ESPiN hypocrisy is numbing!!!

[Art]

You might reread Paterno's own words to the GJ, Sassano and Jenkins. Your alternate universe is just that.

Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?

Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.


"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."

PATERNO: I wish I knew. I do know this, when young Mike McQueary came over to see me the next day (in 2002), he was very upset and I said why, and he was very reluctant to get into it. He told me what he saw, and I said, what? He said it well looked like inappropriate, or fondling, I'm not quite sure exactly how he put it. I said you did what you had to do. It's my job now to figure out what we want to do. So I sat around, it was a Saturday, waited til Sunday because I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing. And then I called my superiors and I said hey we got a problem I think. Would you guys look into it? Cause I didn't know, you know. We never had, in 61 years, until that point, 58 years I think, I had never had to deal with something like that. And I didn't feel adequate.

JENKINS: Did you understand the seriousness of what Mike McQueary was telling you at the time?

PATERNO: Well not really. I knew it was serious and I wanted to do something about it. And that's why I went up the chain of command.

JENKINS: Mike McQueary testified at the preliminary hearing that he couldn't bring himself to tell you graphic details, did you feel vindicated by that?

PATERNO: I felt that way, but I didn't want to speak for Mike. But Mike sat here at this table, and he was obviously very, very shaken, and you know, he didn't want to get specific. And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it.

So McQueary old Joe that he witnessed "fondling" or "touching" in the shower? What did he plan to tell the police if, as a result, they conducted an investigation and questioned him in 2001?

 

[getmyjive11]

To be fair, Joe-Tim-Gary-Graham were not told of a rape in a shower, but Sandusky certainly was convicted of crimes that used his status with the SECOND MILE and as an APPROVED FOSTER/ADOPTIVE PARENT to his advantage in accessing ALL those kids.

It's the reason why the county and state will never admit it.

Better to just accept the reality that our commonwealth failed and demand answers as to why they placed this on Penn State's doorstep, demand the record be set straight and then move on.

"Moving On" is a mantra for drunk drivers in a hit & run and corporate thugs on our Board of Trustees.

Well, they were told that MM saw something "of a sexual nature"... unless you think Paterno was lying? That should have been enough for Curley and Schultz to take it to the authorities. They failed.

 

[GTACSA]

We had a thread here not too long ago where demlion, one of the sharpest individuals around and a practicing attorney, was recalling as best he could some details about this case from 4+ years ago. And he thought he recalled, but admitted his memory might not be exact.

And, here we have GTASCA (and other BOT apologists) absolutely hanging their case on 80-year old Joe Paterno's recollection of a conversation he had 10 years prior! Not something he personally saw, but a conversation. It's like they think it was etched in stone. And this is proof positive??

The case for a coverup by PSU athletic officials gets weaker all the time. Yet the dead-end guys still grasp on to this single fragile reed and won't admit that it just might not mean what they claim.

There is a big difference between recalling facts from this case 4 years ago and recalling facts from a past event 4, 10, or 20 years ago that was personal. Where were you when you were informed your father died? Where did you go on your honeymoon and where did you go for dinner and where did you stay?

Let me suggest that if a coworker of yours had told you 10 years ago that he saw your male coworker doing something sexual in nature with a young boy in the office shower, you would remember that it was a sexual incident. Demlion is absolutely correct as to general memory, but not major events. In 1965 I was traveling behind a WV Beetle that hit a deer on Rt 22, ran off the road and overturned in a field. We went into the field and the driver had been thrown from the car and was up walking, cussing at the dead deer. I related that story in 1965 and many more times since. Some major things people don't forget.

 

[getmyjive11]

To be fair, it was TSM that gave him access to kids and it was the state (CYS/DPW) that cleared him to be a foster parent AND cleared him in 98 of doing anything wrong. He clearly used his status as a PSU coach and the facilities to his advantage, but these other organizations are way, way more culpable in this "scandal" and yet we never hear anything about them. I will move on when the media investigates the real issue and when the NCAA, Freeh, Surma, Peetz, Kenny and the rest of the OGBOTs are all burning in hell!

Yes, they are all culpable, but that doesn't mean that PSU didn't screw up.

 

[GTACSA]

So McQueary old Joe that he witnessed "fondling" or "touching" in the shower? What did he plan to tell the police if, as a result, they conducted an investigation and questioned him in 2001?

