have this backwards. .

You have GOT to be kidding me.

 

[Daywalker]

The ranking of the villians here:

1. Sandusky

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2. (tie) McQueary

2. (tie) Paterno

2. (tie) Curley

2. (tie) Schultz

2. (tie) Spanier

And you can easily make the argument that McQueary did more than any of the other villians to get Sandusky convicted. He reported it to 5 people. He testified at the grand jury and at trial. Sandusky was convicted on 3 out of 4 charges related to what McQueary testified about.

I disagree. McQueary owns more responsibility because he was the only eyewitness. His story is hearsay to everyone else, although the leaders he reported it to own a great responsibility to report it, more burden falls on McQueary for seeing it firsthand. He could've gone to authorities by himself and had an investigation done just by what he saw. Again I'm not absolving Joe, Spanier, Schultz and Curley whatsoever, just that McQ ranks a bit higher on the loser/scumbag/fail scale.

This is a fallacy. McQueary is not a detective or a DA, how is he supposed to bring charges and prosecute him? I don't mean to defend the guy, I would like to think I would have left that old queen in a pool of his own blood in the shower, but as far as getting people to act, look at the progression of this case. The is a chronology of investigations that end up abandoned, and I remain convinced that people around the program perhaps had an instinct something was off with this guy. But the public perception of Sandusky was to be a saint in the community. He started a great charity, he was the backbone of Linebacker U, he was active and involved on campus(obviously and sadly). So if you're Mike McQueary, you take your story to the State College PD, and say yes, I saw Jerry Sandusky going to town on a boy and the answer becomes, well, what's your evidence.

And thats obviously presuming he didn't rescue the child. And we can have our thoughts and debates on that, I feel pretty concrete that I would have acted in the moment, perhaps you do to, but psychologist after psychologist said not so fast to that instinct, essentially saying what you would see would be both so vile and foreign as a concept that you might be frozen in panic. So I'm giving him that much of a benefit of the doubt. But unfortunately, when McQueary left, and the kid left unidentified, you get what we had in the trial.

I mean, the only thing Sandusky was acquitted of was the "eye witness" account of Sandusky which is crazy when you think about it but in a framework of reasonable doubt and a burden of proof and all that, well, it how does he prove it. This guy was at the time a pillar of the community. On the word of McQueary I don't think they're going to run out and press charges, although putting him under suspicion and investigating him would have obviously been better than inaction.

Let's go along with your hypothetical. McQueary could have just went to the media or threatened to go public and the wheels would have started turning if the authorities were not doing anything. These aren't elaborate reactions. See kid raped go to police. Police do nothing go to media.

 

[NJDawgPound]

This looks really bad. It's not 100% conclusive, but it looks really bad. And I feel awful about it, because I have always been a Paterno fan from afar. Never worshipped the guy, but I always admired him.My question for him, and for Curley and Spanier and the other enablers is: why? How could they possibly have thought that funds coming into the university was more important than to reveal what this monster was doing? How could they condone it? What were they possibly thinking?

You love Paterno, the child rapist protector and child rape enabler.

It's awful to watch my thread get shut down and then to see folks post this filth...how is this thread still open? I don't even know TA, but this is not funny to me. I know Tim a little and I know he pushes it for some folks, but I also respect him and would never post something like this towards him unless I wanted to make a complete ### out of myself. Disgusting to call him that. If this is a joke then the laugh is on me but since this thread is pretty deadly serious I'm thinking this is not a joke.

Earlier in this thread Tim was defending Paterno which makes me sick. Paterno protected a vile child rapist and enabled multiple children to be violated and raped. Not sure why you have a problem with me criticizing someone who defends a scumbag who protects child rapists, but dont really care, either.

I'm with Todd here. If this wasn't some old, revered legendary figure and rather a two year coach with a sub .500 record enabling a mass predator, he'd be run out of town and crucified. But people continually looking for outs for Paterno is sickening.Anyone touches my family and they'll get it and get it good. Anyone protecting someone or "looking the other way" when they should have stopped someone from harming my family is in the same boat as far as I am concerned. Sorry.

 

[fatness]

As I said, I don't mean to defend McQueary.

