I googled "getmyjive11" and found images of Sara Ganim and Ira Lubert. Imagine that?
Keep playing your games. You've demonstrated a serious lack of objectivity and honestly, it is a flaw.
CNN Headline on Paterno
- Thread starter Lion8286
- Start date
I googled "getmyjive11" and found images of Sara Ganim and Ira Lubert. Imagine that?
Keep playing your games. You've demonstrated a serious lack of objectivity and honestly, it is a flaw.
Paterno was also mystified that a man and a boy could possibly engage in a sexual act when he read the GJ report. Sounds to me that he could have thought Jerry hugging a boy in the shower might be considered "sexual".
If you look at what ALL of the info you get one conclusion:
- MM said he used soft language with Joe.
- Joe said MM didn't tell him about anything like what was in the GJ report.
- MM said Joe was great through the whole thing.
- MM didn't even break it up much less call police.
- JM & Dranov testified that they weren't told anything that necessitated calling police.
- C&S said they didn't consider MM's report to be sexual assault.
- Nobody told MM to keep quiet.
You mean the testimony read aloud by the prosecutor where he said that it was of a sexual nature, but I"m not sure what it was exactly. I didn't push Mike.
So Paterno never knew any specifics and the transcript could have been selectively chosen by the OAG considering they referred to MM as saying anal rape when he didn't.
But you are going to believe what you are going to believe.
Or maybe you are referring to this, where Paterno says inappropriate, which is what others reported MM saying.
INTERVIEW: JOSEPH V. PATERNO
The date is 10/24/11; time 12:17 p.m., interview of coach Joseph Vincent Paterno, 830 North McKee Street, State College, PA. Scott Paterno is here representing his father. Randy Feathers is also present.
SASSANO: Coach are you aware that this statement is being taped and do you give me permission to tape this statement?
J. PATERNO: Yes.
SASSANO: Did Mike McQueary, some years ago, come to you, report to you an incident that he observed in the shower between Jerry Sandusky and another individual most likely a young boy.
J. PATERNO: Yes he did.
SASSANO: Okay, and can you tell me what Mike McQueary told you please.
J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on. We didn’t get in to what the inappropriate action was, but it was inappropriate. And that’s how I knew about it.
SASSANO: So he did not elaborate to you what this sexual activity was, only that he witnessed some sexual activity between Sandusky and a young boy?
J. PATERNO: Well he, well he, to be frank with you it was a long time ago, but I think as I recall he said something about touching.
SASSANO: Touching?
J. PATERNO: Touching.. whatever you want to call them, privates, whatever it is.
SASSANO: Okay, could he have said there was something more? An actual sex act?
J. PATERNO: He never said that.
SASSANO: Okay. Subsequent to that conversation with Mike, you took some appropriate action, correct?
J. PATERNO: Yea, I did because I felt, again, at that time Jerry Sandusky was not working for me.
SASSANO: Correct.
J. PATERNO: Jerry had retired from the coaching staff two or three years earlier. So I didn’t feel it was my responsibility to make any kind of a decision as to what to do with him, so I called our athletic director, I told him that Mike McQueary had something that he probably ought to share with him.
Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/...ted-paterno-weeks-firing/#528Pxf4BrsXuadfh.99
How do you know that is what Paterno said It is what MM said Paterno said.
And as Joe not going to police or taking more action, didn't the OAG say Paterno did the right thing. And didn't he do exactly what the NCAA says he should have done.
You are clearly selecting evidence to fit your narrative.
What does it matter if it was anal rape or not? If it was sexual in nature, that is suspected CSA. That necessitates a call to police.
You can point to them all you like. It's the way you are interpreting them that is flawed. You have 0% objectivity. Zero point zero. You do have a "cause" though. Would like to know what drives that cause.........
It's something. Something about Joe Paterno that pushes you over the edge. It's a bit amusing, but in a sad and pathetic way. Oddly enough, you won't clarify why you want Paterno to be the face of Sandusky.
MM has no reason to make that up. None. You not believing it is just sticking your head in the sand.
I'm using Paterno's words directly. I'm using what is noted in the police reports. Please tell me what you are "objectively" using to come to your conclusion.
As for your second part, you are intentionally ignoring what I have said.
No. He said he didn't know what it was. Only you know things yet don't know them.
He's attempting to capitalize on his "memoirs". This change in stories helps his cause. I know that's tough for you to understand because you are super dumb.
