It's crazy to believe Joe's words. It's much easier for you deniers to just make up your own scenarios.
Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
It's crazy to believe Joe's words. It's much easier for you deniers to just make up your own scenarios.
My apologies, I didn't know you needed a dumbed down version to know I was referring to Fina.
There it is. Rather than respond to his point that is clearly about Paterno, you try to make it all about Sandusky. You and your ilk are so predictable.
Osprey Lion does seem to vilify Jerry much more so than Joe. Why? Why all the focus on Jerry?
On the other hand @pandaczar2 seems laser focused on making this case all about Paterno.
By the way, in Gladwell's interview with Oprah, he clearly calls Jerry guilty. A one in a million psychopath.
I am certain that both Tim and Gary are certain that they were never told of a "sexual in nature" crime by McQ. They did the best they could with the info and the assumptions they were handed, and brought it to the attention of Raykovitz, who Tim felt would know what to do with the report (such as it was). Jack said it was a nothing burger, and that was his expert advice.
I don't think Tim and Gary even blame Jack (I do, though!) - I think they all simply did not know what they were (potentially) dealing with, and acted based on what they knew they knew at that specific time.... that now two different times ('98 and '01) the people who were experts at this type of thing said there was nothing to see there wrt JS. That made sense to them at that time.
How many of us would have done something different back in 2001? It is tough to take away what we now know and how we think we would act/react, but in 2001.... I'm not sure any of us would have that collection of info and do something different. Certainly in 2011 we all wish we would have, of course, but no one knew what all they did not know in 2001. Just imo.
I don't think Tim and Gary even blame Jack (I do, though!) - I think they all simply did not know what they were (potentially) dealing with, and acted based on what they knew they knew at that specific time.... that now two different times ('98 and '01) the people who were experts at this type of thing said there was nothing to see there wrt JS. That made sense to them at that time.
How many of us would have done something different back in 2001? It is tough to take away what we now know and how we think we would act/react, but in 2001.... I'm not sure any of us would have that collection of info and do something different. Certainly in 2011 we all wish we would have, of course, but no one knew what all they did not know in 2001. Just imo.
The main thing most would agree they should have done differently is to take notes or write a memo for the record.
Why did Shultz keep a file on the incident if it wasn't significant enough to write down a few sentences for the record?
Isn't that contradictory? Doesn't keeping a file imply some sort of notes were recorded?
A reasonable explanation is that Schultz's thoughts were recorded and did place them in a file that was retained (i.e., no cover up).
While he/they may not have documented every blessed detail that occurred in 2001, it is very possible given how EVERYONE acted in 2001 that there was simply nothing to write down.
Schultz: Hey Mike, what happened?
McQ: I was in Lasch late one night and noticed that Jerry and a young boy in the shower. It was kind of creepy.
Schultz: What were they doing?
McQ: I dunno. I only had a glimpse. I slammed my locker and left.
Not really much memorable data there that needs to be recorded. Yet still, they responded. "Hey Jerry. Please do not bring kids here to shower, okay?"
Case closed.
I don't know who @pandaczar2 is.
Osprey and his ilk can worry about the alleged crimes of some Second Mile employee. I and many here on this Penn State Message board only care to discuss Paterno and Penn State. Funny how that works. We focus on that because we are PSU fans and alums. We can only assume that Osprey focuses on Jerry because he and Jerry must have a lot in common.
Why are you (and your buddies who insist on polluting these threads) so invested in this false narrative being correct?
I would think that as more and more evidence comes out that suggests that Paterno and C/S/S did nothing wrong, you would be happy.
Are you too embarrassed to admit you were wrong?
Do you hate Paterno?
Are you secretly a Rutgers fans?
Please enlighten us.
He's said something very different in other interviews.
It is quite normal to question the mind of someone who is 84 years old and also battling significant health situations.
It is quite likely you were (as were many others) questioning these things with respect to his coaching ability during those and the preceding years.
Even if Joe Paterno wasn’t 84 years old, it’s still easy to remember things wrong, especially when fed false information by someone you trust.
I’m sure the OAG told Joe something along the lines of “McQueary insists it was sexual and he wouldn’t have come to you if it wasn’t a sexual act” and also ensured Joe he wasn’t in trouble since he contacted Curley and Schultz so Joe had no reason to question the narrative.
1. When he last appeared on Jim Clemente’s podcast, Scott Paterno acknowledged that Joe only referred to what he was told as of a sexual nature after his OAG interview. He described the incident beforehand as making Mike uncomfortable.
2. The PA State police and OAG engaged in other questionable actions, such as lying to Victim 4 about who else had come forward when they thought the audio recorder was off. Not to mention the whole janitor episode, which they appeared to have completely conjoured through reverse engineering.
