Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation


Recommended Posts

Leeroy Jenkins with some impressive denial here

What am I denying?Jerry Sandusky is a monster. He should not have been released on $100k bail. He should not be allowed to kill himself. He should be forced to face his victims and face the wall in prison repeatedly. The students should be outside of HIS house because HE is who has tarnished PSU and Paterno.Mike McQueary is a coward. He witnessed a child in the most vulnerable position possible. He did nothing. He could have stopped that act. That boy SAW him and he did NOTHING. That boy lost all hope that day that he could ever be saved. He sneaked to his office and picked up the phone, but instead of 911 he calls his DAD!?! Mike McQueary is beyond reprehensible. Tim Curly failed in his job as Athletic Director. He failed that little boy. He failed Penn State. He failed Mike McQueary. He failed Joe Paterno. If anybody was given the full details of 1998 AND the full story of what McQueary saw it was this man. Joe reported SOMEthing to Curly. Regardless of what Joe said to him, McQueary certainly gave the full detailed rendition at their meeting. Curly was legally responsible to report this to the authorities. Curly was morally responsible to report it to the authorities. Curly was responsible for the University to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident to identify that boy and whether there was an overarching issue with the football program and policies. Curly could have saved more children, but HE told the Second Mile that while there was a complaint that the university's non-existent investigation yielded NO WRONG DOING. Sandusky still had a flow of kids because CURLY blatantly lied to Second Mile. This man should be in jail. This man should have been fired, NOT on voluntary leave. His failure to act on several levels and his blatant lies are inexcusable.Joe Paterno failed that boy. He failed Penn State. And he failed himself. When the coward Mike McQueary came to his house, regardless of the details of what McQueary told him, Joe should have sat down and TOGETHER they should have called the police. That's what should have been done the previous night at a minimum and Joe Paterno should have recognized what the RIGHT thing to do was. I do not know what Mike McQueary told Joe. I just know that the grand jury and the DA believe whatever McQueary and Joe testified as to what their conversation contained. I do not know what Joe said he was going to do about the situation. I just know that Joe met with the AD who later interviewed McQueary and did nothing. What Joe knew about 2002, 1998, before, in between, and after is not clear. My defense of Joe Paterno is one regarding a rush to judgment and making assumptions based on little information regarding the program, what he knew and allowed regarding Sandusky, and what he actually (not theoretically) was responsible for. We do not know his relationships with people, what his role administratively has been since 1998, nor what the AD and others share with him. Joe deserves to be highly criticized. Joe should not represent Penn State and Penn State football saturday. But the criticism is so disproportionate to the actions of Sandusky, McQueary, and Curly, in my opinion, that I cannot help but go into lawyer and defense mode. If it comes out that Joe was aware of 1998 and that was why Sandusky was "retired" if it comes out that he knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant etc., then Joe deserves to be vilified.The manner and amount of vitriol being spewed towards Paterno and Penn State itself seems rather misplaced and smells of ulterior motives to me based on certain people in this thread. Not everybody.
All good except one little lie you slipped in there: Paterno testified under oath that McQueary told him that he witnessed Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy".And you wrote that what Joe knew in 2002 was unclear or "if it comes out" that Paterno "knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant" then Paterno deserves to be vilified. The above is willful denial of the actual facts by you--you either dont care what Paterno testified to under oath, or you think Paterno is a liar. Paterno testified under oath he was told by an eyewitness--who he must trust because he later promoted him repeatedly--of sexual abuse of a young boy at a PSU facility, he reported it, nothing happened and then Paterno repeatedly saw Sandusky over the years with young boys at PSU events, practices and games.PATERNO TESTIFIED HE KNEW AND THEN HE DID NOTHING ONCE IT BECAME CLEAR NOONE ELSE WAS DOING ANYTHING.
What lie? The tendencies I am referring to are in regard to Joe's knowledge prior to 2002. I am not saying that McQueary didn't tell him about "fondling" or something of a "sexual nature" I am referring to whether McQueary gave full details or not and what fondling/sexual nature actually was described.Question, and this is hypothetical, if Joe reported to the AD whatever McQueary said and the AD said for Joe not to worry about it he would investigate it and do what needed to be done, and then the AD interviewed McQueary did an "investigation" and then told Joe (as he told Second Mile) that no wrong doing occurred, then why should Joe be concerned? I know, you will say that an EYE-WITNESS TOLD HIM, but maybe the AD tells Joe that McQueary didn't see what he thought he saw. Unless it comes out that some order was levied by Joe to sweep this under the rug, the more I think about it, the more Curly needs to rot.Because Curly and Shultz are charged with perjury right now, it is impossible to know what type of investigation (if any) actually occurred. The fact that they told Second Mile that there was no wrong doing really puts them at the forefront IMO.Something stinks in Denmark for sure. I just am not sure what it is just yet.
You lied when you said it was unclear what Paterno was told by McQueary. That is a lie because while we dont have the exact testimony and obviously werent there, you willfully ignore what Paterno testified to under oath, which is far more than enough to dam him as a child rapist protector and child rape enabler. What is unclear to you about "fondling or something of a sexual nature"? Do you need Paterno hearing detailed descriptions of penetration or graphic drawings done by McQueary for Paterno before Paterno knows what he is being told? Frankly, I think you are just trolling here because your points are so deceptive and dumb.Answer to your stupid question: Paterno should have done more. If Curley told him they investigated and McQueary had lied, why did Paterno keep promoting him? If Curley told Paterno they investigated and found no wrongdoing, Paterno asks McQueary if he lied and when McQueary says no, Paterno calls the cops. All of your incredible silly contortions to protect Paterno avoid the simple fact that he was told, he knew, he reported, nothing was done, he saw Sandusky partying with little boys repeatedly AND HE DID NOTHING.You can keep defending child rape enablers but please dont expect all of us to accept it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leeroy Jenkins with some impressive denial here

What am I denying?

Jerry Sandusky is a monster. He should not have been released on $100k bail. He should not be allowed to kill himself. He should be forced to face his victims and face the wall in prison repeatedly. The students should be outside of HIS house because HE is who has tarnished PSU and Paterno.

Mike McQueary is a coward. He witnessed a child in the most vulnerable position possible. He did nothing. He could have stopped that act. That boy SAW him and he did NOTHING. That boy lost all hope that day that he could ever be saved. He sneaked to his office and picked up the phone, but instead of 911 he calls his DAD!?! Mike McQueary is beyond reprehensible.

Tim Curly failed in his job as Athletic Director. He failed that little boy. He failed Penn State. He failed Mike McQueary. He failed Joe Paterno. If anybody was given the full details of 1998 AND the full story of what McQueary saw it was this man. Joe reported SOMEthing to Curly. Regardless of what Joe said to him, McQueary certainly gave the full detailed rendition at their meeting. Curly was legally responsible to report this to the authorities. Curly was morally responsible to report it to the authorities. Curly was responsible for the University to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident to identify that boy and whether there was an overarching issue with the football program and policies. Curly could have saved more children, but HE told the Second Mile that while there was a complaint that the university's non-existent investigation yielded NO WRONG DOING. Sandusky still had a flow of kids because CURLY blatantly lied to Second Mile. This man should be in jail. This man should have been fired, NOT on voluntary leave. His failure to act on several levels and his blatant lies are inexcusable.

Joe Paterno failed that boy. He failed Penn State. And he failed himself. When the coward Mike McQueary came to his house, regardless of the details of what McQueary told him, Joe should have sat down and TOGETHER they should have called the police. That's what should have been done the previous night at a minimum and Joe Paterno should have recognized what the RIGHT thing to do was. I do not know what Mike McQueary told Joe. I just know that the grand jury and the DA believe whatever McQueary and Joe testified as to what their conversation contained. I do not know what Joe said he was going to do about the situation. I just know that Joe met with the AD who later interviewed McQueary and did nothing. What Joe knew about 2002, 1998, before, in between, and after is not clear. My defense of Joe Paterno is one regarding a rush to judgment and making assumptions based on little information regarding the program, what he knew and allowed regarding Sandusky, and what he actually (not theoretically) was responsible for. We do not know his relationships with people, what his role administratively has been since 1998, nor what the AD and others share with him. Joe deserves to be highly criticized. Joe should not represent Penn State and Penn State football saturday. But the criticism is so disproportionate to the actions of Sandusky, McQueary, and Curly, in my opinion, that I cannot help but go into lawyer and defense mode. If it comes out that Joe was aware of 1998 and that was why Sandusky was "retired" if it comes out that he knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant etc., then Joe deserves to be vilified.

