Sorry, I was looking at some images sent to me by some colleagues in an email. Could you repeat that?
Ray Blehar....MM caught in lie?
- Thread starter marshall23
- Start date
Sorry, I was looking at some images sent to me by some colleagues in an email. Could you repeat that?
Failure to follow university procedures is a valid cause. Folks get fired for this every day. Sure, he could sue in this hypothetical situation. But he'd still be fired. See the tOSU marching band director. He sued. He lost. See also the former PSU fencing coach. Same deal.
Again, the standard procedure for reporting is to report and get out of the way. Standard. You seem to be unwilling to admit that. This was especially true for Joe as his fame could have influenced any investigation--and he noted elsewhere (I think in Posznaski's book) that he was concerned about just that point. This happened in the Syracuse case where their coach defended the assistant coach in public.
Why people don't understand this is beyond me. Oh, wait, it's because they want to set a hurdle that no one can clear.
You might be focused on the trees instead of the forest.
If Joe had contacted the appropriate state agencies or the police about MM's report to him, do you seriously believe that the University would fire Joe Paterno for reporting an alleged child sexual assault?
I'd suggest that if that happened, the nuclear firestorm which would envelop the University administration would have been 10 times as intense as as that seen on this board since 2011.
Yes he would have. For violating University policy. At the time Joe was informed by McQ - it was not known it was an alleged assault. McQ admittedly did not tell Joe what he thought he saw.
You are simply wrong to assume otherwise.
Folks get fired for reporting a crime?
Yes, violating policy is cause for dismissal unless the policy can be successfully challenged in court. No one is going to get fired for reporting a crime in good faith. It’s an utterly ridiculous notion.
Joe didn't know if it was or was not a crime. He didn't see anything. He was of zero value to the police. His testimony wouldn't have been worth the time...that was all on MM.
The witness wasn't even sure he saw a crime, and Joe wasn't the witness. The potential crime also occurred at a different place and time, and according to the alleged victim, never actually occurred.
Let's agree to disagree on this purely hypothetical & speculative point.
You're focused on the wrong tree
This is not about Joe - he did what he should have
Joe has absolutely NO culpability for this - none
In fact he should have been lauded for the way he handled this
gee wally, what also happens to mirrors when hot showers are running?
You seem to be implying that Mike made all this up in 2001.
1) He had zero motive in 2001 to make this up & involve his Dad, Dranov, Joe and then to go further to Admins.
2) He well knew if the showers fogged when the showers were in use. He's pretty stupid, but why would he say that if it wasn't the case.
3) It's 99.99% likely, and if you want to make an argument that he didn't see anything, this is it -- that he heard what he thought were "sexual sounds" and fully expected to catch a buddy/peer/superior or even a brazen player or student in a compromising position. He intended to sneakily catch a peek in the mirror - but have no doubt - he was going to get to a place to see & depending on who it was he'd yell "BOO!" or go "OOPSIE" or just slither away. Instead he saw JS & a boy and his CPU was FRIED.
4) Now, on the 0.01% chance that he entirely made the incident up -- why does Allan Myers agree he was the boy in the shower (When at the time doing his best trying to defend Jerry?) Why does Jerry know the exact date that this happened? (Because you say it didn't!) Isn't all this defense actually more consistent with MMQ actually seeing Jerry & a Boy naked in the shower than not?
Yeah, interesting how those slapping sounds were sexual, yet when MM peaked in the mirror the movements became slow and subtle. No distress on the kids face...........
He wasn't an eyewitness--so yes, he could have been--in a CSA situation, because there are specific protocols on how to handle it. As there were in this case, which were followed by Joe to the letter. If you have not had specific training in this area (I have), then you do not know what you are talking about.
In the tOSU band director's case, a big deal was made in the press about the band culture (full disclosure, I have quite a number of friends who are TBDBITL alums) and the sexual harassment. But if you look at the details and the report, what he really was fired for was not following university procedures. But that's not a headline grabber.