Last edited:
Because the OAG lacked morals and were intent on convicting Sandusky even though they had a weak case?
Let’s be honest, none of us can answer that question fairly because none of know exactly what was said.
Partly bc in his police interview a mere hour before his gj testimony he never used the term sexual or anything close to it - unless of course the police officer didn’t include such terms in the police report.
And I believe the oag interview was immediately after a police interview he never used the term sexual and immediately before his gj testimony. Joe was trying to be helpful without committing perjury.
This is why I wish there was a recording of Joe's testimony. I admit that this is speculation, but I highly suspect that when Joe said "It was a sexual nature", he said that more as a question, as if he was thinking out loud. Like, "It was a sexual nature?" or "was it sexual in nature?" "I don't know what you'd call it". That last part of the quote makes much more sense if the first part was posed as a question. Of course, the ones in charge of the transcript had incentive to make his "It was sexual in nature" quote more definitive. My speculation, I know. But I'd bet I'm right.
Last edited:
Why would the transcriptionist have incentive one way or the other? Have the been other cases where a transcriptionist intentionally changed meanings? I can see how they could make errors, but intentionally changing meaning on the fly would take some real talent. Do you know who the transcriptionist was? Do they have a lot of experience? Have they been accused of doing this in other cases?
We haven't even seen the transcript (only a transcript of the reading of the original transcript from GJ), so it is certainly possible that whoever read it in court made the mistake (honest or otherwise).
I know from serving on a grand jury where we frequently had to read transcripts into the record that sometimes it was difficult to read the transcript word for word. If the syntax of what the person had previously testified to was odd, the way my brain works is that it would want to "clean it up" before it got to my mouth. It wasn't purposeful, but on several occasions I was asked to re-read something because I hadn't read exactly what was on the page. I'm sure there were other instances where my brain got ahead of itself and did not provide an accurate reading of the transcript that the DA did not catch.
Injecting common sense into a thread is "polluting" to those who lack any. And as such
you believe that proving those involved, other than Sandusky, did nothing wrong will alleviate the scandal. The scandal exists less about doing something wrong and more about doing nothing.
When you can grasp that fact, you will be able to move on.
Please present data backing up your "fact". Also, when can we expect you to move on?
McQueary himself testified under oath he didn't recall the exact words he used, but he knew words he didn't use, like "sodomy" and "anal sex." In any event, Paterno was not a witness. Anything he said about the shower incident was his interpretation of, or inferences he drew from, whatever words McQueary used. Anybody who pushes the idea that the words "sexual nature" conclusively demonstrate actionable knowledge on Paterno's part are just displaying their own biases, not shedding light on McQueary's ambiguous story.
I admire you for admitting you are just speculating. Some here have repeated their biased opinions so often they now believe them to be true. However, the idea that the transcript was altered is ludacris.
Please see my post above as to why the transcript might not have been altered, but also might not have accurately conveyed the previous testimony.
(post #345 in this thread).
So if a neighbor came to your house and said the old perv who lives down the street was seen doing something "sexual in nature" to your young daughter you would ignore it? Get a grip.
If it was 10 years later and qualified by "I don't know what you call it" and the neighbor was 70+ years old, I don't think I'd be calling police.
You really are thick. Paterno wasn't even charged with a crime yet his statue is in a basement and his reputation is in the mud. And that's another fact.
Exactly. Which is an amazing injustice that some of the us are fighting against.
You consistently ignore that:
1) those words came out of Paterno's mouth to a grand jury years after the fact;
2) Paterno was not a witness to the act;
2) Paterno also testified to the grand jury that he didn't know what "it" was or what you'd call it;
3) nobody knows what words McQueary used with Paterno;
4) Paterno didn't "ignore" McQueary's report but rather called Curley;
5) nobody knows exactly what Paterno said to Curley other than it was second hand knowledge about something he didn't witness; and
4) nobody, including McQueary, knows exactly what McQueary said to Curley and Schultz.
Your straw man hypothetical merits no response other than pointing out its irrelevance.
Last edited:
True.
However, if you hear directly from the people involved, and you know them to be good, honest people, you can feel rather confident about what they say about it in general terms even without knowing the exact statements made in 2001.
Just my opinion, based on my experience.
Did Mike call Jerry an "old perv" to Joe? If he did, how was he able to know he was an old perv yet not call the police?
I guess that's a response, not a very good one, but it certainly was easy for you.
My views of the case as a prosecutor
1) MM saw something that just didn't seem right, and by seem right, I mean he thought there was something sexual in nature going on. I based this on the fact that he called his father that night and met with his dad and Dranov that night. He isn't doing that for simple horseplay.