How can we know that; let me guess he would have told them to interview McQueary.

 

[WeR0206]

"It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky."

Perfectly consistant with his testimony; what was your point?

My point was that Joe's statemant makes it clear he was only told about an inappropriate shower but not CSA/molestation.

MM's own testimony said he couldn't see JS's hands or anyone's privates so he couldn't tell if fondling was happening. JM's testimony stated MM never used the word fondling.

 

[getmyjive11]

Fair point and probably true but it's a shame our entire reputation has been destroyed. As long as the media circles back and stains us with it we will always be associated with that tragedy and lack of sound leadership afterwards.

It is a shame. Lots of mistakes from when it happened and from when the scandal broke in the news.

 

[getmyjive11]

Testimony from someone who is trying to remember something that happened 10 years earlier is virtually worthless.
There are all kinds of studies that show that people can't accurately recount events from so long ago.
Add to that the fact that those particular words that you decided to quote were surrounded by other words that Paterno used to indicate that he really didn't remember things accurately.
McQueary did not tell anyone in 2001 that he thought that he witnessed a sexual assault. Period.

If someone doesn't remember the events of 1 years ago, they would specifically say that it was something of a sexual nature. Your excuse makes zero sense.

 

[getmyjive11]

Sandusky was the pedophile but our administrators and Joe were not and have never been convicted of anything. They're the ones we want to see the apology for.

They don't have to be convicted. Joe agreed with MM per his testimony. Someone screwed up. I personally believe it was Curley and Schultz, but that is only an opinion. What is not an opinion was Joe's and MMs testimony that makes it virtually impossible that the PSU brass didn't screw up in some way.

 

[Art]

There is a big difference between recalling facts from this case 4 years ago and recalling facts from a past event 4, 10, or 20 years ago that was personal. Where were you when you were informed your father died? Where did you go on your honeymoon and where did you go for dinner and where did you stay?

Let me suggest that if a coworker of yours had told you 10 years ago that he saw your male coworker doing something sexual in nature with a young boy in the office shower, you would remember that it was a sexual incident. Demlion is absolutely correct as to general memory, but not major events. In 1965 I was traveling behind a WV Beetle that hit a deer on Rt 22, ran off the road and overturned in a field. We went into the field and the driver had been thrown from the car and was up walking, cussing at the dead deer. I related that story in 1965 and many more times since. Some major things people don't forget.

Was Joe ever directly asked how he related what was described to him by McQueary to Curley and Schultz?

 

[getmyjive11]

My point was that Joe's statemant makes it clear he was only told about an inappropriate shower but not CSA/molestation.

MM's own testimony said he couldn't see JS's hands or anyone's privates so he couldn't tell if fondling was happening. JM's testimony stated MM never used the word fondling.

Tell me how a responsible administrator doesn't take that to police? It's not their job to determine guilt, but it is their job to minimize risk and they failed.

 

[AWS1022]

It is a shame. Lots of mistakes from when it happened and from when the scandal broke in the news.

The real shame is that this may have run a lot deeper but because the media f'd up so badly, we will never know and many other guilty people may never get the punishment they deserve. All because the storyline involving Joe was much juicier. One thing's for sure, the media learned nothing from their screw up with the Duke LAX fiasco.

 

[getmyjive11]

The real shame is that this may have run a lot deeper but because the media f'd up so badly, we will never know and many other guilty people may never get the punishment they deserve. All because the storyline involving Joe was much juicier. One thing's for sure, the media learned nothing from their screw up with the Duke LAX fiasco.

There were mistakes made everywhere. Just don't blame the media for PSU shooting itself because most of the PSU damage in this was self inflicted.

 

[Art]

If someone doesn't remember the events of 1 years ago, they would specifically say that it was something of a sexual nature. Your excuse makes zero sense.

Except that Joe used the tern "fondling" which is specific and McQueary used the same term in the preliminary hearing fro Curley and Schultz. How convenient, particularly when one considers that he didn't come close to describing the same to either the Sandusky Grand Jury or at the trial.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

You might reread Paterno's own words to the GJ, Sassano and Jenkins. Your alternate universe is just that.

Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?

Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.


"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."