The manner and amount of vitriol being spewed towards Paterno and Penn State itself seems rather misplaced and smells of ulterior motives to me based on certain people in this thread. Not everybody.

All good except one little lie you slipped in there: Paterno testified under oath that McQueary told him that he witnessed Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy".

And you wrote that what Joe knew in 2002 was unclear or "if it comes out" that Paterno "knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant" then Paterno deserves to be vilified.

The above is willful denial of the actual facts by you--you either dont care what Paterno testified to under oath, or you think Paterno is a liar.

Paterno testified under oath he was told by an eyewitness--who he must trust because he later promoted him repeatedly--of sexual abuse of a young boy at a PSU facility, he reported it, nothing happened and then Paterno repeatedly saw Sandusky over the years with young boys at PSU events, practices and games.

PATERNO TESTIFIED HE KNEW AND THEN HE DID NOTHING ONCE IT BECAME CLEAR NOONE ELSE WAS DOING ANYTHING.

What lie? The tendencies I am referring to are in regard to Joe's knowledge prior to 2002. I am not saying that McQueary didn't tell him about "fondling" or something of a "sexual nature" I am referring to whether McQueary gave full details or not and what fondling/sexual nature actually was described.

Question, and this is hypothetical, if Joe reported to the AD whatever McQueary said and the AD said for Joe not to worry about it he would investigate it and do what needed to be done, and then the AD interviewed McQueary did an "investigation" and then told Joe (as he told Second Mile) that no wrong doing occurred, then why should Joe be concerned? I know, you will say that an EYE-WITNESS TOLD HIM, but maybe the AD tells Joe that McQueary didn't see what he thought he saw. Unless it comes out that some order was levied by Joe to sweep this under the rug, the more I think about it, the more Curly needs to rot.

Because Curly and Shultz are charged with perjury right now, it is impossible to know what type of investigation (if any) actually occurred. The fact that they told Second Mile that there was no wrong doing really puts them at the forefront IMO.

Something stinks in Denmark for sure. I just am not sure what it is just yet.

Because it would mean that someone in his staff, McQueary, lied about witnessing sexual abuse. One would think in this case McQueary would quickly fall from favor at very least, and probably be run out of PSU. Instead he enjoyed a meteoric rise to the top.

WR coach is the "top"?

I'm with you here GB, but lets not overstate his "rise".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN covering this much better than ESPN

http://outkickthecoverage.com/espns-penn-state-coverage-fails-miserably.php

ESPN was bad that anyone with a brain flipped over to CNN and watched a British woman with no clue about American sports completely dominate the "worldwide leader in sports."

Edited by wazoo11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just disgusting :thumbdown: The more you keep him on the coaching staff the more you are justifying what people say that paterno was a scapegoat. McQueary and Paterno did the same thing and so far one of them was punished (deservedly so)

You can easily argue what McQueary did was worse. HE saw it first hand, he did nothing, and then when it appeared the university did nothing he stuck around to move up the ranks
I know what I would do if I saw something like this happening. Sadly, I don't know if I would have taken the hero route when I was 22. It is admittedly a situation I would not have been ready to handle.
He was 28.
Well, then that changes things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

an argument in defense of McQueary is that he was just an assistant. he didn't have the power, authority, or responsibility that someone like Paterno and the others had.

he made an awful decision not to intervene or call the police himself, and also appears to have remained silent during the cover up. but he likely isn't getting nearly as much heat as the others have.

still can't imagine him sticking around the program much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leeroy Jenkins with some impressive denial here

What am I denying?

Jerry Sandusky is a monster. He should not have been released on $100k bail. He should not be allowed to kill himself. He should be forced to face his victims and face the wall in prison repeatedly. The students should be outside of HIS house because HE is who has tarnished PSU and Paterno.

Mike McQueary is a coward. He witnessed a child in the most vulnerable position possible. He did nothing. He could have stopped that act. That boy SAW him and he did NOTHING. That boy lost all hope that day that he could ever be saved. He sneaked to his office and picked up the phone, but instead of 911 he calls his DAD!?! Mike McQueary is beyond reprehensible.

Tim Curly failed in his job as Athletic Director. He failed that little boy. He failed Penn State. He failed Mike McQueary. He failed Joe Paterno. If anybody was given the full details of 1998 AND the full story of what McQueary saw it was this man. Joe reported SOMEthing to Curly. Regardless of what Joe said to him, McQueary certainly gave the full detailed rendition at their meeting. Curly was legally responsible to report this to the authorities. Curly was morally responsible to report it to the authorities. Curly was responsible for the University to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident to identify that boy and whether there was an overarching issue with the football program and policies. Curly could have saved more children, but HE told the Second Mile that while there was a complaint that the university's non-existent investigation yielded NO WRONG DOING. Sandusky still had a flow of kids because CURLY blatantly lied to Second Mile. This man should be in jail. This man should have been fired, NOT on voluntary leave. His failure to act on several levels and his blatant lies are inexcusable.

Joe Paterno failed that boy. He failed Penn State. And he failed himself. When the coward Mike McQueary came to his house, regardless of the details of what McQueary told him, Joe should have sat down and TOGETHER they should have called the police. That's what should have been done the previous night at a minimum and Joe Paterno should have recognized what the RIGHT thing to do was. I do not know what Mike McQueary told Joe. I just know that the grand jury and the DA believe whatever McQueary and Joe testified as to what their conversation contained. I do not know what Joe said he was going to do about the situation. I just know that Joe met with the AD who later interviewed McQueary and did nothing. What Joe knew about 2002, 1998, before, in between, and after is not clear. My defense of Joe Paterno is one regarding a rush to judgment and making assumptions based on little information regarding the program, what he knew and allowed regarding Sandusky, and what he actually (not theoretically) was responsible for. We do not know his relationships with people, what his role administratively has been since 1998, nor what the AD and others share with him. Joe deserves to be highly criticized. Joe should not represent Penn State and Penn State football saturday. But the criticism is so disproportionate to the actions of Sandusky, McQueary, and Curly, in my opinion, that I cannot help but go into lawyer and defense mode. If it comes out that Joe was aware of 1998 and that was why Sandusky was "retired" if it comes out that he knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant etc., then Joe deserves to be vilified.

The manner and amount of vitriol being spewed towards Paterno and Penn State itself seems rather misplaced and smells of ulterior motives to me based on certain people in this thread. Not everybody.

Not sure how you could say this given what you just spelled out above

It seems entirely appropriately placed

:shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like firing McQueary could a little tricky.

University leaders at the time have to go. That's obvious. These are people with power and influence. They had the power to make sure a proper investigation took place or cover it up.

McQueary seems like a different situation. Absolutely, he's a despicable coward. He should resign.

But it sounds like he told the truth to all the people at PSU with the power to do something. They didn't. For all we know, the people in power told him to shut up.

Morally, he can't be excused for his actions, but it seems like PSU would have some legal hurdles in the way of firing him. I could see grounds for a lawsuit if they did.

Maybe I'm way off base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leeroy Jenkins with some impressive denial here

What am I denying?

Jerry Sandusky is a monster. He should not have been released on $100k bail. He should not be allowed to kill himself. He should be forced to face his victims and face the wall in prison repeatedly. The students should be outside of HIS house because HE is who has tarnished PSU and Paterno.

Mike McQueary is a coward. He witnessed a child in the most vulnerable position possible. He did nothing. He could have stopped that act. That boy SAW him and he did NOTHING. That boy lost all hope that day that he could ever be saved. He sneaked to his office and picked up the phone, but instead of 911 he calls his DAD!?! Mike McQueary is beyond reprehensible.

