FC: At Penn State, the struggle over Paterno's legacy continues
- Thread starter mn78psu83
- Start date
All of Joe's statements before the OAG influenced him line up exactly with Dr D/CSS/JM/JR testimony--that MM wasn't really sure what he saw but felt uncomfortable about it.
What about the "plain meaning of Joe's below words??
Here's Joe's original statement to Baldwin:
Here's Joe's interview with Posnanski:
Here's why Joes testimony changed between his Baldwin interview and written statement to OAG/GJ:
Yet we know that when he put his hand on the bible, his testimony was different. Are you saying he did not tell the truth under oath? To me that would be inconsistent with his character.
No, I'm saying his statements to Baldwin just prior to his OAG interview and GJ testimony aren't exactly the same...therefore the OAG seemed to have influenced his statements somewhere in between, planted certain phrases via their questions etc...it begs the question of why the OAG prosecutors were present during Joe's interviews and not C/S/S's???
Was Joe's GJ testimony "it was sexual in nature."....was it "it was sexual in nature?"...was it "was it sexual in nature?"...etc....also since GJ's aren't cross examined we don't know what "sexual in nature" even means to someone like Joe. Perhaps two people standing naked next to each other in the shower is sexual in nature to him....we have no idea...that's why relying ONLY on his GJ statement/OAG interview is not very accurate.
With the above in mind, It sure would be nice if we could get the audio from Joe's GJ to decide once and for all EXACTLY what he said now wouldn't it??
We do know that in his GJ testimony right before and after the sexual in nature part Joe said "I don't know what you'd call it", etc....showing that there was a lot of ambiguity to what MM reported...aka MM was NOT certain of anything when he was talking to Joe...which lines up exactly with Joe's statement to Baldwin and his interview with Poznanski. The only part of Joe's GJ testimony that he was sure about was that the showering incident was inappropriate and it made the PSU GA uncomfortable....which is exactly what CSS/JR testified to. Fancy that!
However it's a moot point to focus on the minutia of someone's ten year old, non cross examined recollection of something. People's memories simply aren't that good, especially at Joe's age. So that's another factor to keep in mind. We already know that Joe's recollection of 2001 was off.
IMO it's far better to look at everyone's actions in 2001 vs. their 10 year old recollection of something.
Interesting how you summon Joe's ";character" to suit your purposes. To you, the same man who would not lie under oath didn't have sufficient "character" to call the police when made aware of a possible case of child abuse
Guess it depends on what one's definition of "character" is ........and whether it fits your agenda..
I put all those morons on my Ignore List a long time ago. They are trolls. Their arguments are completely inaccurate, yet they never change. They never argue from an informed vantage point. Thus, they are trolls.
I have never made any negative judgment on Joe's character. You seem to infer such a position simply from me saying I believe Joe should have contacted the police. In the context of Joe's life, that is not a character issue; it merely show that in this matter he made a mistake as we all at times do. You are free to accuse yourself of not having sufficient character to avoid those mistakes you have made in your life, but please don't slur Joe for his mistakes in life.
Just to be clear, I attended undergrad at WVU, although I am from PA and know people that went to PSU. I've been to State College, although it was long ago. But that said, the deep south takes college football too seriously to be healthy. No doubt there are some sane Auburn and Bama fans but en masse the deep south mindset towards college football is not one I like.
The Bama fan putting his junk on the passed out LSU fan while the other Bama fans stood around and watched. The tree poisoning. And the thing is, none of these things are surprising because you know how seriously they take it down there. It's my understanding that there is not one but two statues of Nick Saban at Bama. That is just plain weird.
And if you recall, the SEC wanted to play football 100 hours after the 9/11 attacks. They only cancelled the games after everybody else cancelled and they were embarrassed into cancelling as well.
Maybe it makes me sound arrogant and like I think I'm morally superior but the passion for football in the deep south is not something I admire.
Agreed, good post.
Just out of curiosity, what are the meaning of the numbers 8, 22, 01, 21231, and 86 in your signature? Do they have anything to do with Joe Paterno? Did JoePa coach for 21,231 plays over the course of his career? That would be cool if you figured that number out to that level of precision!
You're doing some serious hair splitting here, and it's not convincing.
You've said that it was a moral issue and clearly you believe that Joe should have done more than he did; now, merely a mistake that we all might make??
The more you post, the weaker your position on these issues becomes. You talk about "facts" where are merely your opinion. You criticize Joe for what he did and call it a moral issue for you, but now backpedal on attacking his character.
You have reached the "ignore" status with some, and you're approaching that with others, including me.
A mistake? Either the report given to Joe described child abuse or it did not. If it did, to not pursue it vigorously is not simply a mistake. If it did not, then there was nothing for Joe to report, even if the person relating it did, in fact, witness an act of child abuse. We ascribe many powers to Joe. I don't recall omniscience being one of them.
And BTW, in case you didn't realize it, which is a distinct possibility given the addle-brained arguments you've proffered, I was hardly slurring Joe.
People throw around terms like "proof" and "fact" pretty freely, and obviously without knowing what they're talking about. This guy (whose posts I implore the rest of you to stop quoting, as it defeats my efforts to ignore him!) doesn't understand a couple of pertinent things. First, you can't prove a negative (i.e., absence of proof does not mean that it didn't happen), and second, a fact isn't necessarily true, just something that can be proved one way or the other.
I don't doubt that the two or three dimwits - and more joining in daily, it would seem - that keep getting you all fired up (once again, I must mention the "ignore" feature) have plenty of "facts" related to their positions, I just happen to believe that most - or all - of their facts are wrong.
Here's a fact:
The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
The PA OAG must prove 1) that McQueary reported child abuse to CSS; 2) that CSS were required by law to report it to some outside authority; and 3) they did not report it as legally required.
Here's a hint for you:
The PA OAG cannot prove any of these things.
This case is a farce.
Well if you put me on ignore then I won't have to read any more of your mischaracterizations of my posts. I never said that the mistake Joe made was one we all might make; read it again.
You can not differentiate between character and morality as they apply to all decisions in life. To you it is all or nothing; either the correct moral decision is made in all cases and if you miss once, your character is subject to attack. Thankfully for all of us it's not that black and white since we all miss once and a while.
You hold Joe to a higher standard than I do. You would throw out all of his accomplishments through the years if his testimony under oath was true because his inaction was more than a mistake. You would rather that he did not tell the truth under oath than to have taken the course he chose. That's your decision and to me that is slurring Joe; which I will concede was unintended on your part.
Context and subtlety clearly miss with you. He said what he said some 10 years after, and you enshrine it in the Book of Joe. "It was said, therefore it shall be done."..... "These are the words of Joe"......
Joe misremembering or having his GJ testimony influenced by OAG prosecutors ten years after the incident doesn't mean he lied under oath. Only a member of the circle jerk club like yourself would equate the two.
Nothing you say changes the fact that the phrase "sexual in nature" didn't appear anywhere in Joe's previous interviews, etc. until the OAG scumbag prosecutors came into the picture.
You're left grasping at straws at this point...it's pathetic. I'm surprised CR66 hasn't jumped in yet to give you some support!
You taxed that walnut half that floats within your cranium to come up with that? I imagine you're proud of yourself, snookums.
Where have I heard that over and over before?
Joe had no basis to call the police. You and others don't seem to get that.
I wasn't clear that my comments were not aimed at you. On the contrary, I agree with your points; you were not one of the dimwits I was referring to.
