ADVERTISEMENT

Just The Facts About Joe Paterno

Perhaps more information than I should share about myself, but I've worked on the ChildLine hotline since about 4 months before the Sandusky scandal hit the news media. There's definitely been an issue with not all calls being able to be answered as they come in. The weeks and months following November 2011, we were overwhelmed with calls from anyone and everyone reporting all kinds of things with many people calling just to cover their ass. The calls have increased every year since and with significant changes in the Child Protective Service law at the start of 2015, there was again a giant increase in calls. Add in a brand new reporting system which takes much more time to complete a report and the same number of workers and we were extremely overwhelmed. We were working 11 hours a day taking one report after the other with no let up in calls. As many as 30 people would be on hold at a time with all workers taking reports. Those that called while the 30 were in the queue, would be hung up on.. Not a good thing. So there was a definite obstacle to making a report.. you would have to wait. Or mandatory reporters could make the report online as that was a new option in 2015. Anyway, all those missed calls weren't necessarily missed reports. If someone was on hold and hung up, then called again, was on hold and hung up and then made a report online or verbally on a 3rd try, it will show as two missed calls while a report was still made. The number sounds staggering, but the number of actual missed reports is a completely different number.

More on topic, there could've easily been a phone call made to ChildLine in 2001 where someone here was given no victim, no address, an alleged perpetrator in Sandusky and a vague allegation that was sent on to the county CYS office or regional CYS office or just entered as an information only report depending on what was reported. Things certainly changed some from 2001-2011 when I started at ChildLine but those are the possibilities of where a report like that would go. With laws on information being expunged for unfounded or general referrals, the information on the report could likely have been removed from any database. If a report is made with such little info and the only allegation is a man showering with an unknown boy there's not much any agency can do.
 
Anyway, all those missed calls weren't necessarily missed reports. If someone was on hold and hung up, then called again, was on hold and hung up and then made a report online or verbally on a 3rd try, it will show as two missed calls while a report was still made. The number sounds staggering, but the number of actual missed reports is a completely different number.

Wait, so if you tried to tell a football coach about the abuse and he didn't listen, you don't tell anyone for 40 years. But if you tried to call and got a busy signal, you would try again and again? :confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomfleet
Regardless of whether or not it might have been the perfect time, McQueary didn't respond. So it is irresponsible to claim that he did. Those that try to say that McQueary said he was ok with it are putting words in his mouth that he never said.

How do you know what he said? Oh that's right you don't. McQueary had that night and the next 10 years to tell someone he wasn't OK. STFU.
 
Regardless of whether or not it might have been the perfect time, McQueary didn't respond. So it is irresponsible to claim that he did. Those that try to say that McQueary said he was ok with it are putting words in his mouth that he never said.
Fina and company may have put a lot of words in McQ's mouth too.
 
Regardless of whether or not it might have been the perfect time, McQueary didn't respond. So it is irresponsible to claim that he did. Those that try to say that McQueary said he was ok with it are putting words in his mouth that he never said.

MM did say he was ok, during his own testimony at the 12/16/11 prelim....

Pg. 85: MM never once saw JS around the program with a child since the 2001 incident. Also, when TC followed up with MM by telephone to tell him this is what we’ve done and what we’ve decided to do, MM did NOT dispute or oppose or say that they needed to do more (besides the admins confronting JS, revoking his guest privileges, and informing director of TSM who was a mandatory reporter btw).
 
I'd like to ask you all a very honest, sincere, question. Because it's something I personally have been struggling with every time I hear "Paterno should have done more" pertaining to the McQueary incident.

Hypothetically if McQueary would have told Paterno everything he supposedly saw and then added (and this is the hypothetical part) "I'm pretty sure it was one of your grandchildren Coach Paterno". Do you think Coach Paterno would have done more?

See this is something I ask myself all the time. Because that's the way I believe it should of been handled. As if it was your own child that was supposedly in that shower with that monster. That's what I struggle with when I hear the statement "Paterno should have done more" because I agree.


If Paterno were your father and he was being mistreated as Paterno has been by uninformed media, inaccurate statements and a lack of appreciation of what truly are facts of the matter, would you stand up and fight for him or would you let it go and say, oh well?
 
If Paterno were your father and he was being mistreated as Paterno has been by uninformed media, inaccurate statements and a lack of appreciation of what truly are facts of the matter, would you stand up and fight for him or would you let it go and say, oh well?

Don't expect a response from him. I asked him this on the last page and he avoided it like the plague:

Hypothetically, if someone said they saw you doing everything that McQueary allegedly saw Sandusky doing, and then told Coach Paterno about it... when it's your life and reputation on the line... would you want JVP to do more than just follow policy?
 
I know. The 'grandchild analogy' is silly. It's a favorite technique of some audience members. They never address the reverse situation because they don't condone child abuse and cover-ups. Blah, blah, blah.