Tim Curly failed in his job as Athletic Director. He failed that little boy. He failed Penn State. He failed Mike McQueary. He failed Joe Paterno. If anybody was given the full details of 1998 AND the full story of what McQueary saw it was this man. Joe reported SOMEthing to Curly. Regardless of what Joe said to him, McQueary certainly gave the full detailed rendition at their meeting. Curly was legally responsible to report this to the authorities. Curly was morally responsible to report it to the authorities. Curly was responsible for the University to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident to identify that boy and whether there was an overarching issue with the football program and policies. Curly could have saved more children, but HE told the Second Mile that while there was a complaint that the university's non-existent investigation yielded NO WRONG DOING. Sandusky still had a flow of kids because CURLY blatantly lied to Second Mile. This man should be in jail. This man should have been fired, NOT on voluntary leave. His failure to act on several levels and his blatant lies are inexcusable.

Joe Paterno failed that boy. He failed Penn State. And he failed himself. When the coward Mike McQueary came to his house, regardless of the details of what McQueary told him, Joe should have sat down and TOGETHER they should have called the police. That's what should have been done the previous night at a minimum and Joe Paterno should have recognized what the RIGHT thing to do was. I do not know what Mike McQueary told Joe. I just know that the grand jury and the DA believe whatever McQueary and Joe testified as to what their conversation contained. I do not know what Joe said he was going to do about the situation. I just know that Joe met with the AD who later interviewed McQueary and did nothing. What Joe knew about 2002, 1998, before, in between, and after is not clear. My defense of Joe Paterno is one regarding a rush to judgment and making assumptions based on little information regarding the program, what he knew and allowed regarding Sandusky, and what he actually (not theoretically) was responsible for. We do not know his relationships with people, what his role administratively has been since 1998, nor what the AD and others share with him. Joe deserves to be highly criticized. Joe should not represent Penn State and Penn State football saturday. But the criticism is so disproportionate to the actions of Sandusky, McQueary, and Curly, in my opinion, that I cannot help but go into lawyer and defense mode. If it comes out that Joe was aware of 1998 and that was why Sandusky was "retired" if it comes out that he knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant etc., then Joe deserves to be vilified.

The manner and amount of vitriol being spewed towards Paterno and Penn State itself seems rather misplaced and smells of ulterior motives to me based on certain people in this thread. Not everybody.

All good except one little lie you slipped in there: Paterno testified under oath that McQueary told him that he witnessed Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy".

And you wrote that what Joe knew in 2002 was unclear or "if it comes out" that Paterno "knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant" then Paterno deserves to be vilified.

The above is willful denial of the actual facts by you--you either dont care what Paterno testified to under oath, or you think Paterno is a liar.

Paterno testified under oath he was told by an eyewitness--who he must trust because he later promoted him repeatedly--of sexual abuse of a young boy at a PSU facility, he reported it, nothing happened and then Paterno repeatedly saw Sandusky over the years with young boys at PSU events, practices and games.

PATERNO TESTIFIED HE KNEW AND THEN HE DID NOTHING ONCE IT BECAME CLEAR NOONE ELSE WAS DOING ANYTHING.

What lie? The tendencies I am referring to are in regard to Joe's knowledge prior to 2002. I am not saying that McQueary didn't tell him about "fondling" or something of a "sexual nature" I am referring to whether McQueary gave full details or not and what fondling/sexual nature actually was described.

Question, and this is hypothetical, if Joe reported to the AD whatever McQueary said and the AD said for Joe not to worry about it he would investigate it and do what needed to be done, and then the AD interviewed McQueary did an "investigation" and then told Joe (as he told Second Mile) that no wrong doing occurred, then why should Joe be concerned? I know, you will say that an EYE-WITNESS TOLD HIM, but maybe the AD tells Joe that McQueary didn't see what he thought he saw. Unless it comes out that some order was levied by Joe to sweep this under the rug, the more I think about it, the more Curly needs to rot.

Because Curly and Shultz are charged with perjury right now, it is impossible to know what type of investigation (if any) actually occurred. The fact that they told Second Mile that there was no wrong doing really puts them at the forefront IMO.

Something stinks in Denmark for sure. I just am not sure what it is just yet.

Because it would mean that someone in his staff, McQueary, lied about witnessing sexual abuse. One would think in this case McQueary would quickly fall from favor at very least, and probably be run out of PSU. Instead he enjoyed a meteoric rise to the top.

In my hypothetical that would depend on A) what detail McQueary told Joe initially and B) what the AD told Joe was the result of his interviews and investigations.

There is certainly more here than meets the eye. The who knew what and when and why is yet to come out.

The lack of action from the AD, the perjury charges, statement to Second Mile, and Sandusky being allowed to stay on definitely point to SOMETHING more. Vilify Joe for not doing the right thing in 2002 and after that if you really have to, but Joe did at least tell the AD and the grand jury the truth. So if Joe didn't lie to the grand jury, why did the AD? Why did the AD say there was no wrong doing to Second Mile? What does Sandusky have on Curly or Spanier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is that he did as much as any of us could do with what amounts to a rumor.

Oh bull####. You Paterno defenders are absurd.
The 2002 situation wasn't a rumor reported by a barely known associate or about some random staff member Joe barely knew. A heinous crime was described by a former football captain. (Or if you prefer, the former captain put together a few sentences involving a nearly 60 year old former coach, a 10 year old boy, the shower, and inappropriate sexual contact.) The alleged perpetrator was someone who Paterno had a 40 year relationship from the time Sandusky was a player and Paterno an assistant at Penn State. They coached together for over 30 years. One would at least hope that a little more could have been done.Perhaps more was done. It's clearly possible that more information will disseminate concerning what Paterno did concerning Sandusky, but at this time based on what is supposedly known, it's hard to suggest Joe did anything more than the bare legal minimum. And given what happened to countless other children due to this apparent inaction, people are understandably upset. I've seen nothing to suggest Joe did anything criminal, but I've seen plenty to suggest -- at least at this time -- that Joe could have done much more. I'm not suggesting it would be easy to even mildly confront a longtime friend and associate, but with great power comes great responsibility, and it's reasonable to suggest Joe failed to meet his responsibility in this matter. Actually, I want to believe Joe when he says it is the deepest regret of his life. It should be.
I believe that it has already come out that the grad assistant/former captain went to Paterno and described IN VIVID DETAIL what he saw in the shower, depicting a brutal, savage rape scene of a young boy. Paterno's account last year to the grand jury of what might be considered an inapproriate sexually situation with no details or specifics doesn't fit that profile.I won't argue with anyone that Paterno provided a life of service to PSU and was a revered coach and mentor to thousands of football players. But those suggesting that he didn't know what was going on and that he somehow was both shielded and had no decisionmaking or authority in the outcome are being naive. I am not suggesting that he is the bad guy hear and that he is the one that should be accepting total culpability. As this plays out, there will be more than likely be a lot of people that knew and did not intervene over the years, whether it be coaches, administrators, law enforcement, campus police, prosecutors, etc. The fact that there was a grand jury hearing on this 8 years later should be indicitadive that a lot of people knew and did not act to put a stop to things.In reading bewteen the lines, I would not be shocked if Sandusky had dirt on other PSU faculty and staff (the president, other civic leaders, Paterno, coaches, who knows) that he was threatening to expose if he got ratted out. This wreaks of people having a lot of dirty little secrets and backroom deals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandusky was a coach for JoePa over 30 years. Allowed access to program for 15 years after retirement. This is nearly the entire time JoePa was head coach. This is his legacy....like it or not PennSt fans. You were duped by your hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an argument in defense of McQueary is that he was just an assistant. he didn't have the power, authority, or responsibility that someone like Paterno and the others had.he made an awful decision not to intervene or call the police himself, and also appears to have remained silent during the cover up. but he likely isn't getting nearly as much heat as the others have.still can't imagine him sticking around the program much longer.

Your argument has some validity, but he's been with the program all this time and has seen Sandusky bringing boys to practice, etc. He's just as big a part of the coverup as anyone. I know nothing about law, but isn't there some kind of "failure to protect" law that he could be guilty of breaking by not stopping the act? Same with the janitor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like firing McQueary could a little tricky.University leaders at the time have to go. That's obvious. These are people with power and influence. They had the power to make sure a proper investigation took place or cover it up.McQueary seems like a different situation. Absolutely, he's a despicable coward. He should resign.But it sounds like he told the truth to all the people at PSU with the power to do something. They didn't. For all we know, the people in power told him to shut up.Morally, he can't be excused for his actions, but it seems like PSU would have some legal hurdles in the way of firing him. I could see grounds for a lawsuit if they did.Maybe I'm way off base.

