Why would he lie to the Dr, his father and Paterno? Makes no sense.
Jemele Hill goes after Scott Paterno on twitter, avoids his point
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
Sure it is. C&S assured MM and Paterno that they would handle the situation. Paterno and MM wanted nothing to do with it so they just blindly put their faith in those men and moved on. C&S then convinced Spanier not to go to police because the incident was just "horseplay". Spanier trusts them, so the coverup is set.
You're really desperate. The doc is a mandated reporter. I guess he's part of the cover-up. I can think I hear Bigfoot in the woods, but still not see anything or have any proof.
Don't overthink this. Mike was a big boy. The doc was a mandated reporter. Mike's daddy was a full fledged adult. They never called the cops or followed up. Actions speak louder than Mike's lies.
This is all very simple. If you witness a crime you call the police. If you're uncomfortable with something, well you talk to daddy.
I'm not desperate at all. The court case went exactly as it should have and the pedo went to jail. You all are the ones that have been banging your heads off the wall trying to come with crazy theories.
He said "it was a sexual nature". I have no idea what "a sexual nature" even is. I have honestly never heard that expression before. Joe didn't know either and he said so several times. "I don't know..."
Maybe if he would have been crossed by his lawyer it would be clear what he was trying to say. Lawyer: "You said it was a sexual nature". Does that mean Mr. McQueary told you it was a sexual act that he witnessed?" Joe: "No he was not specific at all about what he witnessed. Like I said, I don't know what it was. I just know that he was upset and my role was to inform my boss so that it could be investigated". My guess is that is just about exactly how that cross would have gone.
and remember, this is an 80-year old's recollection of a conversation 10 years previous, and not anything he witnessed
The doc said what he was told did not require notifying the police. That is inconsistent with suspected CSA.
By the way what do "sexual sounds" actually sound like from behind locker room doors with showers running on the other side? That one always baffled me.
And an awfully concerned one given your current post frequency. Where else are you posting?
Not at all. I'm not defending JS. You're the one trying to put a square peg in a round hole relative to the admins and Joe. And in case you didn't notice the case against the admins has been almost thoroughly laughed out of court. One charge left from the great conspiracy. The case was and is a disgrace.
The big thing in all this is if someone from PSU notified the Second Mile of the 2001 incident PSU should be in the clear. This child was not in PSU's care. The Second Mile had the responsibility to report this to CYS who would also pass this to LE to see if they wanted to pursue the matter also. If so they 2 investigations would would begin, one from CYS and one from LE.
By these people who, in order to "protect the kids" argue dozens of variations of crazy reasons to avoid calling the police. They pervert the meaning of "protect the kids"
I suppose that works if that's the agenda you want to go with. It's preposterous, but if you dive deeply enough into fantasy world I guess it could be believable.
Are you some kind of internet Dumbo?
He was not a mandatory reporter at this time in that situation.
Mike knew he witnessed something that would shake up the university and his superiors dropped the ball.
Spoiler alert, they all knew about 1998, and they all knew what Mike was talking about. They deliberately slow played it , which should be illustrated by the testimony of people such as Harmon.
Prove that it is true. It is an idiotic statement repeated non-stop without any factual basis.
Right. This is simply all about some really heinous college administrators and a football coach who decided to cover up for a known child sexual molester. Just bad luck that they all ended up in a position to do such harm. Once they are behind bars, the children of the Commonwealth will be safer.
The argument is that until the full truth is known, the real cause of what happened here won't be corrected. I get that is way too complicated for your pea brain. Or maybe you buy into the notion that the college administrators and football coach attempted to pull off the heinous act of covering for a known child sexual molester, without making any effort to actually cover it up.
Let me add this as well. I work with children and am aware of warning signs of child abuse and predators. And I have seen some crazy scenarios play out so that I believe that all things are possible, though some are extremely unlikely.
I get the sense that, as with most things, there is a great 90/5/5 divide as I call it. 90% are reasonable and see that this situation could have been handled better and because it was not, Sandusky was able to continue to molest children. Was it mishandled criminally? Possibly, but that is for the trial to decide. Even if criminal, it certainly doesn't seem to have been malicious.
Then there are the fringes. 5% believe there was a concerted effort to cover up Sandusky's actions even though that would allow him to roam freely in their own backyards where their children and grandchildren reside. Defies logic but it is what that fringe clings to.
Then there is the other 5% fringe that believes not only was there not a coverup but that Sandusky did not molest any children. Again, him putting himself in the situations he did and continue to put himself in after being told not to, completely defies logic. This is what that 5% cling to.
I get the sense that, as with most things, there is a great 90/5/5 divide as I call it. 90% are reasonable and see that this situation could have been handled better and because it was not, Sandusky was able to continue to molest children. Was it mishandled criminally? Possibly, but that is for the trial to decide. Even if criminal, it certainly doesn't seem to have been malicious.
Then there are the fringes. 5% believe there was a concerted effort to cover up Sandusky's actions even though that would allow him to roam freely in their own backyards where their children and grandchildren reside. Defies logic but it is what that fringe clings to.
Then there is the other 5% fringe that believes not only was there not a coverup but that Sandusky did not molest any children. Again, him putting himself in the situations he did and continue to put himself in after being told not to, completely defies logic. This is what that 5% cling to.
We'll take your uninformed opinion under advisement. The only thing anyone knew about 98 was that no charges were filed. In other words in the non sports world when no charges are filed one is presumed not guilty of anything.
Mike could have avoided the middle man and called the cops, at any time. He didn't. Neither did daddy or his doc friend. He did nothing except be rather friendly with js for the next 10 years.
And the criminal justice system also disagrees with you. Conspiracy and failure to report charges have been thrown out. Sorry. I know you were hoping for better.
Yes. I looked it up. It is the derogative nickname given to an elephant named Jumbo Jr. by some mean and small-minded bullies.
Guess that says a lot about your character.
It was your statement that it's BS. Back it up Einstein.
You take issue with the statement that until the full truth is known, the real cause of what happened won't be corrected? Do you think you know more about the root cause of these sorts of things than Jim Clemente? Or maybe you think uncrossed Grand Jury testimony and trials that have never happened are all the "facts" you need?
Let me ask you a question about e-mails, since you're so sure of them, turkey. Freeh chose to include a total of 17 e-mails from 1998 and 2001 to "prove" his conspiracy/cover up theories. Where are all the e-mails from 2009-11?
You know, the ones where Spanier would tell Curley and Schultz that the state was investigating Sandusky and calling a grand jury, and they should all get together to work on their stories so they're all consistent. You know, the kinds of things that people involved in coverups and conspiracies do. Why didn't Freeh find those? They had to be there, right?
So you're saying the administration overruled the objections of Joe Paterno? But I thought he was the most powerful man in Pennsylvania-- and anyone who didn't do whatever he said was in danger of losing their. I mean, Freeh got 430 people to state that, right?