Of course if Paterno were told it was a grandson he would have acted differently. But he wasn't told that. Everyone would act differently if they have a personal stake. It, too, is human nature.

The further we are removed from the moment or the situation, it becomes less personal. People are starving and dying all over America and the world. I care, but i really don't. It is impossible for me to care about all the starving and sick people in the world. I decide what my "sphere of care" is. I'm sure everyone else does too. Some have big spheres. Some have small spheres.

By the same token, I have almost no response and reaction to Sandusky's victims. I don't know them, hence i don't really feel their pain. I am completely neutral to them. I don't think that makes me a bad person. I think it only means i have no personal stake in their lives. I can;t waste my time really caring about what happened to them, or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kevina001
MM did say he was ok, during his own testimony at the 12/16/11 prelim....

Pg. 85: MM never once saw JS around the program with a child since the 2001 incident. Also, when TC followed up with MM by telephone to tell him this is what we’ve done and what we’ve decided to do, MM did NOT dispute or oppose or say that they needed to do more (besides the admins confronting JS, revoking his guest privileges, and informing director of TSM who was a mandatory reporter btw).

Where exactly is the quote that says he was ok with the actions?

McQueary was a graduate assistant coach, a low man on the totem pole. Curley didn't go to him to seek his approval. He went to him to inform him. Regardless of whether McQueary approved or disapproved of what Curley's plan was, he was in no position to question it. Curley was his superior, i.e. his boss's boss's boss, actually. He wasn't about to challenge Curley's authority.


Many of the very same people who defend Paterno's actions, i.e. reporting the incident to his superiors and getting out of the way of the investigation, for some reason don't give McQueary the same break. They expect him to not only report it but then to raise a ruckus if the response didn't meet with his approval. Get real. He wasn't going to challenge the AD no matter what the AD did.


We don't know what McQueary thought of the plan and to state that he testified to it being ok with it is a flat out falsehood. Just because he didn't raise an objection doesn't mean he approved it.
 
Fact
Joe Paterno never covered up for Jerry Sandusky.
From the State Prosecutors Office. Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, the man who led the Sandusky investigation, told 60 Minutes Sports Armen Keteyian he found no evidence that Joe Paterno participated in a cover up of any sort.

Joe Paterno put Mike McQueary in DIRECT touch with AD Tim Curley , Joe Paterno’s direct supervisor and Gary Schultz who had oversight of University Police Department. PSU Police Force is the real Police. The Penn State police force comprises 46 armed officers. According to state law, these have both the power and the duty "to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts … and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner."

Fact
Joe Paterno never interfered with the justice system
. Carmine W. Prestia Jr. I've lived and worked in State College for the past 41 years: 25 with the State College Police Department, one year of retirement, and 15 years as a magisterial district judge. Never once in my time as a police officer or judge has anyone in the football program asked me to cover up anything, withdraw a charge, or do something else unethical. I certainly saw a number of players get in trouble. Offenses ranged from simple summary offenses to felonies of the first degree.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/co...gn-paterno-tampered-in-justice-system,988524/

Fact
The Grand Jury report incorrectly stated that Mike McQueary had witnessed a rape.
Joe Paterno was never told a report of a child was being raped. Mike McQueary has testified that he never witnessed Jerry Sandusky raping a boy in the shower, and didn’t tell anyone that he did. Because of the lack of evidence, Jerry was not convicted of a rape with regard to this 2001 incident. Also no victim testified in this incident. There were THREE not guilty verdicts in the Sandusky case and one of them was Count 7 --the incendiary allegation of a rape (IDSI) -- made by Mike McQueary regarding the 2001 incident.

Fact
Joe Paterno was praised by the Attorney General office for his correct handling of the Jerry Sandusky incident in 2001.
Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno did the right thing and reported an eye-witness report of child sex abuse by Jerry Sandusky in the football locker room in 2001, according to the indictment released this morning by the state Attorney General.

Fact
Joe Paterno did not ask Mike McQueary to stay quiet on the 2001 incident.
Mike said no one ever gave him instructions to not talk about it. Mike said Coach Paterno was great about the whole thing.

Fact
The Office for the Attorney General did not feel Joe Paterno’s reporting of Jerry Sandusky were cause to be fired.
Paterno is accused of no wrongdoing, and in fact authorities have said he fulfilled his legal obligations by reporting to his superiors. Based on the Feb. 2, 2012 subpoena directed at PSU by the US DOJ, Paterno was not a target or even mentioned. Nor did any of the information requested pertain to Paterno.

Fact
Child Welfare agencies approved Jerry Sandusky to adopt 5 children.
These were agencies that were educated and trained to spot people who were harmful to children. Jerry Sandusky also fostered several more children approved by these agencies. The agencies continued to place the children in Jerry Sandusky’s care over the years, and continued to allow Jerry Sandusky access to children at the 2nd Mile charity for at-risk youths.