Would McQueary really dare file for wrongful termination, even if he had a case?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second Mile is not affiliated with Penn State

No, not at all. They just had an office at Penn State, free use of the facilities, free tickets to games, and permission to have sleepover camps with little boys on campus.
Second Mile had this, or Sandusky personally?
Why are you doing this?
Doing what? I'm asking a real question that will probably matter when all the law suits start.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it sounds like Paterno did, instead, was say "Well, don't go to the police. We'll handle this in house." He certainly didn't advise his assistant to go to the police, or he would have. The only reasons to tell your boss instead of the police is either you don't want an investigation or you don't know if you want an investigation. Period.Would you have done different than that?

Some people have speculated that the assistant was told that campus police would investigate it (which they did and did not report matters to the local authorities and seemingly swept things under the rug) and that he may have rewarded for keeping his mouth shut. Then lo and behold he ends up on the PSU football coaching staff.I don't know if that's how things went down, but some folks are connecting the dots that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

an argument in defense of McQueary is that he was just an assistant. he didn't have the power, authority, or responsibility that someone like Paterno and the others had.

he made an awful decision not to intervene or call the police himself, and also appears to have remained silent during the cover up. but he likely isn't getting nearly as much heat as the others have.

still can't imagine him sticking around the program much longer.

To the letter of the law you are correct, and I know this isn't your position on the topic having read & kept up with this thread but:

You have a moral obligation as a human being that supersedes anything his position at the university would have put forth.

Again, I know you know this but McQueary, JoPa or any of the others falling back on the "I did all that I was required to do" excuse falls on deaf ears for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leeroy Jenkins with some impressive denial here

What am I denying?

Jerry Sandusky is a monster. He should not have been released on $100k bail. He should not be allowed to kill himself. He should be forced to face his victims and face the wall in prison repeatedly. The students should be outside of HIS house because HE is who has tarnished PSU and Paterno.

Mike McQueary is a coward. He witnessed a child in the most vulnerable position possible. He did nothing. He could have stopped that act. That boy SAW him and he did NOTHING. That boy lost all hope that day that he could ever be saved. He sneaked to his office and picked up the phone, but instead of 911 he calls his DAD!?! Mike McQueary is beyond reprehensible.

Tim Curly failed in his job as Athletic Director. He failed that little boy. He failed Penn State. He failed Mike McQueary. He failed Joe Paterno. If anybody was given the full details of 1998 AND the full story of what McQueary saw it was this man. Joe reported SOMEthing to Curly. Regardless of what Joe said to him, McQueary certainly gave the full detailed rendition at their meeting. Curly was legally responsible to report this to the authorities. Curly was morally responsible to report it to the authorities. Curly was responsible for the University to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident to identify that boy and whether there was an overarching issue with the football program and policies. Curly could have saved more children, but HE told the Second Mile that while there was a complaint that the university's non-existent investigation yielded NO WRONG DOING. Sandusky still had a flow of kids because CURLY blatantly lied to Second Mile. This man should be in jail. This man should have been fired, NOT on voluntary leave. His failure to act on several levels and his blatant lies are inexcusable.

Joe Paterno failed that boy. He failed Penn State. And he failed himself. When the coward Mike McQueary came to his house, regardless of the details of what McQueary told him, Joe should have sat down and TOGETHER they should have called the police. That's what should have been done the previous night at a minimum and Joe Paterno should have recognized what the RIGHT thing to do was. I do not know what Mike McQueary told Joe. I just know that the grand jury and the DA believe whatever McQueary and Joe testified as to what their conversation contained. I do not know what Joe said he was going to do about the situation. I just know that Joe met with the AD who later interviewed McQueary and did nothing. What Joe knew about 2002, 1998, before, in between, and after is not clear. My defense of Joe Paterno is one regarding a rush to judgment and making assumptions based on little information regarding the program, what he knew and allowed regarding Sandusky, and what he actually (not theoretically) was responsible for. We do not know his relationships with people, what his role administratively has been since 1998, nor what the AD and others share with him. Joe deserves to be highly criticized. Joe should not represent Penn State and Penn State football saturday. But the criticism is so disproportionate to the actions of Sandusky, McQueary, and Curly, in my opinion, that I cannot help but go into lawyer and defense mode. If it comes out that Joe was aware of 1998 and that was why Sandusky was "retired" if it comes out that he knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant etc., then Joe deserves to be vilified.

The manner and amount of vitriol being spewed towards Paterno and Penn State itself seems rather misplaced and smells of ulterior motives to me based on certain people in this thread. Not everybody.

Not sure how you could say this given what you just spelled out above

It seems entirely appropriately placed

:shrug:

Depends on the manner and amount of vitriol being spewed, doesn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is certainly more here than meets the eye. The who knew what and when and why is yet to come out. The lack of action from the AD, the perjury charges, statement to Second Mile, and Sandusky being allowed to stay on definitely point to SOMETHING more. Vilify Joe for not doing the right thing in 2002 and after that if you really have to, but Joe did at least tell the AD and the grand jury the truth. So if Joe didn't lie to the grand jury, why did the AD? Why did the AD say there was no wrong doing to Second Mile? What does Sandusky have on Curly or Spanier?

do you believe that Joe was not aware of the 1998 investigation? do you think the only indication he ever received that Sandusky might be who he was came from his conversation with McQueary in which few details were shared?if you believe those things, I can see giving him the benefit of the doubt here and believing he didn't really understand the seriousness of the 2002 allegations, but both seem like a stretch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that it has already come out that the grad assistant/former captain went to Paterno and described IN VIVID DETAIL what he saw in the shower, depicting a brutal, savage rape scene of a young boy. Paterno's account last year to the grand jury of what might be considered an inapproriate sexually situation with no details or specifics doesn't fit that profile.

Just to clarify, my paragraph concerning the incident was written with the two possibilities to reflect the difference in the accounts between McQueary (vivid detail...) and Paterno (more vague references to "coach" "boy" "shower" etc.). There appears to be a discrepancy here. Is the discrepancy between McQueary's comments to Paterno that infamous night and his testimony to the grand jury, or is the discrepancy between the testimony of McQueary and Paterno to the grand jury?For me, it doesn't matter. Either version should have been sufficiently concerning to Paterno for him to do far more than he did. However, some people seem willing to give Paterno the benefit of the doubt, suggesting McQueary did not say to Paterno what he said to the grand jury. I don't know on what basis they make this assumption, but it seems to be out there. Edited by The Jerk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like firing McQueary could a little tricky.University leaders at the time have to go. That's obvious. These are people with power and influence. They had the power to make sure a proper investigation took place or cover it up.McQueary seems like a different situation. Absolutely, he's a despicable coward. He should resign.But it sounds like he told the truth to all the people at PSU with the power to do something. They didn't. For all we know, the people in power told him to shut up.Morally, he can't be excused for his actions, but it seems like PSU would have some legal hurdles in the way of firing him. I could see grounds for a lawsuit if they did.Maybe I'm way off base.

Would McQueary really dare file for wrongful termination, even if he had a case?
Why wouldn't he?His job prospects will be minimal. The money will come in handy.Based on reports, he told the most powerful people at PSU the truth about the situation. He didn't try to hide anything. His only power to cover this up would've been to not report it, which he did, to a number of powerful people.He could easily make the case that he was a victim, of sorts, of the culture created by Paterno and others.It sounds very likely that he was told to keep quiet. Not that he'd get any sympathy from me or most others, but legally, I don't see how he wouldn't have a case. Edited by pollardsvision
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leeroy Jenkins with some impressive denial here

What am I denying?

Jerry Sandusky is a monster. He should not have been released on $100k bail. He should not be allowed to kill himself. He should be forced to face his victims and face the wall in prison repeatedly. The students should be outside of HIS house because HE is who has tarnished PSU and Paterno.

Mike McQueary is a coward. He witnessed a child in the most vulnerable position possible. He did nothing. He could have stopped that act. That boy SAW him and he did NOTHING. That boy lost all hope that day that he could ever be saved. He sneaked to his office and picked up the phone, but instead of 911 he calls his DAD!?! Mike McQueary is beyond reprehensible.

