Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
If there is, it's usually the sort that entitles the university to get indemnification after the fact from the employer. Executives always get the money for defense shelled out first, then who pays the ultimate bill is resolved.But seriously, wtf cares about this? Much bigger issues here.
True
That's what you're getting from this thread?
I wouldn't call what they did "abuse of authority" or "taking advantage" of the school.It should apply to anyone who works for a government agency, abuses their authority, takes advantage of that agency, and then expects that same agency to pay for their legal bills.Does this apply to all people accused of a crime or just these guys?They can get their due process without the taxpayers paying for their defense.Really? Does the phrase "due process" ring a bell?Good to know some of my tax dollars are being used to defend these monsters.
but what information does he have here that actually helps the prosecution?if he knew more details on what was happening, isn't he implicating himself in the cover up?they knew about this and did basically nothing, allowing the guy to continue raping children. how does he get to come clean now?
Curley is charged with Perjury for telling the grand jury that McQueary never reported a sexual assault. (According to Curley's testimony, McQueary only told him that he saw Sandusky "horsing around").Paterno can testify for the prosecution and confirm that McQueary DID report a sexual assault.Of course, that doesn't make Penn State look very good and it doesn't make Paterno look very noble.
The report said he is testifying against Sandusky.
bump
Could be simply collaborating that he saw Sandusky at certain events like Bowl games with a Second Mile member. Doesn't have to be some smoking gun or something.
That doesn't pass the sniff test. At all.
F#ck the whole program, including the ### #### "pope" ... I want this all the way to the fullest extent of the law, and I hope all of these f#ckwads see prison time, including that relic Paterno.
So Joe is going with "I never knew anything" when there was a university police investigation in 1998 regarding Sandusky and sexual misconduct with young boys and his 55 year old heir apparent "retired" the next year and 3 years later his G.A. saw the same guy ###-raping a 10 y.o. in the showers (oh, sorry...Joe never got the details on that).This all seems quite plausible, no?
never really understood how saying someone may do something is newsworthy.he may testify, he may not. but let's pick one and go with it.
I hear ya. That's why I tried to find an actual link to back up what they were saying on the radio.
Really.GA: "Um, coach, I saw ...I saw some inappropriate conduct."Joe Pa: "Oh, OK, I'll report it. Thanks."
Everything he says and does at this point is to serve his grand jury testimony. He's completely full of it.
Someone needs to take a sledgehammer to the skulls of all these scumbag child rapist enablers.
Most lucid of the entire thread ...
may I include the pope and catholic church in this statement too? they are professionals at this sort of thing..
You may. They are institutional child rapists and child rapist enablers and protectors.
this story makes me sick :(
Very good point. I would be arrested on the scene.
the story is that the grad student was terrified and ran to hide in his office.not sure why this isn't believable. what do you think happened? he made it up?
You may. They are institutional child rapists and child rapist enablers and protectors.
this story makes me sick :(
It adds up just fine.
o an adult saw another adult anally raping a 10 year old boy, and ran to hide in his office? I would believe that this is a made story, before I would believe the story that someone would run away from such an awful act and hide.
I'm not defending the eyewitness, but I don't think it's that hard to understand what happened.Mike McCreary (the Grad Assistant in question) has been a permanent resident of Happy Valley for almost two decades. Except for a brief year trying to catch on with the NFL and/or NFL Europe, he has been part of the program since 1993. He didn't become a starting QB until he was a 5th year senior. He spent five years as a GA before he was promoted to full-time assistant. IIRC, a GA is typically given living quarters, mess hall meals, and a small stipend. So this is a guy who busted his butt just to get playing time, and had been working as a virtual indentured servant for three plus years. Penn State football was literally the only world he had ever known as an adult. I imagine anyone in that situation would have been thrown off. He knew Coach Sandusky, who was the DC when McCreary was a player. He was a living legend. And he just saw him in an unspeakable act with what was clearly a minor child. He was 28 at the time of the incident. I imagine in his entire life, someone else had made decisions for him 99% (or more) of the time.He turned to the two people he trusted probably more than anyone. First his dad, who told him to get out of the building. Then the next day he talked to Joe Paterno. And no one from the university contacted him for ten days. That last part is what has me scratching my head. How are the AD and the Senior VP of the University conducting an investigation if they don't even talk to the witness for a week and a half. And what message does that send when you call someone in for an interview ten days after they reported a heinous act?
Why? This isn't the internet, not everyone turns into a tough guy when they witness something horrific.
wow. you have an odd perspective on the world.what possible motivation is there for this guy to make up this story? not to mention, that story or other similar ones have likely been corroborated by other victims.you can say that the GA should have done more to intervene right away and I'm not sure anyone here would disagree. But, saying that because his initial reaction was fear the story must be made up is really bizarre. It's called a fight or flight response for a reason. Not everybody plays the hero when confronted with a situation like this where they see someone committing a violent crime.
What's wrong with you? You're actually trying to rationalize human reaction under the given person's circumstances?! Come on, everyone that posts here is about to tell you that they would've unsheathed their boot knife and slit Sandusky's throat if they were McQueary.
I would have grabbed the plastic spoon I keep in my lunchbag for my applesauce and quickly spooned out both of Sandusky's eyes while he was "engaged."
Yes.
I was thinking crushed skull with bare hands (after the child is removed to safety). That's the rational response and vengeance is mine response, a lesser known offshoot of fight or flight.
Exactly and maybe the best point of the thread. How did the GA walk in on this and not stop it instantly? Was Sandusky that much bigger of a man that he couldn't pull him off the child? Makes no sense and almost makes you wonder how accurate his story is. I am not doubting that Sandusky did most of this, in fact there is way too many accounts and evidence to this point for him to be totally innocent of all charges. You just wonder what that GA was thinking. He calls his dad 1st? His dad says get out of there? The GA was worried about his ### 1st so I don't think he should be painted as a saint here.
They are not required to conduct an investigation. They're supposed to notify the police and/or social services -- but only if they have "reasonable cause" to suspect that abuse has taken place.I'm sure that Curley and Schultz are going to claim that they never had "reasonable cause" to suspect abuse. They will probably claim that McQueary downplayed what he saw in the shower.
Absolutely. So are Curley, Schultz, and McQueary.
Precisely what they are claiming if you read the Grand Jury indictment.ETA: Obvs its inadmissible at trial, but the Grand Jury found McQueary very credible. Curly and Schultz were found to not be credible and fabricated portions of their testimony (obviously - they're being charged with perjury)
Pretty much the only way they can take that route is to claim they believe McCreary is a liar. How does one "downplay" a 58 year old man and a 10 year old boy taking a shower together.
I was thinking crushed skull with bare hands (after the child is removed to safety). That's the rational response and vengeance is mine response, a lesser known offshoot of fight or flight.
Sweet, now that's a power move, much more likely from the FFA than my prediction.