Fact
The 2nd Mile Charity and youth agencies provided Jerry Sandusky access to trouble youths.
The 2nd Mile gave one on one access to mentors and youth through The Friend and Friend Fitness programs, which pair up adults with children in the hope of fostering positive role model-mentor relationships. The Friend Fitness Program is a mentorship program involving college and elementary students who join together and participate in healthy, educational activities. The Friend Fitness program was available only in Centre County for adolescents.

Fact
Joe Paterno didn’t agree with giving 2nd Mile charity access to PSU facilities for 2nd Mile use in Jerry Sandusky retirement package due to insurance liability issues.
Joe was overruled. In the Jerry Sandusky Penn State Retirement Package in 1998- Sandusky asked for access to training and workout facilities. Paterno put a check mark next to that request to deny that request. In a sidebar, Paterno asked if this was for Sandusky's personal use, or for Second Mile kids, and indicated that due to liability problems, facility access should not be extended to Second Mile kids. Paterno was overruled and Jerry Sandusky was granted access to bring Second Mile kids to workout facilities for the 2nd Mile Friends Fitness program.

Fact
Jerry Sandusky was retired from Penn State in 1999. He did not coach at Penn State after 1999 and wasn't coaching during the 2001 incident.
For his retirement package he received Emeritus Status

Fact
Due to Jerry Sandusky Emeritus Status, Joe Paterno and Penn State could not remove Jerry Sandusky’s access to Penn State Facilities because he had not been convicted of a crime
. Emeritus Status (entitles bearer to a lifetime office and lifetime access to campus) The Freeh report (page 81) states that University counsel (Cynthia Baldwin) said that the University could not legally revoke Sandusky's access to the athletic facilities because of his Emeritus status, and because he had not been convicted of a crime. Page 106 reiterates this. Page 107 adds that Baldwin said "his access could not be eliminated without the University being sued."

Fact
In the Jerry Sandusky trial, no victims testified against Jerry Sandusky that they were abused on Penn State’s campus in 2001.
Also zero victims testified in the trial that they were abused on PSU campus after 2001.

Fact
Joe Paterno had no knowledge of 1998 Jerry Sandusky incident being a crime
. What was eventually known is that Jerry Sandusky was exonerated. The 1998 incident was reported to police and thoroughly investigated by all agencies. The police went as far to set up a sting operation by recording conversations Sandusky had with the boy’s mother. The incident was investigated to the fullest extent and the District Attorney concluded no crimes were committed. DPW didn't even think there was enough cause to "indicate" Jerry Sandusky (a much lower standard is needed for this vs. bringing criminal charges btw) nor did they remove his 1 on 1 access to kids after the 1998 claims.In accordance with 055 Pa. Code § 3490.91. regarding the confidentiality of child abuse reports, the information regarding the nature of the 1998 child abuse investigation of Jerry Sandusky was not provided to Timothy Curley, Dr. Graham Spanier, or Joe Paterno.

Fact
There are no facts that point to Paterno knowing anything in 1970’s
. Joe Paterno had been questioned in his Grand jury testimony if he had any prior to 2001 knowledge of Jerry Sandusky inappropriate sexual conduct.
Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?
Mr. Paterno: I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it.

Even the 1976 accuser’s own lawyer Michael Boni said “The headlines of these stories is Paterno knew of Sandusky’s molestation in the ’70s, ’76 or ’77. I’m unaware of direct, irrefutable evidence that that’s the case. Believe me, I’m the last person to defend the guy, but I am the first person to believe in our justice system. And I think you need more than anecdotal evidence or speculative evidence.”

There are 2 claims of abuse in the 1970’s but neither falls into the way Jerry Sandusky was to have victimized the boys
Sandusky victimizing acts according to testimony from his reported victims:
1. Never victimized a female.
2. Never victimized a minor male in the presence of a minor female.
3. Never overtly victimized a minor male in the presence of other minor males.
4. Never overtly victimized a minor male in the (known) presence of other adults.
5. Never victimized a stranger.
6. Never used violence to force himself on a minor male.
7. Never provided victims with drugs or alcohol in the commission of his crimes.
Yet the 70’s claims and previously publicized claims include one or more of these as allegations by claimants who received settlements from Penn State. According to Sandusky's criminal profile, he was an acquaintance offender who slowly groomed his victims to comply with various levels of sexual abuse. Not all victims would comply to the same levels, therefore there is varying testimony about the actual crimes. However, what was consistent among Sandusky's victims was the manner in which he operated or his modus operandi. He met his victims through The Second Mile, took about one year to assess them and choose his targets, then began the grooming and victimizing of them.

Fact
PSU Board of Trustees did not check the veracity of any civil claim of abuse
. They paid claims in the amount of $90 million. Each settlement that PSU paid contained a clause that prevented the claimant to pursue additional monetary compensation from The Second Mile and/or former board members of The Second Mile.

