There was nothing preventing Paterno from telling MM he should call the police.
Or his Dad and Dr. Dranov the night before when the kid could have still been in real danger.
There was nothing preventing Paterno from telling MM he should call the police.
There was nothing preventing Paterno from telling MM he should call the police.[/QUOT
For all we know, maybe Paterno did.
There was nothing preventing Paterno from telling MM he should call the police.
Wow. You are really leaning on this false dilemma argument.Then you must argue that Paterno was bad and just as responsible. You can't have it both ways; they both did the same thing, reporting up the chain of command.
Both acted appropriately.
Wow. Another obviously false argument. You are really off your game tonight.They did the same thing, and both acted in accordance with the law; if McQueary failed, Paterno failed equally.
Who told you that? McQueary did what he was required to do under the law at the time; so did Paterno. There is no difference. That was reason neither was charged.
BTW: here is the Error message that Royal Jackass think exists:
BlueWhiteIllustrated.com - Error
As a free user, there is a limit to how many messages you can post at once. Please wait a while and try again or pay for a subscription!
Wow. Another obviously false argument. You are really off your game tonight.
Be patient on this.And @Hotshoe will confirm that he was provided with definitive proof of its authenticity, yes?
Wow. You are really leaning on this false dilemma argument.
Which is a fabulous argument aside from the fact that it's completely invalid. There is nothing equal about those 2 people -- legal or otherwise -- irrespective of how many times you're compelled to repeat it. It's a false statement by any objective measure.It is a hypocritical argument to say that Paterno was just fine reporting it to Curley, his superior, but that McQueary was wrong in reporting it to Paterno, his superior. Likewise, it is hypocritical to argue that Paterno should have dialed 911, after McQueary reported it, and I have heard that argument a lot .
It is a hypocritical argument to say that Paterno was just fine reporting it to Curley, his superior, but that McQueary was wrong in reporting it to Paterno, his... .
Yep. And how many boys were sexually abused due to Tom Corbett's inaction as he slow-walked the investigation?From the article:
They conceded a legal duty to do that and as a result of that inaction, the men admitted, prosecutors could show Sandusky continued to have access to boys and, in fact, abused another boy in Penn State's football facilities before his eventual arrest in 2011.
In what year was the survey? Do those numbers still hold true today?
I don't know the answers, as I just saw the chart yesterday. Maybe someone else, perhaps ChiTown or Wen, knows more specific details around the timing.
Regardless, I see that as an important data point in weighing the consideration of a plea vs. trial.
Yes, I also hope we hear something from them. I don't know what to expect at this point.
Which is a fabulous argument aside from the fact that it's completely invalid. There is nothing equal about those 2 people -- legal or otherwise -- irrespective of how many times you're compelled to repeat it. It's a false statement by any objective measure.
Of course you realize the major difference between Paterno telling his superior and McQueary telling his superior (Paterno) is that Paterno wasn't a witness to a crime. A witness to a crime usually does one of two things: They remain silent because they don't want to get involved, or they go to the police.
Yep. And how many boys were sexually abused due to Tom Corbett's inaction as he slow-walked the investigation?
Slow walk is an understatement.Yep. And how many boys were sexually abused due to Tom Corbett's inaction as he slow-walked the investigation?
However, the witness's duty was to either call Childline/911 or report it to his supervisor; either was a legitimate course. McQueary did that, and so did Paterno.
STD, you've said (paraphrasing) that Gricar took the Catholic church model approach towards JS in 98. Do you know if JS ever got "help" for his problem and/or if there is documentation?
Apparently none.
Apparently none.
Guess you weren't around when the OAG was caught retroactively changing the dates of victim 9's abuse to give the appearance that it stopped before Corbett's investigation began. Par for the course with these guys.
Of this entire saga, there are two questions that have struck me that nobody seems to have any answers about: (1) what was Seasock, a specialist in the trauma of child sexual abuse, consulting on for Penn State during the time period you mentioned after his involvement in scuttling the 1998 investigation; and (2) what was the subject of the 10/13/1998 meeting between Ron Schreffler, Ralph Ralston, Steve Sloane, Ray Gricar, and Fran Ganter at the football building?It would be helpful to know what John Seasock was doing for the University from 2000 to 2006.
Of this entire saga, there are two questions that have struck me that nobody seems to have any answers about: (1) what was Seasock doing for Penn State during the time period you mentioned after his involvement in scuttling the 1998 investigation; and (2) what was the subject of the 10/13/1998 meeting between Ron Schreffler, Ralph Ralston, Steve Sloane, Ray Gricar, and Fran Ganter at the football building?
After 2001 i agree, but there is absolutely no way 98 shouldn't have brought an indication which likely would have shut JS down 3 years earlier.McQueary is absolutely the most to blame for Sandusky's freedom that allowed him to continue to abuse children for years afterwards. No reasonable person would argue otherwise.