2) That being said, I don't think that he saw enough to be sure that it was sexual in nature. Otherwise, I have to believe, that either he would have stepped in, called the police immediately or his dad or Dr Dranov would have done it. Dranov definitively testified (please correct me if I am wrong) that he did not think what MM told him was something that needed to be reported to the police. The fact that his Dad, Dranov, GS and TC all did not believe they heard something that needed to be reported to the police seems to indicate that MM did not clearly express what he saw as being sexual
3) I certainly don't think he clearly indicated to Paterno, TC or GC that he saw something sexual in nature. To believe that all of those men plus MM's Dad and Dranov all knew that MM claimed to have seen Jerry molesting a kid and were all cool with not reporting it is unimaginable to me. This would have all required a conspiracy as well, since if MM did report something sexual, they would have all had to agree to lie to Spanier about it if Spanier subsequently asked or Spanier would also have had to be included in a conspiracy. Can't imagine the conspirators deciding they should then contact the 2nd Mile....
4. I simply think GS and TC interpreted what MM was saying as horseplay, I don't that's what MM said though, no reason to call dad that night otherwise.
5. Memory is a tricky thing, most people view memories as if its a photograph, forever imprinted in your mind. Most shrinks testify that a memory is actually always changing with time, testimony 10 years later about an event is usually different than what you initially perceived. It's funny, to test that out I looked at some old videos of sporting events that I remembered, and my memory was not nearly as close to the actual events as I remembered.
6. When the news first broke, I did not believe any of the criticisms of the OAG. However, their handling of the indictment where they said MM onviewed a rape (which MM specifically told them was incorrect) and the use of Baldwin's testimony (I cannot even begin to describe how unethical that was) made me think twice.
7. OAG charged the hell out of that case, that was clearly designed to get someone to flip. No one did.
8. In the end, they should have called the police. If MM was worried enough about the conduct to report it, there is no harm in calling the police and let them investigate.
9. It's funny, even though I think that GS had the least criminal culpability, I think his failure might have been the greatest (besides MM's). GS had a duty to protect the school, and he had the education level and expertise to understand what could be at stake (not just morally, but liability wise as well) and should have made sure the police were contacted.
1) MM saw something that just didn't seem right, and by seem right, I mean he thought there was something sexual in nature going on. I based this on the fact that he called his father that night and met with his dad and Dranov that night. He isn't doing that for simple horseplay.
2) That being said, I don't think that he saw enough to be sure that it was sexual in nature. Otherwise, I have to believe, that either he would have stepped in, called the police immediately or his dad or Dr Dranov would have done it. Dranov definitively testified (please correct me if I am wrong) that he did not think what MM told him was something that needed to be reported to the police. The fact that his Dad, Dranov, GS and TC all did not believe they heard something that needed to be reported to the police seems to indicate that MM did not clearly express what he saw as being sexual
3) I certainly don't think he clearly indicated to Paterno, TC or GC that he saw something sexual in nature. To believe that all of those men plus MM's Dad and Dranov all knew that MM claimed to have seen Jerry molesting a kid and were all cool with not reporting it is unimaginable to me. This would have all required a conspiracy as well, since if MM did report something sexual, they would have all had to agree to lie to Spanier about it if Spanier subsequently asked or Spanier would also have had to be included in a conspiracy. Can't imagine the conspirators deciding they should then contact the 2nd Mile....
4. I simply think GS and TC interpreted what MM was saying as horseplay, I don't that's what MM said though, no reason to call dad that night otherwise.
5. Memory is a tricky thing, most people view memories as if its a photograph, forever imprinted in your mind. Most shrinks testify that a memory is actually always changing with time, testimony 10 years later about an event is usually different than what you initially perceived. It's funny, to test that out I looked at some old videos of sporting events that I remembered, and my memory was not nearly as close to the actual events as I remembered.
6. When the news first broke, I did not believe any of the criticisms of the OAG. However, their handling of the indictment where they said MM onviewed a rape (which MM specifically told them was incorrect) and the use of Baldwin's testimony (I cannot even begin to describe how unethical that was) made me think twice.
7. OAG charged the hell out of that case, that was clearly designed to get someone to flip. No one did.
8. In the end, they should have called the police. If MM was worried enough about the conduct to report it, there is no harm in calling the police and let them investigate.
9. It's funny, even though I think that GS had the least criminal culpability, I think his failure might have been the greatest (besides MM's). GS had a duty to protect the school, and he had the education level and expertise to understand what could be at stake (not just morally, but liability wise as well) and should have made sure the police were contacted.
Similar threads