Fact
Joe and Sue Paterno allowed their own kids to play with Jerry Sandusky.
"Do you think we'd let our kids play with someone who might be a pedophile?" she asked. "Obviously we were all totally unaware."

Fact
Joe Paterno handled the McQueary info how PA detective says it should be handled
. http://chirb.it/t5dK4p 18 year PA sexual abuse detective on what was required and expected of Joe Paterno and the protocol he used. He says Joe Paterno should not have done more.

Fact
Joe Paterno did not say he should have done more.
What he did say was qualified: “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more” Hindsight: wisdom or knowledge gained only after something (usually bad) has happened as was the case in 2011 after Joe Paterno found out the seriousness of the charges against Jerry Sandusky.

Fact
Joe Paterno never committed a major recruiting violation
. For someone who people claim he covered up for Jerry Sandusky in order to win football games one would think that sort of person would then treat rules like recruiting rules with little care. Yet as of 2016, there are only four athletic programs from major conferences on the list of non-cheating schools. They are Penn State, Boston College, Northwestern, and Stanford.

Fact
Joe Paterno's FBI file included zero mentions of Jerry Sandusky or any mention of Joe Paterno being aware of Jerry Sandusky being a child sexual predator.
The file’s accessible 868 pages don’t mention Jerry Sandusky or the former Penn State assistant coach’s child sexual abuse scandal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/29/joe-paterno-fbi-file-makes-no-mention-jerry-sandus/

Fact
Media fell for false narrative in Atlanta Olympic bomber case when Louis Freeh pinned the crime falsely on Richard Jewell.
In its rush to show the world how quickly it could get is man, the FBI trampled on my rights as a citizen. In its rush for the headline that the hero was the bomber, the media cared nothing for my feelings as a human being. In their mad rush to fulfill their own personal agendas, the FBI and the media almost destroyed me and my mother. You, the media, were looking too. Your cameras trained on my mother and me, your cameras and the FBI followed my every move. I felt like a hunted animal, followed constantly, waiting to be killed. The media said I fit the profile of a lone bomber. That was a lie. The media said I was a former law enforcement officer, a frustrated police wannabe. That was a lie. I was then and am now a law enforcement officer. The fact that I was between jobs and took a position as a security guard at the Olympics did not change that fact. The media said I was an overzealous officer. That was a lie. Three days into the process, the press went into a kind of media frenzy, and at that particular point, the press was not doing Mr. Jewell, the facts, the case, anybody any great service.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/readings/jewell.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sports-july-dec96-jewell_10-28/

Fact
Media fell for false narrative in Duke Lacrosse case that the Duke Lacrosse was covering up for rape.
“The media quickly latched onto a narrative too seductive to check: rich, wild, white jocks had brutalized a working class, black mother of two,” reads the American Journalism Review’s analysis.

Fact
Media fell for false narrative in Virginia Fraternity rape case.
Media Bias: Nearly 40 years ago, Bob Dylan, singing about what he felt was a miscarriage of justice, said, "The newspapers, they all went along for the ride." Today the ride goes on, with broadcasters having jumped aboard. This time, the ride was on the back of a University of Virginia fraternity, smeared by a Rolling Stone article accusing members of the group of the gang rape of a female freshman named "Jackie." "The major broadcast networks," reports the Media Research Center, a media watchdog group, "rushed to the story and devoted multiple segments to both the article and reaction on the school's campus." On Nov. 23 and 24, the Big Three networks devoted "11 minutes and 14 seconds" of coverage to the gang rape story. They, of course, were happy to, because it supported the narrative that a brutal "rape culture" exists on American campuses. The narrative has been discredited, but the media played a prominent role in its development and will not easily let it go.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/rolling-stone-rape-story-example-of-media-bias/

“Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world -- "No, YOU move.”
 
Where exactly is the quote that says he was ok with the actions?

McQueary was a graduate assistant coach, a low man on the totem pole. Curley didn't go to him to seek his approval. He went to him to inform him. Regardless of whether McQueary approved or disapproved of what Curley's plan was, he was in no position to question it. Curley was his superior, i.e. his boss's boss's boss, actually. He wasn't about to challenge Curley's authority.


Many of the very same people who defend Paterno's actions, i.e. reporting the incident to his superiors and getting out of the way of the investigation, for some reason don't give McQueary the same break. They expect him to not only report it but then to raise a ruckus if the response didn't meet with his approval. Get real. He wasn't going to challenge the AD no matter what the AD did.


We don't know what McQueary thought of the plan and to state that he testified to it being ok with it is a flat out falsehood. Just because he didn't raise an objection doesn't mean he approved it.
Where exactly is the quote that says he was ok with the actions?

