Just like with indy, I'm not going to debate crazy people who think Jerry is innocent.
CNN Headline on Paterno
- Thread starter Lion8286
- Start date
Except for the ones who called Joe Paterno on the phone, or marched across campus to confront him in his office to tell him in front of dozens of other people. Funny how that works.
Well, considering there is no evidence that Joe received a report of abuse... yes!
Just because I think the PSU related incidents are bogus, does not mean I think Jerry is innocent.
I posted this in the other thread figure it bears repeating here since you brought up a good point re: no one Mike spoke to in 2001 said he reported a crime.
=======================================
From 12/16/11 Prelim (JM being questioned re: meeting he had with Schultz and Dr. D a few months after the 2001 incident):
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.
=======================================
Notice how he uses words like "at least" and "led me to believe". This shows that whatever MM reported in 2001 was far from definitive and contained quite a bit of grey area.
If there was grey area/uncertainty about what MM reported then JM's lack of outrage (about JS never even getting questioned by UPPD) during this meeting would make perfect sense.
We know JM expressed no dissatisfaction because of this testimony:
======================================
From 12/16/11 Prelim Pg. 156-157:
Q: Do you recall if you ever expressed any dissatisfaction with Mr. Schultz about the action that was taken or not taken?
A: I wouldn’t make it a personal dissatisfaction. I was – I was dissatisfied with the process that what appeared to be or sounded to me to be a serious reported infraction that we’ve all discussed here, that it appeared on the surface that the system wasn’t doing much about it. I am not in a position to say that Gary Schultz didn’t do anything about it.
Q: Well, did you ever express to Mr. Schultz your dissatisfaction with how the system was proceeding?
A: I cannot say that I ever expressed dissatisfaction to Gary
======================================
So, according to JM, it appeared the system wasn't doing enough about his son's very serious report of being 99% sure JS was raping a kid and yet at the same time he expressed ZERO dissatisfaction with the folks his son trusted to handle his report when he was face to face meeting with them! That makes perfect sense right?
Last edited:
^^^^ This ^^^^
What inappropriate of a very sexual nature wouldn't be a crime? Is there such a thing?
Either MM told his dad about sexual assault or he didn't. If he did, JM is lying to cover his own butt for not doing more. If he didn't, JM is lying to stand up for his son. I choose to believe the latter because the former means that JM didn't do anything to help a boy he knew was abused that night AND Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Shultz all coincidentally told the same lie.
Not really, I understand that Jerry handpicked the most f--ked up kids to prey on. They came from sh!tty homes and backgrounds and that sick SOB knew it too. Jerry is your GD hero and martyr, awesome. Maybe you can take over for JZ and get on the air anytime this comes up to be a new voice for the loons. Get those victims Indy...Joe would be so proud of you. Just like the Paterno's are...oh wait...they don't attack the victims and actually resemble the class that Joe carried himself with. Carry on.
You mean the types of people who might be predisposed to floating a false accusation about someone in the interest of profiting off it? I agree.
I'm not saying Jerry is innocent. But I am saying it is not unreasonable to think it's possible. The man was convicted solely on the basis of inconsistent testimony from people with a financial incentive to provide said testimony. No physical evidence at all.
Exactly. Also, when you look at the rest of MM's 12/16/11 prelim he claims Jerry was fondling/touching the kid in a sexual way even though he couldn't see anyone's hands or privates. So pretty much everything in his testimony outside of the sounds and seeing the two of them in the shower (such as fondling or sex) was pure speculation on MM's part.
IOW HE DID NOT WITNESS ANYTHING ILLEGAL. It's why you see words such as "it looked like" and "I thought" a lot in MM's testimony on what he "observed" that night. What he did witness was weird and inappropriate but an adult showering with a kid isn't automatically illegal in PA. Only if it could be proven that JS was showering for sexual gratification purposes (his intent) would it be illegal.
To me this is the reason MM never filed a police report or expressed dissatisfaction when TC followed up with him and why his dad never showed outrage when face to face with Schultz a few months later. MM wasn't confident enough in what he THOUGHT JS and the kid were doing to take such a formal step which would lead to an arrest/questioning by LE. He wasn't really sure what they were doing but it weirded him out and wanted folks at PSU to know about the inappropriate behavior. PSU revoked guest privileges and informed the people with direct control over JS' access to kids and apparently this was sufficient for MM and his family. The problem with MM is that he then tried to play revisionist history 10 years later which threw a lot of good people under the bus. Either that or MM and his family are all terrible people for knowing a kid was abused and didn't even make sure a police/CYS report was filed.
Sounds like you are in favor of a system where careful offenders can breathe easy as long as they don't leave physical evidence.
I'm not.
I'm just in favor of a system of innocent until PROVEN guilty.
I believe it is possible, or even probable, that Joe didn't even know that reporting to the DPW was a thing.
As Joe stated, he had no idea what to do, so he looked up the University procedure. And per procedure, he passed along the matter to those who were better equipped to handle it. Joe literally could not have handled it better.
If MM was sure he saw sexual assault...
- What kind of man sees a kid being raped but walks away because the two were at least temporarily separated?
- What kind of father and family friend believe that a kid was just sexually assaulted and respond by going to bed and suggesting somebody tell the football coach tomorrow?
Right. But everybody told after that was supposed to assume McQueary saw a child being anally raped and respond accordingly. Well ok not everybody...just Joe and the PSU administrators.
You're high horse act is so phony. You don't give a crap about the so called victims. But you do care about the narrative. And you are worried that if Sandusky gets a new trial, it will hurt you in some way.
You know as well as I do that PSU paid anybody and everybody with no real vetting. You also know that at least half the charges against Sandusky are bogus, especially those supposedly on PSU property.
Your loyalty is to Tom Corbett and I feel sorry for you.
I agree with NCIS special agent John Snedden that there is no credible evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation that Sandusky is a pedophile.
No. I consider it likely that what he was doing falls into the category of grooming. I just don't think he was stupid enough to do anything more than that at PSU. And I think it was unreasonable to nuke PSU football and destroy the university's reputation to the tune of $250 million because Jerry fooled a bunch of people.
You talking about loyalty is a joke. You of anyone. F--k Corbett. You only care about your buddy. GFY Indy. You don't think Jerry did anything but won't come out and say it. Take on those victims INDY. A real hero with your priorities in order.
If you ask L.T. Young, there is no grey area, everything can be expressed in absolutes, and nothing other than his anti-paterno point of view can be considered.
Calling anyone out for questioning the victims in this case is the same BS tactic that the left uses with its identity politics. When someone gets close to the truth, they must be attacked and discredited. Your intentions are clear as glass.
If he is willing to groom him at PSU, why wouldn't he touch him sexually there? That makes zero sense.
That question wasn't weird at all. You're just too dense to grasp the subtlety of it.
Cry me a river. Yeah...I'm attached to the BoT and Corbett, that has to be it. Anyone that isn't fighting for Jerry is evil in your eyes. You have no earthly idea how stupid you sound.
I wonder how the BoT and Corbett were able to get millions of people attached to them? Incredible work.
Yet without question, you are delusional. Weird.
When you take date to a fancy restaurant or a concert, do you touch her sexually there?
I hope that answers your question.
How about when you have your date naked and alone in a shower? Might you touch her sexually then?
Indy, if he was naked with him in the shower, alone at night, he was committing a crime. And for the love of God, he had already been told never to do that again after the first incident. Absolutely no decent reason for him to be in that position. Hopefully it was just grooming, for the kids sake. But he wasn't grooming him to take him home and play checkers. He was grooming him to have sex with him.
Similar threads