This is not a Penn State question but I'm interested in how you would answer it.
Assume you were a witness to a sexual assault of a young boy by a man you knew and you reported it to your superior who ignored it and did nothing. You then approached your superior again and were told to drop it.
Showing some resolve, you continued up the chain of command until it became clear that those in control wanted the event to go away.
Would you sit back and do nothing further because of protocol and the fact that you did all you were required to do?
A witness is very different from Joe's case. Which you already know. He wasn't a witness of any assault. But in the case you noted, we know that MM did not show the resolve you suggest is proper.... Were I an actual witness, at the time, I'd have called the police. Secondhand info? A day or two after the fact? I'd follow protocol if a workplace issue.
I prefaced my question by stating this was not a Penn State question.
Are you saying that you would not have followed protocol if you were the actual witness?
Assuming the answer to be yes, am I correct in assuming that you would not call the police if you were told of the assault by a third party?
Go back and read his response. He answered your question already.
You you are kidding yourself if you think anyone would be in trouble for reporting a crime. It's the most nonsensical, pathetic excuse that permeates from these boards.
FWIW I don't have a problem with what Joe did. It was on Curley and Schultz IMHO.
That said, no way Joe's getting fired for going to authorities himself. I'm not saying he should have, just that it's a laughable argument to believe he would have been fired for it.
Again, Joe wasn't trained to spot sexual abuse. He did take it seriously and others made poor choices.
Someone forgot to put the step stool in the diagram....
hey without the steam, the step stool, the fact that mirrors can distort depth perception, Mike would have been looking OVER his shoulder, etc . . .
I'm good. have a great Sunday!
Man it's as if you were in there that night. Amazing! The steam was thick that night and the seas were angry. People really should step back once in a while and realize they were not there.
Last edited:
LaNotta Lion should take his own advice.
Tell me - why are you here again? Ah, now I remember. You're a member of the old Plotit gang and were aware of the JS episode via MM himself years ago AND YOU DID NOTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!
I think everyone needs to be reminded of your role in this fiasco every once in a while.
Pnny with another handle making up BS. Yep I was around for Tom's original site, he got me. The problem is the moron is too stupid to realize it was in the playbook chats where Mike hinted at this crap. Yep, he got me. While I was on active duty, I arranged this whole plot. I'm now retired with millions.... oh wait, I'm not. Pnny foiled again!!!!
Last edited:
It was not just playbook chats, and it wasn't just a former Baltimore cop. It was also a guy who work(ed) at the same club where our good friend Cruisin' Route 66 is a member.
Correct. None of us were there so we can only go by the testimony.
- Does it make sense that MM witnessed sexual assault but didn't tell his dad or Dranov about it?
- Does it make sense that MM witnessed anal rape but the victim was not distressed?
- Does it make sense that MM was comfortable that he broke it up, that the assault wouldn't resume as soon as he left?
- Does it make sense that MM conveyed sexual assault to C&S even though JM, Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Shultz all testified to the contrary?
Please allow me to take this opportunity to state again what a colossal phuck up Mike McQueary was in this whole debacle, especially as it pertains to PSU. Yes others that he pulled in made mistakes in hindsight, but after Sandusky, MIke McQueary is the single biggest reason for everything bad that happened to my alma mater. What a dope.
Oh, well sorry that wasn't me. I haven't defended the BoT ever but pnny is screwed up in the head. Plenty were here during the plotit days.
Did you HAVE TO listen?
I have never heard of that person so I assume he is irrelevant ...at least to me.
Again. Have you had any training in this area? If not, respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about. Mind you, and to be fair, the training I had was for a international organization. In some of their cases you risk getting dead or get either the victim and/or accused killed if you report to the police. That's a lot less likely in the US, of course. But my point was not would but could get fired--and legally at that--for failure to follow procedure. That happens every day, albeit most of those are not in such high profile cases.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting December 2 NitBits - Early Signing Period is here- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
-