Tim Curly failed in his job as Athletic Director. He failed that little boy. He failed Penn State. He failed Mike McQueary. He failed Joe Paterno. If anybody was given the full details of 1998 AND the full story of what McQueary saw it was this man. Joe reported SOMEthing to Curly. Regardless of what Joe said to him, McQueary certainly gave the full detailed rendition at their meeting. Curly was legally responsible to report this to the authorities. Curly was morally responsible to report it to the authorities. Curly was responsible for the University to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident to identify that boy and whether there was an overarching issue with the football program and policies. Curly could have saved more children, but HE told the Second Mile that while there was a complaint that the university's non-existent investigation yielded NO WRONG DOING. Sandusky still had a flow of kids because CURLY blatantly lied to Second Mile. This man should be in jail. This man should have been fired, NOT on voluntary leave. His failure to act on several levels and his blatant lies are inexcusable.

Joe Paterno failed that boy. He failed Penn State. And he failed himself. When the coward Mike McQueary came to his house, regardless of the details of what McQueary told him, Joe should have sat down and TOGETHER they should have called the police. That's what should have been done the previous night at a minimum and Joe Paterno should have recognized what the RIGHT thing to do was. I do not know what Mike McQueary told Joe. I just know that the grand jury and the DA believe whatever McQueary and Joe testified as to what their conversation contained. I do not know what Joe said he was going to do about the situation. I just know that Joe met with the AD who later interviewed McQueary and did nothing. What Joe knew about 2002, 1998, before, in between, and after is not clear. My defense of Joe Paterno is one regarding a rush to judgment and making assumptions based on little information regarding the program, what he knew and allowed regarding Sandusky, and what he actually (not theoretically) was responsible for. We do not know his relationships with people, what his role administratively has been since 1998, nor what the AD and others share with him. Joe deserves to be highly criticized. Joe should not represent Penn State and Penn State football saturday. But the criticism is so disproportionate to the actions of Sandusky, McQueary, and Curly, in my opinion, that I cannot help but go into lawyer and defense mode. If it comes out that Joe was aware of 1998 and that was why Sandusky was "retired" if it comes out that he knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant etc., then Joe deserves to be vilified.

The manner and amount of vitriol being spewed towards Paterno and Penn State itself seems rather misplaced and smells of ulterior motives to me based on certain people in this thread. Not everybody.

All good except one little lie you slipped in there: Paterno testified under oath that McQueary told him that he witnessed Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy".

And you wrote that what Joe knew in 2002 was unclear or "if it comes out" that Paterno "knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant" then Paterno deserves to be vilified.

The above is willful denial of the actual facts by you--you either dont care what Paterno testified to under oath, or you think Paterno is a liar.

Paterno testified under oath he was told by an eyewitness--who he must trust because he later promoted him repeatedly--of sexual abuse of a young boy at a PSU facility, he reported it, nothing happened and then Paterno repeatedly saw Sandusky over the years with young boys at PSU events, practices and games.

PATERNO TESTIFIED HE KNEW AND THEN HE DID NOTHING ONCE IT BECAME CLEAR NOONE ELSE WAS DOING ANYTHING.

What lie? The tendencies I am referring to are in regard to Joe's knowledge prior to 2002. I am not saying that McQueary didn't tell him about "fondling" or something of a "sexual nature" I am referring to whether McQueary gave full details or not and what fondling/sexual nature actually was described.

Question, and this is hypothetical, if Joe reported to the AD whatever McQueary said and the AD said for Joe not to worry about it he would investigate it and do what needed to be done, and then the AD interviewed McQueary did an "investigation" and then told Joe (as he told Second Mile) that no wrong doing occurred, then why should Joe be concerned? I know, you will say that an EYE-WITNESS TOLD HIM, but maybe the AD tells Joe that McQueary didn't see what he thought he saw. Unless it comes out that some order was levied by Joe to sweep this under the rug, the more I think about it, the more Curly needs to rot.

Because Curly and Shultz are charged with perjury right now, it is impossible to know what type of investigation (if any) actually occurred. The fact that they told Second Mile that there was no wrong doing really puts them at the forefront IMO.

Something stinks in Denmark for sure. I just am not sure what it is just yet.

Because it would mean that someone in his staff, McQueary, lied about witnessing sexual abuse. One would think in this case McQueary would quickly fall from favor at very least, and probably be run out of PSU. Instead he enjoyed a meteoric rise to the top.

In my hypothetical that would depend on A) what detail McQueary told Joe initially and B) what the AD told Joe was the result of his interviews and investigations.

There is certainly more here than meets the eye. The who knew what and when and why is yet to come out.

The lack of action from the AD, the perjury charges, statement to Second Mile, and Sandusky being allowed to stay on definitely point to SOMETHING more. Vilify Joe for not doing the right thing in 2002 and after that if you really have to, but Joe did at least tell the AD and the grand jury the truth. So if Joe didn't lie to the grand jury, why did the AD? Why did the AD say there was no wrong doing to Second Mile? What does Sandusky have on Curly or Spanier?

You are ridiculous. Paterno gave us under oath more than enough to know "who knew what, when" at least as far as he, Curley and Schultz are concerned. The reason those two morons are being prosecuted for perjury is because both McQueary and Paterno told them he witnessed sexual abuse of a minor and they said he didnt and they did nothing. And Paterno did nothing. What about that dont you understand? Paterno knew what happened, has admitted under oath he knew what happened, and either thought McQueary was lying--which would explain his inaction when he later saw Sandusky courting young boys over and over at PSU events. Or Paterno thought McQueary was telling the truth ..... and he did nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just change one fact here and see how Joe's defenders handle it. Let's say one of Joe Paterno's coaches comes to his home and says he saw Joe's assistant coach fondling and having inappropiate sexual contact with Joe's 10-year old grandson

No, let's change all the facts of the case so we can really get angry here.

If it was his grandson then he could ask his grandson what happened and then report it to the police. If he witnessed the crime himself he could report to the police. If he had seen who the boy was he could have told the parents and let them call the police. If if if...play the if game all day long but at the end of the day he reported it to the person he should have reported it to and he did it immediately. We get it, he's jerk for not going the extra mile and calling a news conference to announce that he heard a rumor that his old assistant coach is a child molester and nobody is doing anything about it.

Rant over... I'll let you get back to playing 'let's change the facts'

He could have still done those things and without much effort. That's my point. You think Joe couldn't have called his good friend of over 40 years, or his good friend's wife to find out more. Yeah, definitely impossible for Joe to have found out more.
Okay so we are now accepting the fantasy as fact? The point is that he couldn't have done any of those things I mentioed above because that is not what happened. It wasn't his grandson and he didn't witness the crime.
You're right. Don't go to Joe Paterno if you witness a horrendous crime being committed at Penn State's football facilities. The man has no clout and can't do anything about it.

And no, I wasn't still talking fantasy. I was referring to the actual facts of the case. Paterno could have called Spanusky or his wife and easily found out who the boy is staying over.

Okay just for blanks and giggles. Please tell me what you (playing Joe Paterno) would do in this situation. I'm serious.

I'll play too. You come to me and tell me that you saw a man raping a kid and that instead of stopping it, you ran away and called your dad because you were so upset. I ask 'Did you call the police?' You say 'Nope'. I punch you in the face and drive you to the police station.

Of course I'm 80 years old and probably not in complete control of my faculties. So I probably take a less aggressive approach and make sure I tell my boss and his boss and let them know who exactly witnessed this crime.

I'll be as clear as I can be. If I'm the witness, I call the police. No questions asked. If I'm Paterno, I try to find out more, either by confronting Spanusky or his wife. I tell the witness that he MUST make a statement to police if that's what he saw. That's the bare minimum. Honestly, what other actions are there to take?

What it sounds like Paterno did, instead, was say "Well, don't go to the police. We'll handle this in house." He certainly didn't advise his assistant to go to the police, or he would have. The only reasons to tell your boss instead of the police is you don't want an investigation. Period.

Would you have done different than that?

We are in absolute agreement. However, based on the indictment I have no idea what Paterno's exact language was to McQueary or whether or not he called Sandusky's house to confront him. No idea on that, so I'm not gonna condemn the man for things I think he may or may not have said or done.