McQueary was a graduate assistant coach, a low man on the totem pole. Curley didn't go to him to seek his approval. He went to him to inform him. Regardless of whether McQueary approved or disapproved of what Curley's plan was, he was in no position to question it. Curley was his superior, i.e. his boss's boss's boss, actually. He wasn't about to challenge Curley's authority.


Many of the very same people who defend Paterno's actions, i.e. reporting the incident to his superiors and getting out of the way of the investigation, for some reason don't give McQueary the same break. They expect him to not only report it but then to raise a ruckus if the response didn't meet with his approval. Get real. He wasn't going to challenge the AD no matter what the AD did.


We don't know what McQueary thought of the plan and to state that he testified to it being ok with it is a flat out falsehood. Just because he didn't raise an objection doesn't mean he approved it.

Do you even read of think about the crap you write before you post? Of course McQueary was in a position to question the plan. Unlike Paterno and everyone else involved at the time, McQueary was the only actual freaking witness. If he truly believed he witnessed a child being sexually abused, he not only could have he absolutely should have not just objected to the plan, he should have taken it himself to a higher authority.

The problem with the silly little game you play is that McQueary by his own testimony wasn't sure what he saw or better said what he heard in 2001. And because of his wishy washy uncertainty, neither was anyone else including his own father. Amazing how his description of what he heard/saw got so much sharper a decade later.
 
The key phrase you may not read here (it's there but you probably didn't realize how significant it is) is that "no evidence" was found. That's right, no meeting notes, no files. Gee, what a surprise. As soon as an administrator left Penn State he destroyed his personal files...they all do. And, as soon as this mess started to stink, files were shredded and destroyed. Anyone can destroy their personal files, I suppose: Administrators, Directors of this and that department, and coaches too. This would have been mostly handwritten stuff naming who was there , information shared , and decisions made. No copies are made, and each man keeps their own. Then we settle for the "try and prove it" sort of deal. If a person, like a coach, says they have no memory of an incident or event, who can prove otherwise? Every supervisor of any level in any job keeps track of unusual events they witness....the time and date, who was present. You have to, it's a matter of liability. So......all that info is lost. All those memories are/were blank. Doesn't this pile stink??????
 
The key phrase you may not read here (it's there but you probably didn't realize how significant it is) is that "no evidence" was found. That's right, no meeting notes, no files. Gee, what a surprise. As soon as an administrator left Penn State he destroyed his personal files...they all do. And, as soon as this mess started to stink, files were shredded and destroyed. Anyone can destroy their personal files, I suppose: Administrators, Directors of this and that department, and coaches too. This would have been mostly handwritten stuff naming who was there , information shared , and decisions made. No copies are made, and each man keeps their own. Then we settle for the "try and prove it" sort of deal. If a person, like a coach, says they have no memory of an incident or event, who can prove otherwise? Every supervisor of any level in any job keeps track of unusual events they witness....the time and date, who was present. You have to, it's a matter of liability. So......all that info is lost. All those memories are/were blank. Doesn't this pile stink??????

What kind of goofball are you?

All files are company property, personal or otherwise. Yes, TSM destroyed files, there is evidence of that because the ying yang Sassano photographed the shredder trucks.

Who are you saying destroyed files? Please tell me Paterno or Spanier so I can tell you you're full of shit, which you are regardless.
 
The key phrase you may not read here (it's there but you probably didn't realize how significant it is) is that "no evidence" was found. That's right, no meeting notes, no files. Gee, what a surprise. As soon as an administrator left Penn State he destroyed his personal files...they all do. And, as soon as this mess started to stink, files were shredded and destroyed.

Nice of you to prove how little you know about this saga. Do a little research, and you'll find that things are much different than you seem to imagine (with the exception of The Second Mile).
 
The key phrase you may not read here (it's there but you probably didn't realize how significant it is) is that "no evidence" was found. That's right, no meeting notes, no files. Gee, what a surprise. As soon as an administrator left Penn State he destroyed his personal files...they all do. And, as soon as this mess started to stink, files were shredded and destroyed. Anyone can destroy their personal files, I suppose: Administrators, Directors of this and that department, and coaches too. This would have been mostly handwritten stuff naming who was there , information shared , and decisions made. No copies are made, and each man keeps their own. Then we settle for the "try and prove it" sort of deal. If a person, like a coach, says they have no memory of an incident or event, who can prove otherwise? Every supervisor of any level in any job keeps track of unusual events they witness....the time and date, who was present. You have to, it's a matter of liability. So......all that info is lost. All those memories are/were blank. Doesn't this pile stink??????


Further, wipe, when you are terminated you are stood over regardless of who you are so the wind that just blew out of your ass doesn't happen.
 