I don't mean to defend him either. He's just one of the pieces of #### who didn't report it to the cops and get it stopped far earlier. Parsing who is "least worse" between him, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier is like arguing over 5 deposits in a cat's litter box. They're all turds, and all for the same reason. What I'm objecting to is the use of "McQueary is the real villain here" to try to minimize what Paterno did. Someone mentioned that Sandusky might be "least worst" since perhaps he couldn't help himself. I don't think that's relevant. The guy who raped the kids is the guy who raped the kids. The guys who didn't call the cops are the guys who didn't call the cops. If you want to find a difference between the turds, which one of the 5 had the most chance to be taken seriously by the cops? McQueary, Paterno, Schultz, Spanier, Curley? McQueary had less stature in the community than any of them. Spanier, Curley, and Schultz were known and respected and powerful. And Paterno was a living legend. I don't think that matters though. They all failed to report to the cops what they should have, they all failed.

 

[fatness]

The Paterno family is now claiming that the email leaks are designed to smear Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley.

Boo hoo. The chance to save those reputations was years ago.

 

[Sea Duck]

The Paterno family is now claiming that the email leaks are designed to smear Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley.

Here is the statement in full:

"From the moment the Jerry Sandusky crisis erupted, Joe Paterno patiently and persistently called for a thorough and professional investigation."

Uh, I'd say the "crisis" erupted no later than February 2001 -- and JoePa certainly wasn't being persistent back then![QUOTE='Delusional Paterno Family]"The truth is Joe Paterno reported the 2001 incident promptly and fully."
[/QUOTE] Promptly?? Paterno admitted in his own grand jury testimony that he waited up to a WEEK before "reporting" the incident!!The Paterno family statement makes me sick. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Furious Styles]

Looks like the Freeh report will rip Paterno a new one according to reports on ESPN. It should be an interesting week once they release the report which could be as soon as Monday.

Can't wait to hear the spin from the apologists.

 

[fatness]

ESPN article

Initially, the Freeh Group had intended to allow Penn State's trustees to review a draft copy of its report before releasing it to the public. After the Faculty Council and others at Penn State criticized that plan last winter, the Freeh Group decided to release its final report, without review or prior input by the trustees, directly to the board and the public at the same time, several sources said.

"They did not want people to think the board had influenced the process," a source said.

Good.

 

[fatness]

So much for the "Joe Paterno never used e-mail" claim.

Former Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno used email to communicate about disciplinary issues with his players, according to a report in today's Chronicle of Higher Education, which cites emails obtained through the team investigating the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal.

Former FBI director Louis Freeh is expected to release soon a report after his team looked at the university’s governance, decision-making and actions. Today's report cites emails purportedly among Paterno, former athletic director Tim Curley and former vice president of student affairs Vicky Triponey about a 2007 off-campus fight involving PSU football players. In them, Triponey expresses concern that Paterno was trying to avoid university and police involvement in the investigation of the fight.

The Chronicle report notes that the Paterno email is from his assistant's account but signed "Joe."

 

[fatness]

Newly obtained e-mails between Joe Paterno, the former Penn State coach, and the university's former president illustrate the scope of the coach's control over top administrators' decisions on disciplinary matters. The documents, which The Chronicle acquired from a source close to the Jerry Sandusky investigation, contradict comments made in recent days by Mr. Paterno's representatives suggesting that the coach never used e-mail or played a role in influencing university investigations.

The e-mails, from 2007, concern the handling of football players accused of beating up fellow students and suggest a pattern of Mr. Paterno's influence in disciplinary cases. Those e-mails have been turned over to officials investigating the Sandusky scandal.

link

The 2007 disciplinary case stemmed from an off-campus fight involving as many as two dozen football players. After the incident, Mr. Paterno wrote to Graham B. Spanier, the university's president, and "Tim"—presumably Mr. Curley—through an e-mail account used by the coach's assistant, Sandi Segursky.

"I want to make sure everyone understands that the discipline of the players involved will be handled by me as soon as I am comfortable that I know all the facts," said the April 7, 2007, e-mail, which was signed "Joe."

"This is my understanding as well," wrote Mr. Spanier in response.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Looks like the Paterno apologists better crank up the excuse machine... Louie Freeh's report not looking so good for Joe Pa.

The report is expected to shed new light on administrators' handling of the Sandusky allegations, and also raise questions about Paterno's leadership of Penn State's vaunted football program, according to several people with knowledge of the inquiry's scope. "Much of the focus will be on the culture of the football program, with findings that go back more than a decade," said a Penn State official briefed on the inquiry, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's going to be very tough on Joe (Paterno)."