Just one other personal observation, I can't imagine my 80 year old father confronting anyone about a criminal matter. Even as a hardened veteran and an old basketball coach, its just outside the realm of his nature at this point. Now I understand JoePa's a football coach who probably still has the ability to get riled up about a game but he's a still an old man who is waaay past his time of going caped crusader on something like this. Again, I agree with what is happening here, firing, cleaning house, whatever you wanna call it. No way should a place that was a safe haven for a molester should this not happen. I just believe that Paterno should nout be bearing the bulk of the guilt here. This guy's continued ability to victimize kids does not fall on Paterno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leeroy Jenkins with some impressive denial here

What am I denying?

Jerry Sandusky is a monster. He should not have been released on $100k bail. He should not be allowed to kill himself. He should be forced to face his victims and face the wall in prison repeatedly. The students should be outside of HIS house because HE is who has tarnished PSU and Paterno.

Mike McQueary is a coward. He witnessed a child in the most vulnerable position possible. He did nothing. He could have stopped that act. That boy SAW him and he did NOTHING. That boy lost all hope that day that he could ever be saved. He sneaked to his office and picked up the phone, but instead of 911 he calls his DAD!?! Mike McQueary is beyond reprehensible.

Tim Curly failed in his job as Athletic Director. He failed that little boy. He failed Penn State. He failed Mike McQueary. He failed Joe Paterno. If anybody was given the full details of 1998 AND the full story of what McQueary saw it was this man. Joe reported SOMEthing to Curly. Regardless of what Joe said to him, McQueary certainly gave the full detailed rendition at their meeting. Curly was legally responsible to report this to the authorities. Curly was morally responsible to report it to the authorities. Curly was responsible for the University to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident to identify that boy and whether there was an overarching issue with the football program and policies. Curly could have saved more children, but HE told the Second Mile that while there was a complaint that the university's non-existent investigation yielded NO WRONG DOING. Sandusky still had a flow of kids because CURLY blatantly lied to Second Mile. This man should be in jail. This man should have been fired, NOT on voluntary leave. His failure to act on several levels and his blatant lies are inexcusable.

Joe Paterno failed that boy. He failed Penn State. And he failed himself. When the coward Mike McQueary came to his house, regardless of the details of what McQueary told him, Joe should have sat down and TOGETHER they should have called the police. That's what should have been done the previous night at a minimum and Joe Paterno should have recognized what the RIGHT thing to do was. I do not know what Mike McQueary told Joe. I just know that the grand jury and the DA believe whatever McQueary and Joe testified as to what their conversation contained. I do not know what Joe said he was going to do about the situation. I just know that Joe met with the AD who later interviewed McQueary and did nothing. What Joe knew about 2002, 1998, before, in between, and after is not clear. My defense of Joe Paterno is one regarding a rush to judgment and making assumptions based on little information regarding the program, what he knew and allowed regarding Sandusky, and what he actually (not theoretically) was responsible for. We do not know his relationships with people, what his role administratively has been since 1998, nor what the AD and others share with him. Joe deserves to be highly criticized. Joe should not represent Penn State and Penn State football saturday. But the criticism is so disproportionate to the actions of Sandusky, McQueary, and Curly, in my opinion, that I cannot help but go into lawyer and defense mode. If it comes out that Joe was aware of 1998 and that was why Sandusky was "retired" if it comes out that he knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant etc., then Joe deserves to be vilified.

The manner and amount of vitriol being spewed towards Paterno and Penn State itself seems rather misplaced and smells of ulterior motives to me based on certain people in this thread. Not everybody.

Not sure how you could say this given what you just spelled out above

It seems entirely appropriately placed

:shrug:

Maybe disproportionate is the word I should have used. All of the above are culpable, but not to the same degree. Joe didn't do what he should have and it was right to fire him. You guys keep missing that part of what I am saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like firing McQueary could a little tricky.University leaders at the time have to go. That's obvious. These are people with power and influence. They had the power to make sure a proper investigation took place or cover it up.McQueary seems like a different situation. Absolutely, he's a despicable coward. He should resign.But it sounds like he told the truth to all the people at PSU with the power to do something. They didn't. For all we know, the people in power told him to shut up.Morally, he can't be excused for his actions, but it seems like PSU would have some legal hurdles in the way of firing him. I could see grounds for a lawsuit if they did.Maybe I'm way off base.

Would McQueary really dare file for wrongful termination, even if he had a case?
I would think so, considering his future job prospects with any other team don't look too bright at the moment.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbelievable. Just announced that McQueary will be coaching on Saturday.

I have a hard time believing Penn State officials can be this dense.
It's possible that he will be considered a whistleblower and therefore they would not be allowed to fire him.
Yeah, someone on the radio just mentioned this. PSU might be in CYA mode regarding McQueary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like firing McQueary could a little tricky.University leaders at the time have to go. That's obvious. These are people with power and influence. They had the power to make sure a proper investigation took place or cover it up.McQueary seems like a different situation. Absolutely, he's a despicable coward. He should resign.But it sounds like he told the truth to all the people at PSU with the power to do something. They didn't. For all we know, the people in power told him to shut up.Morally, he can't be excused for his actions, but it seems like PSU would have some legal hurdles in the way of firing him. I could see grounds for a lawsuit if they did.Maybe I'm way off base.

Would McQueary really dare file for wrongful termination, even if he had a case?
I would think so, considering his future job prospects with any other team don't look too bright at the moment.
The whole staff will be replaced by the incoming HC, so it's not like he'll have a job there next season.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leeroy Jenkins with some impressive denial here