The key phrase you may not read here (it's there but you probably didn't realize how significant it is) is that "no evidence" was found. That's right, no meeting notes, no files. Gee, what a surprise. As soon as an administrator left Penn State he destroyed his personal files...they all do. And, as soon as this mess started to stink, files were shredded and destroyed. Anyone can destroy their personal files, I suppose: Administrators, Directors of this and that department, and coaches too. This would have been mostly handwritten stuff naming who was there , information shared , and decisions made. No copies are made, and each man keeps their own. Then we settle for the "try and prove it" sort of deal. If a person, like a coach, says they have no memory of an incident or event, who can prove otherwise? Every supervisor of any level in any job keeps track of unusual events they witness....the time and date, who was present. You have to, it's a matter of liability. So......all that info is lost. All those memories are/were blank. Doesn't this pile stink??????

I'm not sure I understand this post or maybe I'm just too tired to bother. Didn't Shultz' "secret" files turn up after he was already gone? Didn't Freeh go through 3.5 million e-mails? Is this part of the material she is claiming was all destroyed?
 
The key phrase you may not read here (it's there but you probably didn't realize how significant it is) is that "no evidence" was found. That's right, no meeting notes, no files. Gee, what a surprise. As soon as an administrator left Penn State he destroyed his personal files...they all do. And, as soon as this mess started to stink, files were shredded and destroyed. Anyone can destroy their personal files, I suppose: Administrators, Directors of this and that department, and coaches too. This would have been mostly handwritten stuff naming who was there , information shared , and decisions made. No copies are made, and each man keeps their own. Then we settle for the "try and prove it" sort of deal. If a person, like a coach, says they have no memory of an incident or event, who can prove otherwise? Every supervisor of any level in any job keeps track of unusual events they witness....the time and date, who was present. You have to, it's a matter of liability. So......all that info is lost. All those memories are/were blank. Doesn't this pile stink??????


I'd ask you to get educated but you seem to be willingly ignorant....and probably need to grasp how the justice system in our country works. If the police come to your house and accuse you of sexually assaulting my child, it is on the police to prove you did, not you to prove you didn't. Otherwise, their accusation would be enough and if they can't find proof they can just say "well he must have destroyed it".

Problem with your point as far as PSU goes -
1) You wouldn't find any files on Sandusky from the football office or AD on the '01 incident as he was no longer an employee. If you wanted info on '98 you could have gone to any number of sources outside the school too.

2) Where would you find files? Oh yeah, Shultz office - The files from Schultz office were given willingly (i.e., never required a subpoena to obtain) to the AG, and before he was even indicted. Stop and think about that and then ask yourself what planet you're living on where a man with something to hide (or associated with anyone that has something to hide) willingly gives the only evidence in his possession to the investigators before they even think to ask for it.
 
I'd like to ask you all a very honest, sincere, question. Because it's something I personally have been struggling with every time I hear "Paterno should have done more" pertaining to the McQueary incident.

Hypothetically if McQueary would have told Paterno everything he supposedly saw and then added (and this is the hypothetical part) "I'm pretty sure it was one of your grandchildren Coach Paterno". Do you think Coach Paterno would have done more?

See this is something I ask myself all the time. Because that's the way I believe it should of been handled. As if it was your own child that was supposedly in that shower with that monster. That's what I struggle with when I hear the statement "Paterno should have done more" because I agree.
I don't think it is fair to compare an unknown victim with a known victim, irrespective if who he is. If it was his grandson he could, and probably would directly question him and go from there.

What was he supposed to do the next day and surmising that it was likely a Second Mile child with a retired employee? The only correct response would be to get higher ups involved. He did. The higher ups, at a college mind you, not a setting where this is expected to occur, got legal advice. It absolutely should have gone to the only person able to identify the child and get more information, the lead child psychologist of the organization that knows all about CSA.

The real question is why didn't Dr. Raykovitz talk to the child, report to DPW, and do more?
 
Do you even read of think about the crap you write before you post? Of course McQueary was in a position to question the plan. Unlike Paterno and everyone else involved at the time, McQueary was the only actual freaking witness. If he truly believed he witnessed a child being sexually abused, he not only could have he absolutely should have not just objected to the plan, he should have taken it himself to a higher authority.

The problem with the silly little game you play is that McQueary by his own testimony wasn't sure what he saw or better said what he heard in 2001. And because of his wishy washy uncertainty, neither was anyone else including his own father. Amazing how his description of what he heard/saw got so much sharper a decade later.

Again regardless of what you think he should have or should not have done, at no time did he ever state that he was OK with Curley's plan. People who say differently are either fabricating those words or drawing conclusions that are not supported by either fact or testimony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
Again regardless of what you think he should have or should not have done, at no time did he ever state that he was OK with Curley's plan. People who say differently are either fabricating those words or drawing conclusions that are not supported by either fact or testimony.

It's incumbent upon the one and only witness to express dissatisfaction or say more needs to be done when the people he was trusting to handle his report followed up with him...are you seriously trying to suggest that they should've assumed he was not OK even though he never gave them a reason to think that?