PATERNO: I wish I knew. I do know this, when young Mike McQueary came over to see me the next day (in 2002), he was very upset and I said why, and he was very reluctant to get into it. He told me what he saw, and I said, what? He said it well looked like inappropriate, or fondling, I'm not quite sure exactly how he put it. I said you did what you had to do. It's my job now to figure out what we want to do. So I sat around, it was a Saturday, waited til Sunday because I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing. And then I called my superiors and I said hey we got a problem I think. Would you guys look into it? Cause I didn't know, you know. We never had, in 61 years, until that point, 58 years I think, I had never had to deal with something like that. And I didn't feel adequate.

JENKINS: Did you understand the seriousness of what Mike McQueary was telling you at the time?

PATERNO: Well not really. I knew it was serious and I wanted to do something about it. And that's why I went up the chain of command.

JENKINS: Mike McQueary testified at the preliminary hearing that he couldn't bring himself to tell you graphic details, did you feel vindicated by that?

PATERNO: I felt that way, but I didn't want to speak for Mike. But Mike sat here at this table, and he was obviously very, very shaken, and you know, he didn't want to get specific. And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it.

LOL. I was just saying:

"You just KNOW that GTACSA - The Undisputed, Undefeated, World Champion of the Circle-Jerk Olympics has GOT to show up in this thread soon"

 

[Erial_Lion]

You're full of crap really. Try another name.

You really think that accusing me of being someone else (I assume that's what "Try another name" is supposed to mean), or whoever it was earlier that called me a "Pitt Troll" somehow helps things? We should be trying to pull people over to "our" side. I love my alma mater, and I don't see how being combative to those who don't see things exactly how I do would make things better. It's like many of you see everything so black and white, and if someone sees any hint of gray in anything, they are the enemy. It's funny that I'm being call a Pitt troll when I've voted for every candidate that PS4RS has endorsed, attended that rally that DavidM put together to hear demlion and Franco and everyone else speak, have defended PSU to dozens of people that have discussed things with me, etc. I'd rather we reach out to those in the middle to bring them over, rather than alienate anyone that doesn't see things exactly like I do.

In hindsight, everyone could have handled things better in this case. Joe and Mike and Gary and Tim and Graham and the 2nd Mile and everyone involved in the 1998 incident. Somehow, things got lost in the game of telephone. PSU wasn't perfect in all of this, and pretending that the University did everything perfectly doesn't help anyone. I don't know whose fault it was, or if it is even someone's "fault" (and maybe the "good" that comes from all of this is that people are more aware of a predator like Jerry in the future). But pretending that Joe never said that Mike told him that was he saw something of a sexual nature, or trying to discredit Joe because he was 80 or maybe there was a question mark when he said "sexual" or everything else does no one any good.

 

[GTACSA]

Was Joe ever directly asked how he related what was described to him by McQueary to Curley and Schultz?

Not that I'm aware of; your point?

 

[Art]

Not that I'm aware of; your point?

Should that loop not have been closed? Or was someone concerned that if confronted with the possibility of implicating others, Joe's memory might have changed?

 

[21Guns]

Sandusky was the pedophile but our administrators and Joe were not and have never been convicted of anything. They're the ones we want to see the apology for.

I want the apology for Joe Paterno, his family, and all of us who believe in him and love him.

I couldn't care less about Tim Curley: He never deserved his job, and he sucked at it, for his entire career.

 

[AWS1022]

There were mistakes made everywhere. Just don't blame the media for PSU shooting itself because most of the PSU damage in this was self inflicted.

But the media was the one that took all the focus away from where it should have been and put it on the football program and Paterno. They did not let the facts come out nor did they do any investigative journalism...they rushed to judgement to get a story and that let everything else disappear. PSU may have made mistakes but other people and organizations may have done far, far worse but we will never know. But I guess to the Penn State haters it was worth it.

 

[royboy]

There is a big difference between recalling facts from this case 4 years ago and recalling facts from a past event 4, 10, or 20 years ago that was personal. Where were you when you were informed your father died? Where did you go on your honeymoon and where did you go for dinner and where did you stay?

Let me suggest that if a coworker of yours had told you 10 years ago that he saw your male coworker doing something sexual in nature with a young boy in the office shower, you would remember that it was a sexual incident. Demlion is absolutely correct as to general memory, but not major events. In 1965 I was traveling behind a WV Beetle that hit a deer on Rt 22, ran off the road and overturned in a field. We went into the field and the driver had been thrown from the car and was up walking, cussing at the dead deer. I related that story in 1965 and many more times since. Some major things people don't forget.