What am I denying?Jerry Sandusky is a monster. He should not have been released on $100k bail. He should not be allowed to kill himself. He should be forced to face his victims and face the wall in prison repeatedly. The students should be outside of HIS house because HE is who has tarnished PSU and Paterno.Mike McQueary is a coward. He witnessed a child in the most vulnerable position possible. He did nothing. He could have stopped that act. That boy SAW him and he did NOTHING. That boy lost all hope that day that he could ever be saved. He sneaked to his office and picked up the phone, but instead of 911 he calls his DAD!?! Mike McQueary is beyond reprehensible. Tim Curly failed in his job as Athletic Director. He failed that little boy. He failed Penn State. He failed Mike McQueary. He failed Joe Paterno. If anybody was given the full details of 1998 AND the full story of what McQueary saw it was this man. Joe reported SOMEthing to Curly. Regardless of what Joe said to him, McQueary certainly gave the full detailed rendition at their meeting. Curly was legally responsible to report this to the authorities. Curly was morally responsible to report it to the authorities. Curly was responsible for the University to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident to identify that boy and whether there was an overarching issue with the football program and policies. Curly could have saved more children, but HE told the Second Mile that while there was a complaint that the university's non-existent investigation yielded NO WRONG DOING. Sandusky still had a flow of kids because CURLY blatantly lied to Second Mile. This man should be in jail. This man should have been fired, NOT on voluntary leave. His failure to act on several levels and his blatant lies are inexcusable.Joe Paterno failed that boy. He failed Penn State. And he failed himself. When the coward Mike McQueary came to his house, regardless of the details of what McQueary told him, Joe should have sat down and TOGETHER they should have called the police. That's what should have been done the previous night at a minimum and Joe Paterno should have recognized what the RIGHT thing to do was. I do not know what Mike McQueary told Joe. I just know that the grand jury and the DA believe whatever McQueary and Joe testified as to what their conversation contained. I do not know what Joe said he was going to do about the situation. I just know that Joe met with the AD who later interviewed McQueary and did nothing. What Joe knew about 2002, 1998, before, in between, and after is not clear. My defense of Joe Paterno is one regarding a rush to judgment and making assumptions based on little information regarding the program, what he knew and allowed regarding Sandusky, and what he actually (not theoretically) was responsible for. We do not know his relationships with people, what his role administratively has been since 1998, nor what the AD and others share with him. Joe deserves to be highly criticized. Joe should not represent Penn State and Penn State football saturday. But the criticism is so disproportionate to the actions of Sandusky, McQueary, and Curly, in my opinion, that I cannot help but go into lawyer and defense mode. If it comes out that Joe was aware of 1998 and that was why Sandusky was "retired" if it comes out that he knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant etc., then Joe deserves to be vilified.The manner and amount of vitriol being spewed towards Paterno and Penn State itself seems rather misplaced and smells of ulterior motives to me based on certain people in this thread. Not everybody.
All good except one little lie you slipped in there: Paterno testified under oath that McQueary told him that he witnessed Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy".And you wrote that what Joe knew in 2002 was unclear or "if it comes out" that Paterno "knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant" then Paterno deserves to be vilified. The above is willful denial of the actual facts by you--you either dont care what Paterno testified to under oath, or you think Paterno is a liar. Paterno testified under oath he was told by an eyewitness--who he must trust because he later promoted him repeatedly--of sexual abuse of a young boy at a PSU facility, he reported it, nothing happened and then Paterno repeatedly saw Sandusky over the years with young boys at PSU events, practices and games.PATERNO TESTIFIED HE KNEW AND THEN HE DID NOTHING ONCE IT BECAME CLEAR NOONE ELSE WAS DOING ANYTHING.
What lie? The tendencies I am referring to are in regard to Joe's knowledge prior to 2002. I am not saying that McQueary didn't tell him about "fondling" or something of a "sexual nature" I am referring to whether McQueary gave full details or not and what fondling/sexual nature actually was described.Question, and this is hypothetical, if Joe reported to the AD whatever McQueary said and the AD said for Joe not to worry about it he would investigate it and do what needed to be done, and then the AD interviewed McQueary did an "investigation" and then told Joe (as he told Second Mile) that no wrong doing occurred, then why should Joe be concerned? I know, you will say that an EYE-WITNESS TOLD HIM, but maybe the AD tells Joe that McQueary didn't see what he thought he saw. Unless it comes out that some order was levied by Joe to sweep this under the rug, the more I think about it, the more Curly needs to rot.Because Curly and Shultz are charged with perjury right now, it is impossible to know what type of investigation (if any) actually occurred. The fact that they told Second Mile that there was no wrong doing really puts them at the forefront IMO.Something stinks in Denmark for sure. I just am not sure what it is just yet.
Are you using this thread as a debate exercise, or is this all sincere for you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You lied when you said it was unclear what Paterno was told by McQueary. That is a lie because while we dont have the exact testimony and obviously werent there, you willfully ignore what Paterno testified to under oath, which is far more than enough to dam him as a child rapist protector and child rape enabler. What is unclear to you about "fondling or something of a sexual nature"? Do you need Paterno hearing detailed descriptions of penetration or graphic drawings done by McQueary for Paterno before Paterno knows what he is being told? Frankly, I think you are just trolling here because your points are so deceptive and dumb.Answer to your stupid question: Paterno should have done more. If Curley told him they investigated and McQueary had lied, why did Paterno keep promoting him? If Curley told Paterno they investigated and found no wrongdoing, Paterno asks McQueary if he lied and when McQueary says no, Paterno calls the cops. All of your incredible silly contortions to protect Paterno avoid the simple fact that he was told, he knew, he reported, nothing was done, he saw Sandusky partying with little boys repeatedly AND HE DID NOTHING.You can keep defending child rape enablers but please dont expect all of us to accept it.

I don't think Leeroy is trolling, but I do think you are being incredibly rude and disrespectful to him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbelievable. Just announced that McQueary will be coaching on Saturday.

I have a hard time believing Penn State officials can be this dense.
It's possible that he will be considered a whistleblower and therefore they would not be allowed to fire him.
Good point. If McQueary is seen as the whistleblower in this situation they are going to have a hard time dealing with his termination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the real issue is not whether what Paterno did was "legal," it's that a whole bunch of people knew what happened several times in the past and did nothing to prevent things from happening to other kids again in the future. So it's more a morality call in that once they knew what Sandusky was doing ang they did not make sure it never happened again.Another issue is that even though Paterno reported "to his superiors," there really was no one higher in stature than Paterno (even if there were by title). In practical reality, the administration was going to go along with whatever he wanted to do. For years, he was the key decisionmaker, so for him to pass the buck or claim ignorance seems rather far-fetched.

I think this is the key point. If you're in position of high authority, you're held to a higher standard. When the care of kids is entrusted to you, you must do whatever is necessary to protect the kids from harm. I am completely speculating here, but JoPa had a choice between calling the police on his friend or just letting to go and hoping someone else did it. If he had called the police, his friendship would likely be destroyed (imagine for a second of the despicable dude really wasn't guilty - what would you think of your friend reporting you to the police for child molestation, just because someone told him so?). If he didn't, he really took a chance with kids' well-being. He chose to take a chance. He chose wrong. Nothing criminal, but that's why he's no longer the coach. Edited by Genester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that it has already come out that the grad assistant/former captain went to Paterno and described IN VIVID DETAIL what he saw in the shower, depicting a brutal, savage rape scene of a young boy. Paterno's account last year to the grand jury of what might be considered an inapproriate sexually situation with no details or specifics doesn't fit that profile.

Just to clarify, my paragraph concerning the incident was written with the two possibilities to reflect the difference in the accounts between McQueary (vivid detail...) and Paterno (more vague references to "coach" "boy" "shower" etc.). There appears to be a discrepancy here. Is the discrepancy between McQueary's comments to Paterno that infamous night and his testimony to the grand jury, or is the discrepancy between the testimony of McQueary and Paterno to the grand jury?For me, it doesn't matter. Either version should have been sufficiently concerning to Paterno for him to do far more than he did. However, some people seem willing to give Paterno the benefit of the doubt, suggesting McQueary did not say to Paterno what he said to the grand jury. I don't know on what basis they make this assumption, but it seems to be out there.
As has been bandied about all day in the media, if ANYONE came to Paterno with even a HINT of anything remotely inappropriate having occurred on campus between a minor and one of his coaches, AT A MINIMUM he would have asked for a DETAILED account of what that person saw. In addition to that, you would on your own report it and launch a full scale investigation, keeping full tabs of the progress of the investigation and certainly the outcome.Not asking for a blow by blow decription and offering only a "thanks, I'll handle it from here" with no attempts to peel away more layers of the onion to get to the bottom of things does not appear to be believable at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like firing McQueary could a little tricky.University leaders at the time have to go. That's obvious. These are people with power and influence. They had the power to make sure a proper investigation took place or cover it up.McQueary seems like a different situation. Absolutely, he's a despicable coward. He should resign.But it sounds like he told the truth to all the people at PSU with the power to do something. They didn't. For all we know, the people in power told him to shut up.Morally, he can't be excused for his actions, but it seems like PSU would have some legal hurdles in the way of firing him. I could see grounds for a lawsuit if they did.Maybe I'm way off base.

Would McQueary really dare file for wrongful termination, even if he had a case?
I would think so, considering his future job prospects with any other team don't look too bright at the moment.
The whole staff will be replaced by the incoming HC, so it's not like he'll have a job there next season.
Which is irrelevant to his being terminated now.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just change one fact here and see how Joe's defenders handle it. Let's say one of Joe Paterno's coaches comes to his home and says he saw Joe's assistant coach fondling and having inappropiate sexual contact with Joe's 10-year old grandson

No, let's change all the facts of the case so we can really get angry here.

If it was his grandson then he could ask his grandson what happened and then report it to the police. If he witnessed the crime himself he could report to the police. If he had seen who the boy was he could have told the parents and let them call the police. If if if...play the if game all day long but at the end of the day he reported it to the person he should have reported it to and he did it immediately. We get it, he's jerk for not going the extra mile and calling a news conference to announce that he heard a rumor that his old assistant coach is a child molester and nobody is doing anything about it.

Rant over... I'll let you get back to playing 'let's change the facts'

He could have still done those things and without much effort. That's my point. You think Joe couldn't have called his good friend of over 40 years, or his good friend's wife to find out more. Yeah, definitely impossible for Joe to have found out more.
Okay so we are now accepting the fantasy as fact? The point is that he couldn't have done any of those things I mentioed above because that is not what happened. It wasn't his grandson and he didn't witness the crime.
You're right. Don't go to Joe Paterno if you witness a horrendous crime being committed at Penn State's football facilities. The man has no clout and can't do anything about it.

And no, I wasn't still talking fantasy. I was referring to the actual facts of the case. Paterno could have called Spanusky or his wife and easily found out who the boy is staying over.

Okay just for blanks and giggles. Please tell me what you (playing Joe Paterno) would do in this situation. I'm serious.