Oh yeah and not only did MM never express dissatisfaction to Curely but when His dad and Dr D had a follow up meeting with Schultz a few months later, they never made a big stink about anything...no "hey why didn't you ever send someone from Uppd to get Mike's statement and open an investigation?"...nothing. Hmmm. Could it be bc MM wasn't sure what was going on bc he couldn't really see anything?

If he was certain a kid was getting abused why was he ok with waiting until the next day to tell Joe and then 10 more days to tell some psu admins?? Doesn't add up. Dr D would have certainly been aware of the anonymous childline call, if for some bizarre reason MM was afraid for his career.
 
Last edited:
Again regardless of what you think he should have or should not have done, at no time did he ever state that he was OK with Curley's plan. People who say differently are either fabricating those words or drawing conclusions that are not supported by either fact or testimony.

I wasn't there and never claimed to know what the question or the response was. That is irrelevant anyway. Here is the conclusion I am drawing based on facts that I do know....regardless of the words said, if Mike McQueary truly believed at the time that he had witnessed a child being sexually abused and wasn't "OK" with the plan put in place, then he deserves the sheer hell that his life has become. His actions and inaction speak louder than any words ever could.
 
Where exactly is the quote that says he was ok with the actions?

McQueary was a graduate assistant coach, a low man on the totem pole. Curley didn't go to him to seek his approval. He went to him to inform him. Regardless of whether McQueary approved or disapproved of what Curley's plan was, he was in no position to question it. Curley was his superior, i.e. his boss's boss's boss, actually. He wasn't about to challenge Curley's authority.


Many of the very same people who defend Paterno's actions, i.e. reporting the incident to his superiors and getting out of the way of the investigation, for some reason don't give McQueary the same break. They expect him to not only report it but then to raise a ruckus if the response didn't meet with his approval. Get real. He wasn't going to challenge the AD no matter what the AD did.


We don't know what McQueary thought of the plan and to state that he testified to it being ok with it is a flat out falsehood. Just because he didn't raise an objection doesn't mean he approved it.
If he really wasn't OK, don't you think he might have mentioned that fact in any of the evolving testimonies he gave at various times in the past few years? Since you're the stickler for finding quotes, why don't you find the one where Paterno says to Curley and Schultz that he's sending McQueary to talk to them about something he saw, but just humor the kids because we don't intend to do anything about it?
 
It's incumbent upon the one and only witness to express dissatisfaction or say more needs to be done when the people he was trusting to handle his report followed up with him...are you seriously trying to suggest that they should've assumed he was not OK even though he never gave them a reason to think that?

Oh yeah and not only did MM never express dissatisfaction to Curely but when His dad and Dr D had a follow up meeting with Schultz a few months later, they never made a big stink about anything...no "hey why didn't you ever send someone from Uppd to get Mike's statement and open an investigation?"...nothing. Hmmm. Could it be bc MM wasn't sure what was going on bc he couldn't really see anything?

If he was certain a kid was getting abused why was he ok with waiting until the next day to tell Joe and then 10 more days to tell some psu admins?? Doesn't add up. Dr D would have certainly been aware of the anonymous childline call, if for some bizarre reason MM was afraid for his career.

All of which may be true. The problem I have is when people MAKE THINGS UP. - and anyone who says that McQueary stated that he was OK with Curley's plan is MAKING THINGS UP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvis63
If he really wasn't OK, don't you think he might have mentioned that fact in any of the evolving testimonies he gave at various times in the past few years? Since you're the stickler for finding quotes, why don't you find the one where Paterno says to Curley and Schultz that he's sending McQueary to talk to them about something he saw, but just humor the kids because we don't intend to do anything about it?

What the hell does that have to do with anything. What I am a stickler for is the truth - and the truth is that McQueary has never said that he was OK with Curley's plan despite numerous people on here and other forums claiming differently. GET THE FACTS RIGHT - don't make up ones that support your cause (regardless of whatever your cause might be)
 
Where exactly is the quote that says he was ok with the actions?

McQueary was a graduate assistant coach, a low man on the totem pole. Curley didn't go to him to seek his approval. He went to him to inform him. Regardless of whether McQueary approved or disapproved of what Curley's plan was, he was in no position to question it. Curley was his superior, i.e. his boss's boss's boss, actually. He wasn't about to challenge Curley's authority.


Many of the very same people who defend Paterno's actions, i.e. reporting the incident to his superiors and getting out of the way of the investigation, for some reason don't give McQueary the same break. They expect him to not only report it but then to raise a ruckus if the response didn't meet with his approval. Get real. He wasn't going to challenge the AD no matter what the AD did.


We don't know what McQueary thought of the plan and to state that he testified to it being ok with it is a flat out falsehood. Just because he didn't raise an objection doesn't mean he approved it.
So is that why he started talking abou it? Guilt? for never having really expressed dissatisfaction or guilt for never really having clarified what he saw. I'd like to know the answer to that, I think it's relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mixolydian
Where exactly is the quote that says he was ok with the actions?