Obviously, the conversation didn't have those features. You certainly don't have the slightest assurance or proof that it did.

 

[PENNST34]

Paterno did the EXACT right thing, both morally and legally. He was NEVER charged with a crime, in fact only praised by the AG for his actions. You are taking his words out of context and you know it. His words meant "I wish I had known more so I could have done more". Why do you remove the "with the benefit of hindsight" part of the quote?



The tragedy did not occur at Penn State. Sandusky didn't rape any kids on campus, haven't you been paying attention for the last 4 years, or even just in this thread where it has been stated multiple times?

I suggest before you graduate you learn the difference between "except" and "accept". Is your degree going to be in internet trolling by chance?

What's wrong with you? Those were Joe's words not mine. Geez!

 

[PENNST34]

Yet another Atroturf poster. Dude, we didn't just ride in here on a wagon load of pumpkins. We know that you and many like you are hired guns to monitor public opinion and question conventional wisdom. Go back and tell your employers that they should be nervous.

Retribution
Though the mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting,
With exactness grinds he all.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[PENNST34]

If that ^^^ is your most "educated" synopsis, you deserve to "hear crap" throughout your life........for spending 4 years at a major Institute of Higher Education, and failing to develope even the slightest ability to intelligently evaluate information - nor the ability to think critically

Maybe you can join the recent law school grad, and sue PSU for failing to provide you with a meaningful education. I wish you well in your pursuit

I've been placed in Atlanta with a major bank. Some of you guys need to grow up. The topic is toxic but some of you act like you were involved directly in it. Rediculous from adults to act like some of you.

 

[PENNST34]

Looks like you'll also graduate without the ability to reason or present a halfway decent written argument.

It's a message board with quick autocorrect comunications. What is wrong with you?

 

[PENNST34]

Wow, if I didn't know better I could have sworn you were Kenny Frazier with that same old rhetoric of "maybe there's something the OG BOT knows that we don't". Guess what pal, if there was something else the most serious charges against CSS never would have been quashed and Freeh would have included it in his 8.5 million dollar piece of crap report. All freeh found were people to interview with an ax to grind against Joe/PSU football and cherry picked emails which he assigned the worst possible interpretation to.

We already know for a FACT that PSU reported both incidents (98 and 01) OUTSIDE of PSU to the child care experts at CC CYS and TSM. If the child care experts dropped the ball from there then that's on them not the admins. Yet for some reason the BOT wants everyone to believe the PSU admins/football coach are to blame...hmmmm....that's odd don't you think?

The only facts the BOT knows that we don't are the ones concerning their own malfeasance. Why do you think they've been fighting so hard to prevent their fellow trustees from getting access to the freeh source docs? If the source docs supported the current narrative they would have happily handed them over and never tried to obfuscate them in the first place.

If the BOT wasn't hiding anything they never would have opposed their fellow trustees from getting access to the freeh source files and they never would have sided WITH the NCAA in court during the Corman litigation.

I actually believe your are right. But I'm not going to process anything about BOT and what happened til facts get established.

 

[pandaczar12]

What's wrong with you? Those were Joe's words not mine. Geez!

What's wrong with me? I used Joe's entire words, you truncated his words to fit your agenda. What's wrong with you?

trun·cate
/ˈtrəNGˌkāt/
verb
past tense: truncated; past participle: truncated
shorten (something) by cutting off the top or the end.

 

[pandaczar12]

Tell me how a responsible administrator doesn't take that to police? It's not their job to determine guilt, but it is their job to minimize risk and they failed.

Because no one knew it, including Joe. Look at HIS words that I quoted in this very thread. He qualifies his statement, which by the way wasn't cross examined and has never been heard to verify accuracy. That's what you hang your hat on.

Let's look at what would have to be true in your alternate universe. MM witnesses a crime, doesn't call the police, his dad and Dranov start the cover up by telling him to not call the police and instead get Paterno involved. Paterno hears a watered down version and proceeds to cover it up by passing it up the chain to C/S/S. All honorable men, at least one of which was an abuse victim themselves. They further cover it up by interviewing MM, talking with legal counsel, and Sandusky's employer.

Knowing what straws you will grasp at, you will assume that it wasn't a coverup, just that EVERYONE failed. MM, his dad, Dranov, JVP, C/S/S, Raykovitz, and the PSU legal team. The chances that they all heard "sexual nature" and failed is essentially 0.