I'll play too. You come to me and tell me that you saw a man raping a kid and that instead of stopping it, you ran away and called your dad because you were so upset. I ask 'Did you call the police?' You say 'Nope'. I punch you in the face and drive you to the police station.

Of course I'm 80 years old and probably not in complete control of my faculties. So I probably take a less aggressive approach and make sure I tell my boss and his boss and let them know who exactly witnessed this crime.

I'll be as clear as I can be. If I'm the witness, I call the police. No questions asked. If I'm Paterno, I try to find out more, either by confronting Spanusky or his wife. That's out of courtesy to a long-time friend, by the way. I tell the witness that he MUST make a statement to police if that's what he saw. That's the bare minimum. Honestly, what other actions are there to take?

What it sounds like Paterno did, instead, was say "Well, don't go to the police. We'll handle this in house." He certainly didn't advise his assistant to go to the police, or he would have. The only reasons to tell your boss instead of the police is either you don't want an investigation or you don't know if you want an investigation. Period.

Would you have done different than that?

No it doesn't all fall on Paterno, and as Yudkin stated, the fact that the witness coach got promoted after not reporting is VERY troublesome. But that's why it's called #### hitting the fan. It goes everywhere and on everyone. And if this coverup is going as high up as current reports are suggesting, Paterno's role may actually be worse than we are currently willing to imagine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbelievable. Just announced that McQueary will be coaching on Saturday.

I have a hard time believing Penn State officials can be this dense.
It's possible that he will be considered a whistleblower and therefore they would not be allowed to fire him.
Yeah, someone on the radio just mentioned this. PSU might be in CYA mode regarding McQueary.
I can live with paid administrative leave until the new AD settles in.. keep him out of the stadium on game day
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You lied when you said it was unclear what Paterno was told by McQueary. That is a lie because while we dont have the exact testimony and obviously werent there, you willfully ignore what Paterno testified to under oath, which is far more than enough to dam him as a child rapist protector and child rape enabler. What is unclear to you about "fondling or something of a sexual nature"? Do you need Paterno hearing detailed descriptions of penetration or graphic drawings done by McQueary for Paterno before Paterno knows what he is being told? Frankly, I think you are just trolling here because your points are so deceptive and dumb.Answer to your stupid question: Paterno should have done more. If Curley told him they investigated and McQueary had lied, why did Paterno keep promoting him? If Curley told Paterno they investigated and found no wrongdoing, Paterno asks McQueary if he lied and when McQueary says no, Paterno calls the cops. All of your incredible silly contortions to protect Paterno avoid the simple fact that he was told, he knew, he reported, nothing was done, he saw Sandusky partying with little boys repeatedly AND HE DID NOTHING.You can keep defending child rape enablers but please dont expect all of us to accept it.

I don't think Leeroy is trolling, but I do think you are being incredibly rude and disrespectful to him.
Sorry, I will be kinder to those who deceptively try to explain why child rape enabling is ok.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbelievable. Just announced that McQueary will be coaching on Saturday.

I have a hard time believing Penn State officials can be this dense.
It's possible that he will be considered a whistleblower and therefore they would not be allowed to fire him.
Good point. If McQueary is seen as the whistleblower in this situation they are going to have a hard time dealing with his termination.
Wouldn't Paterno be considered whistleblower too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbelievable. Just announced that McQueary will be coaching on Saturday.

I have a hard time believing Penn State officials can be this dense.
It's possible that he will be considered a whistleblower and therefore they would not be allowed to fire him.
Good point. If McQueary is seen as the whistleblower in this situation they are going to have a hard time dealing with his termination.
You can't be fired for whistleblowing. But, you can fire a whistleblower for something other than the whistleblowing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is certainly more here than meets the eye. The who knew what and when and why is yet to come out. The lack of action from the AD, the perjury charges, statement to Second Mile, and Sandusky being allowed to stay on definitely point to SOMETHING more. Vilify Joe for not doing the right thing in 2002 and after that if you really have to, but Joe did at least tell the AD and the grand jury the truth. So if Joe didn't lie to the grand jury, why did the AD? Why did the AD say there was no wrong doing to Second Mile? What does Sandusky have on Curly or Spanier?

do you believe that Joe was not aware of the 1998 investigation? do you think the only indication he ever received that Sandusky might be who he was came from his conversation with McQueary in which few details were shared?if you believe those things, I can see giving him the benefit of the doubt here and believing he didn't really understand the seriousness of the 2002 allegations, but both seem like a stretch.
I'm saying we do not know that at this time. All we have right now is the grand jury report which contains bits and pieces of testimony. We know that the full story isn't out there yet because at least two people are lying (Curly and Schultz). I think it is a very real possibility, and maybe even likely, that Joe knew of something in 1998 and that directly led to his retirement at that time. But I would rather have all the information before making that particular judgment.Again, based on the grand jury report alone, Joe deserves to be fired. It's really the lack of outrage directed towards Sandusky (who was a SERIAL CHILD MOLESTER who had a pattern and plan), Curly and McQueary that is getting to me. Not that people have ignored them, just that they seem to be falling by wayside. And PSU as a whole, the students, alumni, etc. are not at fault here and have also been taking an undue beating. Spanier, the BOT, etc. also need more attention here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has been bandied about all day in the media, if ANYONE came to Paterno with even a HINT of anything remotely inappropriate having occurred on campus between a minor and one of his coaches, AT A MINIMUM he would have asked for a DETAILED account of what that person saw. In addition to that, you would on your own report it and launch a full scale investigation, keeping full tabs of the progress of the investigation and certainly the outcome.Not asking for a blow by blow decription and offering only a "thanks, I'll handle it from here" with no attempts to peel away more layers of the onion to get to the bottom of things does not appear to be believable at all.

Well said as usual, Yuds. Paterno's apparent response to McQueary's information seems to have been nearly equivalent with what he might have done had someone informed him that one of his coaches (or former coaches) had just stolen a box of office supplies and maybe a laptop or two from another coach's office.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the heart to read this whole thread as I've been a long time Penn State fan and actually was a student there for a couple of years.

Anyone who knew specifics and covered it up should be fired...period. But the vitriol for the "program" is badly misplaced. This incident has NOTHING to do with the football program, other than the fact that one or two of the people involved were coaches. Sandusky wasn't a part of the program at the time.

I realize you have a more vested interest in this than many others do, but I bolded the part that is part of the issue.

Sandusky was investigated for similar incidents WHEN HE WAS STILL A COACH in 1998. That led to his retirement, and if things play out as some reporters are suggesting, that was part of an agreement he made with the school to keep everything from coming out. Another part of the purported agreement is that he would not accept a coaching position anywhere. Sandusky had just been named the National Assistant Coach of the Year . . . and then he retires when he CERTAINLY could have been a leading candidate for head coaching and defensive coordinators all over the country, if not as the heir apparent to Paterno?

Even though he was no longer a coach and had "retired," he still kept an office in the football/sports complex, still attended practice with a certain degree of regularity, ran his foundation for young boys, ran football camps attended by young boys (IIRC at Penn State locations), and still used campus facilities and worked out there.

To add another layer to this, even after the 2002 now infamous shower incident, PSU officals and administrators STILL let all of that continue. The only thing (seemingly) that was asked of him was that he could no longer shower with boys and that if he wanted to hang out with boys to not do it at PSU.

Unfortunately for PSU and the powers that be there, the families of any boy that got abused after the college was awar of what was going on are going to get H-U-G-E payouts and/or civil suit awards with punative damages. Subsequent attacks could have been avoided if PSU brought everything to light at the time things happened . . . yet they didn't.

Legally/criminally, it's one thing to "report things to a superior," but it's another to let a predator to continue to operate under your watch and within your walls.

While Joe Pa was not the one committing the actual crimes and it was not truly a pandemic among the football program, a case certainly can (and will) be made that the football coaching staff, the sports program, and the administration were remiss in not notifying people that one of their brethren was a child molester and parents unknowingly enrolled their children in camps and programs without that knowledge that could have prevented additional illegal activities.

he still traveled with the team to certain bowl and away games, with kids in tow, on the universities dime. he still used university facilities to run camps for kids. he still brought kids to practices and facilities. this even after 2002 when the university attempted to bar this sort of behavior by sandusky.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...