Objectively speaking, do you really think Paterno knew precisely what Sandusky was doing? Do you really believe he knew with certainty that Sandusky was sodomizing and fellating young boys regularly? And turned a blind eye in the name of protecting HIS program?
I don't. He knew of a report. He acted. We now know he made a mistake. Objectively speaking, perhaps he didn't believe it? Denial is a human mechanism. Perhaps he thought it just wasn't sodomy or fellatio, but instead rationalized wrongly in some way (horseplay)? Rationalization is a human mechanism.
To sit there and say "Joe knew" is absolutely asinine. What did he really know? That Sandusky was sodomizing and fellating young boys and attracting them via the lure of being close to Penn State football?
Seriously dude (or not)......
What is your motivation? What did Paterno do to you to draw your ire in his death? Did he use his "power" as a football coach to influence a decision you didn't like? Did he "best" you?
That is what you said. You chastised people for not focusing on the football game yesterday.
People see him as a failure because people are idiots who cannot think for themselves. CNN tells them he failed, so he must have failed. Idiots.
No new credible information has come out for several years, so I don't know what new tidbits you are referring to.
Yes, she absolutely did. You are clueless.
Do you understand what the police report says?
It says what Mike said. It does not comment on the veracity of that claim.
Please note that Mike DID NOT ever bring this up again. He was on the stand multiple times when this could have been very relevant to proceedings. A rationale person would conclude that either the police report mischaracterized what MM said or MM said something false at the time and didn't want to lie about it under oath.
But those of you who cannot think for themselves, I police report is somehow "proof". Amazing.
My opinion is based on a very thorough, careful examination of the facts.
Your opinion is based on what CNN tells you.
I don't think you know what the word failure means.
Any time you want to debate me on the facts, let me know.
There was zero reason for Joe to lie, millions of reasons for MM to make stuff up.
Failing to get a pedo off the streets when you get two reports of pedo activity is failure. Costing your employer hundreds of millions of dollars and a reputation hit is failure.
I've been posting facts and you have been denying them. Why "debate" when you cannot accept reality?
Still no answer on who intentionally leaked those specific 23 pages of the grand jury report or the motive for that.. MM also mentioned he was told of the intentional leak.. THAT is a giant issue and a Pulitzer worthy story
Shouldn't you be doing pro bono work for Houston flood victims, rather than lurking on this board? Or did you become a Tree Climber like Roxine in order to avoid the floodwaters?
No reply from Sara Lubert......... Telling..... She really wants to be right. Journalism at its finest.
So if I file a police report claiming you are a dumb@ss, then you are a dumb@ss, right? Because it's a non-vetted police report, and not an investigative report of findings, but it's gotta be true. Sheesh. Gotcha.
I've never said that I believe that bullshit narrative about a conspiracy of silence to protect football or anything else.
Paterno's testimony alone shoots that theory down.
I don't think this new information changes much if you look at it objectively. We knew he was aware of 98, and he reported 2001 to his superiors.
It amounts to the same thing as before: he should have done more, but did what was required.
Anyone that changes their opinion because of it is being reactionary.
What I don't understand, is ok, so what if he did know about 1998, so what? The police said there was nothing there. It was investigated, by police. How does that change anything that happened?!
I don't know what he knew or how to interpret those words. I do know a few things:
- Everybody MM told said the he didn't tell them about sexual assault.
- People close to Joe said that he was confused that a man and a boy could even engage in sexual acts.
- I just read a facebook post by Eileen Morgan saying that "I have the original police report from 2010 November. There is no mention of any of these events of McQueary and JVP interaction nor anything ever testified to."
If you look at all the evidence you get to one conclusion. If you've already decided your position without considering all the evidence you reach a different conclusion.
What did the university procedure say in February 2001 about reporting suspected sex assaults?
If you find a copy of it, you'll have your answer.
Right after he became president, Erickson appointed an Ethics Officer specifically to review whether procedures were properly followed. Let me know when you find his report.
The DOE specifically asked PSU for all their procedures from 2001(2002). Five years later they released their Clery Act report. Let me know where find the relevant procedures cited in that report.
The NCAA specifically asked PSU to cite whether they had procedures in 2001(2002) and whether or not they were followed. Let me know when you find any hint that PSU provided those procedures to the NCAA.
Frazier informed the board (twice) that Freeh was reviewing all the procedures from 2001. Freeh's press release states he reviewed all the relevant procedures. Let me know when you find where he either cites or includes the relevant procedure for reporting sex assault anywhere in the Freeh Report.
Similar threads