 

[pandaczar12]

"It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky."

Perfectly consistant with his testimony; what was your point?

This is perfectly "consistant" with his testimony, that he didn't really know what it was. Why do you argue the opposite, then just help make our points for us?

 

[Marshall30]

Because no one knew it, including Joe. Look at HIS words that I quoted in this very thread. He qualifies his statement, which by the way wasn't cross examined and has never been heard to verify accuracy. That's what you hang your hat on.

Let's look at what would have to be true in your alternate universe. MM witnesses a crime, doesn't call the police, his dad and Dranov start the cover up by telling him to not call the police and instead get Paterno involved. Paterno hears a watered down version and proceeds to cover it up by passing it up the chain to C/S/S. All honorable men, at least one of which was an abuse victim themselves. They further cover it up by interviewing MM, talking with legal counsel, and Sandusky's employer.

Knowing what straws you will grasp at, you will assume that it wasn't a coverup, just that EVERYONE failed. MM, his dad, Dranov, JVP, C/S/S, Raykovitz, and the PSU legal team. The chances that they all heard "sexual nature" and failed is essentially 0.

Here we see typical PL, TOS and Pitt bullshit. 34 and his idiot pals need to stick to PL to play with themselves.

 

[GTACSA]

Should that loop not have been closed? Or was someone concerned that if confronted with the possibility of implicating others, Joe's memory might have changed?

Are you suggesting that Joe would change his testimony depending on what effect it would have on others? I always approached the issue from the perspective that Joe testified under oath in a truthful manner. Maybe I have missed your point.

 

[Marshall30]

Are you suggesting that Joe would change his testimony depending on what effect it would have on others? I always approached the issue from the perspective that Joe testified under oath in a truthful manner. Maybe I have missed your point.

You are a goof.

 

[GTACSA]

Obviously, the conversation didn't have those features. You certainly don't have the slightest assurance or proof that it did.

We differ I guess on how significant someone being told what Joe testified he was told is. You may not remember that while others would. I assume you would agree that if you were told 10 years ago by a coworker what Joe testified he was told, you would remember the event.

 

[Marshall30]

We differ I guess on how significant someone being told what Joe testified he was told is. You may not remember that while others would. I assume you would agree that if you were told 10 years ago by a coworker what Joe testified he was told, you would remember the event.

Back to Pitt and PL. Get thee hence.

 

[GTACSA]

This is perfectly "consistant" with his testimony, that he didn't really know what it was. Why do you argue the opposite, then just help make our points for us?

You miss the point. I believe that Joe was never told by MM the very specific observations that MM testified to at the GJ. McQueary also testified to that and Joe's testimony and statements are consistent with that. You choose to ignore that Joe was told of inappropriate behavior by Sandusky of a sexual nature involving fondling. You agree with that based on his sworn testimony, a statement to the police and an interview with Jenkins?

 

[Marshall30]

You miss the point. I believe that Joe was never told by MM the very specific observations that MM testified to at the GJ. McQueary also testified to that and Joe's testimony and statements are consistent with that. You choose to ignore that Joe was told of inappropriate behavior by Sandusky of a sexual nature involving fondling. You agree with that based on his sworn testimony, a statement to the police and an interview with Jenkins?

Clown from Pitt.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Clown from Pitt.

No he is not. I don't agree with him with regards to the handling, but come up with a new line you simplistic Twit. You need to stay on PL to be honest.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

This thread has become reminiscent of the day they changed the format of the board.

You all remember - the changeover apparently removed all the "bans" - and the place was absolutely FLOODED with the circle-jerkers from TOS.
This thread has rung the dinner bell for that same crowd of nit-wits, morons, astroturfers, and circle-jerkers.

The entire left-hand-side of the bell curve has jumped into the water.

 

[Art]

Are you suggesting that Joe would change his testimony depending on what effect it would have on others? I always approached the issue from the perspective that Joe testified under oath in a truthful manner. Maybe I have missed your point.

I'm suggesting that there may have been a gap between the time when McQueary first talked to Joe about what he saw and when McQeary used the term "fondling", like as much as a ten year gap.

 

[Art]

I've been placed in Atlanta with a major bank. Some of you guys need to grow up. The topic is toxic but some of you act like you were involved directly in it. Rediculous from adults to act like some of you.

Long way to go for a job as a teller.