McQueary was a graduate assistant coach, a low man on the totem pole. Curley didn't go to him to seek his approval. He went to him to inform him. Regardless of whether McQueary approved or disapproved of what Curley's plan was, he was in no position to question it. Curley was his superior, i.e. his boss's boss's boss, actually. He wasn't about to challenge Curley's authority.


Many of the very same people who defend Paterno's actions, i.e. reporting the incident to his superiors and getting out of the way of the investigation, for some reason don't give McQueary the same break. They expect him to not only report it but then to raise a ruckus if the response didn't meet with his approval. Get real. He wasn't going to challenge the AD no matter what the AD did.


We don't know what McQueary thought of the plan and to state that he testified to it being ok with it is a flat out falsehood. Just because he didn't raise an objection doesn't mean he approved it.


UncleLar - two different scenarios because their roles were different

MM was the "eyewitness"
-his Dad and DD were the secondary witnesses
- if he saw what he says he thinks he saw there is no way a direct report to the police should have gotten past those three

Once it got to Joe then it was ONLY a report of an incident to a supervisor

In reality, the fact that it even made it to Joe only served to already diminish the incident u fortunate as that may sound
 
It's incumbent upon the one and only witness to express dissatisfaction or say more needs to be done when the people he was trusting to handle his report followed up with him...are you seriously trying to suggest that they should've assumed he was not OK even though he never gave them a reason to think that?

Oh yeah and not only did MM never express dissatisfaction to Curely but when His dad and Dr D had a follow up meeting with Schultz a few months later, they never made a big stink about anything...no "hey why didn't you ever send someone from Uppd to get Mike's statement and open an investigation?"...nothing. Hmmm. Could it be bc MM wasn't sure what was going on bc he couldn't really see anything?

If he was certain a kid was getting abused why was he ok with waiting until the next day to tell Joe and then 10 more days to tell some psu admins?? Doesn't add up. Dr D would have certainly been aware of the anonymous childline call, if for some bizarre reason MM was afraid for his career.

He was so OK with it that he played golf with JS after it happened. I don't understand how he could not be OK with it, he himself passed on "doing more" at the instant he witnessed whatever he witnessed. Kinda hard for him to be upset for someone else not doing more.

I question my bosses boss all the time, I work in a large company, not the army.
 
Sadly facts don't trump ratings. A witch hunt is a witch hunt and it's even better for the media if they have a popular figure. If this were a 2-3 year HC at PSU, it's still a tragic story due to what Jerry the f--king monster did, but it's not leading the national news for as long as it did. Had Joe been a win at all costs guy and known as that guy, it's not as juicy to the media. The witch hunt took down a ton of good people because Jerry didn't tattoo pedophile on his forehead or wear a sign. Sadly saying Joe must have known or done more is the drum beat to which the media marched to.

Look how the media covers shootings. 500 murders in Chicago...rarely if ever discussed as it's a major epidemic. Cops shoot a man holding a weapon and it's a national news story leading to looting and riots. A young man robs a store, fights with police, and they run with a hands up BS story that people still believe today. Facts do not matter to the media today, ratings and their story is what you get.
 
What the hell does that have to do with anything. What I am a stickler for is the truth - and the truth is that McQueary has never said that he was OK with Curley's plan despite numerous people on here and other forums claiming differently. GET THE FACTS RIGHT - don't make up ones that support your cause (regardless of whatever your cause might be)


There's a big difference than expressing concern to your employee and telling him. I do not believe they were trying to get Mike's approval.
 
The defense of Joe Paterno is, truly, an open-and-shut case - the thoroughly unreliable MM allowed himself to be manipulated by prosecutors, then reversed, and then reversed again, and then took Paterno down with him. Unfortunately, the media, and those with special interests and agendas that are indifferent to fairness, absolutely love that you all continue to fight for Joe's name. It allows them to exploit this well beyond the period for which they thought they could get money, ratings or attention for their tangential causes.

The politicians and administrators, however, wish you would go away.

More casual observers are astonished that anyone would continue fighting into the throws of a moral panic and witch hunt - which can be damaging to one's reputation. Someone like Franco Harris might face protests from "activists" everywhere he speaks (didn't he already lose a casino job over this?).

Thus, apparently, is the strength of Paterno's legacy. People are willing to sacrifice much to restore it.

Again, I'm a fan of a rival team. But I salute your efforts. I hope that with time you prevail.
 
He was so OK with it that he played golf with JS after it happened. I don't understand how he could not be OK with it, he himself passed on "doing more" at the instant he witnessed whatever he witnessed. Kinda hard for him to be upset for someone else not doing more.

I question my bosses boss all the time, I work in a large company, not the army.

This is another of those "internet myths" that has emerged since the scandal. Is there any evidence anywhere that they played golf together after 2001?
 
ADVERTISEMENT