Of this entire saga, there are two questions that have struck me that nobody seems to have any answers about: (1) what was Seasock, a specialist in the trauma of child sexual abuse, consulting on for Penn State during the time period you mentioned after his involvement in scuttling the 1998 investigation; and (2) what was the subject of the 10/13/1998 meeting between Ron Schreffler, Ralph Ralston, Steve Sloane, Ray Gricar, and Fran Ganter at the football building?
Guess you weren't around when the OAG was caught retroactively changing the dates of victim 9's abuse to give the appearance that it stopped before Corbett's investigation began. Par for the course with these guys.
Could you show me where in Federal or PA law it states a witness to a crime has the option of only reporting it to their work supervisor?? TIA
Inclined to say John Seasock's body of work at PSU added up to a grand total of something like $6,000. FWIW.
This is a straw man argument. No one's claimed that reporting to his supervisor wasn't one of MM's legal options.Pl;ease show me where there is a requirement to report. At the time, reporting it to the supervisor was acceptable, .
So where did I say that again? You really love to make things up. I'm interested to see what he says when and if the does testify again....big IF as who knows if that will even happen. Good to see you making things up again.So your life's desire is to "kill Curley"?
McQueary is absolutely the most to blame for Sandusky's freedom that allowed him to continue to abuse children for years afterwards. No reasonable person would argue otherwise.
He also claims that he was told by Sandusky that a PSU administrator said they were having sex in the shower. If this guy is reliable he is saying that nothing happened yet an eye witness told PSU admin that he witnessed a sex act in the shower. That would back the conclusion that Curley and Schultz lied about what Mike told them. The issue here is what did PSU do with a claim of child sex abuse from Mike, it isn't necessarily what actually happened in the shower because they would not know that until an actual investigation had a chance to occur.I am not convinced of that. Considering the only man who claims to be the McQueary shower victim has claimed nothing happened that night, and had remained very good friends with Sandusky until well into adulthood. He did end up turning on Sandusky just before the trial(when a lawyer got to him promising a big paycheck) claiming he was molested on other occasions.
I think if the police were contacted, Sandusky would have produced the boy, the boy would have stated nothing happened, and Sandusky would have been cleared. Honestly Sandusky would likely be a free man today, because McQueary would have not had the opportunity to tell the exaggerated story of what he witnessed in 2001, since there would be a police report stating the victim was contacted and found not have to been molested. With no McQuery testimony, the prosecution may have been forced to drop the charges pertaining to Aaron Fisher before they leaked the GJ investigation to Sara Ganim, whose article and her contacting of Victim 6's mother enabled Victims 3-7 to flip on Sandusky and allow the arrest.
I meant people who want the truth.By the commonwealth do you mean the OAG? Or do you mean the people of PA?
If the latter, then yes, this could be a win for the general public who wants the truth.
If you mean the Commonwealth (the OAG), then I don't see any way this is a win. Because they either will testify the same way the did previous (which doesn't help the Commonwealth), or they will perjure themselves (based on prior testimony) which also doesn't help the Commonwealth because they become pretty unreliable witnesses, especially given that their more recent testimony was part of a plea deal.
So in my mind that's a lose-lose for the OAG. I honestly don't think the OAG is going to call them as witnesses. Maybe the defense will...
If McQueary calls the police on the spot then the kid is there, as well as Sandusky and the eye witness, to be spoken to by the police. Situation is resolved right there, one way or another.I am not convinced of that. Considering the only man who claims to be the McQueary shower victim has claimed nothing happened that night, and had remained very good friends with Sandusky until well into adulthood. He did end up turning on Sandusky just before the trial(when a lawyer got to him promising a big paycheck) claiming he was molested on other occasions.
I think if the police were contacted, Sandusky would have produced the boy, the boy would have stated nothing happened, and Sandusky would have been cleared. Honestly Sandusky would likely be a free man today, because McQueary would have not had the opportunity to tell the exaggerated story of what he witnessed in 2001, since there would be a police report stating the victim was contacted and found not have to been molested. With no McQuery testimony, the prosecution may have been forced to drop the charges pertaining to Aaron Fisher before they leaked the GJ investigation to Sara Ganim, whose article and her contacting of Victim 6's mother enabled Victims 3-7 to flip on Sandusky and allow the arrest.
They were charged with perjury for a reason. .
I agree and I don't think they just took the plea and walk away now never to be heard from again. Maybe it was to put heat on GS, but I don't see how they take a plea deal and not testify for the state in GS's trial. I could be totally wrong there, but that certainly wouldn't add up in my book.I meant people who want the truth.
I highly doubt the defense would ever entertain calling them. They were charged with perjury for a reason. There's plenty of evidence to shred them on the stand.
In all likelihood they're going to be prosecution witnesses.
Knew what exactly? Be specific!....The thing is people at PSU knew about Jerry in 98 and did even less with more knowledge and life experience.....