dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
16
share rss forum feed


AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to Nightfall

Re: [NCAA-F] Unhappy Valley

said by Nightfall:

There are other small facets that have come out that also cast doubt on what McQuerey actually told Paterno when he was sitting in his office reporting the incident.

quote:
"Without getting into any graphic detail," Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach said, "what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?"

"Well," Paterno replied, "he had seen a person, an older -- not an older but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it, I'm not sure what the term would be, a young boy."

"Did he identify who that older person was?" Eshbach asked.

"Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky, who had been one of our coaches [but] was not at the time."

After one question about Sandusky's retirement in 1999, Eshbach said, "I think you used the term 'fondling.' Is that the term you used?"

"Well, I don't know what you would call it," Paterno replied. "Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. . .

I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."
Sounds to me like ol' Joe had a pretty good handle on what McQueary was telling him. Use of the term 'anal rape' or no, Paterno was completely aware Sandusky was doing something to that boy which deserved jail time.
It's completely clear he knew a whole lot more than 'just horsing around' had been witnessed.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

said by AB:

said by Nightfall:

There are other small facets that have come out that also cast doubt on what McQuerey actually told Paterno when he was sitting in his office reporting the incident.

quote:
"Without getting into any graphic detail," Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach said, "what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?"

"Well," Paterno replied, "he had seen a person, an older -- not an older but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it, I'm not sure what the term would be, a young boy."

"Did he identify who that older person was?" Eshbach asked.

"Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky, who had been one of our coaches [but] was not at the time."

After one question about Sandusky's retirement in 1999, Eshbach said, "I think you used the term 'fondling.' Is that the term you used?"

"Well, I don't know what you would call it," Paterno replied. "Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. . .

I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."
Sounds to me like ol' Joe had a pretty good handle on what McQueary was telling him. Use of the term 'anal rape' or no, Paterno was completely aware Sandusky was doing something to that boy which deserved jail time.
It's completely clear he knew a whole lot more than 'just horsing around' had been witnessed.

Very true, which is why it was reported to his superiors. Think of it like this, when someone comes up to you and accuses a co-worker with the terms he used, I am not surprised at the actions he took which is reporting it to his superiors. Taking one persons word over the other on this situation, just based on a vague description, is hard to swallow. What I am furious about was JoePa reports it, and then goes back to his superiors and asks about it, and they tell him that the situation was resolved. That was a load of crap.

It is very easy to look at the situation in hindsight and say JoePa was wrong. Taken in the context as to when it happened, it gets much harder to fault him.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


SandShark
Long may you run
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-23
Santa Fe, TX
kudos:3

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by Nightfall:

said by AB:

said by Nightfall:

There are other small facets that have come out that also cast doubt on what McQuerey actually told Paterno when he was sitting in his office reporting the incident.

quote:
"Without getting into any graphic detail," Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach said, "what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?"

"Well," Paterno replied, "he had seen a person, an older -- not an older but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it, I'm not sure what the term would be, a young boy."

"Did he identify who that older person was?" Eshbach asked.

"Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky, who had been one of our coaches [but] was not at the time."

After one question about Sandusky's retirement in 1999, Eshbach said, "I think you used the term 'fondling.' Is that the term you used?"

"Well, I don't know what you would call it," Paterno replied. "Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. . .

I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."
Sounds to me like ol' Joe had a pretty good handle on what McQueary was telling him. Use of the term 'anal rape' or no, Paterno was completely aware Sandusky was doing something to that boy which deserved jail time.
It's completely clear he knew a whole lot more than 'just horsing around' had been witnessed.

Very true, which is why it was reported to his superiors. Think of it like this, when someone comes up to you and accuses a co-worker with the terms he used, I am not surprised at the actions he took which is reporting it to his superiors. Taking one persons word over the other on this situation, just based on a vague description, is hard to swallow. What I am furious about was JoePa reports it, and then goes back to his superiors and asks about it, and they tell him that the situation was resolved. That was a load of crap.

It is very easy to look at the situation in hindsight and say JoePa was wrong. Taken in the context as to when it happened, it gets much harder to fault him.

I'm not surprised you're not surprised at the (in)action Paterno took. You've made it abundantly clear where you stand on this issue and you've made it abundantly clear you would have done the same thing as Paterno. Although, based on what you've stated, I have serious doubts you would have gone as far as Paterno did and made that phone call. After all, why would you call anyone? You didn't witness it and, certainly, you wouldn't take one person's word for such a serious accusation based on a vague description, would you? That's what I thought.

But, you know what? You are in the minority. Only a coward would refuse to take appropriate action in that situation. Both, Paterno and McQuerey, were/are cowards. Any reasonable human being, especially if they have children, would have gotten off their ass and, at the very least, they would have confronted Sandusky face-to-face. McQuerey should have confronted Sandusky right there and then, in the shower. Since he didn't, once he told Paterno, Paterno should have gotten off his ass and, along with McQuerey, should have found Sandusky, confronted him and, then, dragged his scumbug ass straight to the police. I know that's what I would have done, with no hesitation whatsoever. That's not what cowards do, though. Cowards wait until the next day. Cowards call their superiors. Cowards take the easy way out.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

said by SandShark:

I'm not surprised you're not surprised at the (in)action Paterno took. You've made it abundantly clear where you stand on this issue and you've made it abundantly clear you would have done the same thing as Paterno. Although, based on what you've stated, I have serious doubts you would have gone as far as Paterno did and made that phone call. After all, why would you call anyone? You didn't witness it and, certainly, you wouldn't take one person's word for such a serious accusation based on a vague description, would you? That's what I thought.

But, you know what? You are in the minority. Only a coward would refuse to take appropriate action in that situation. Both, Paterno and McQuerey, were/are cowards. Any reasonable human being, especially if they have children, would have gotten off their ass and, at the very least, they would have confronted Sandusky face-to-face. McQuerey should have confronted Sandusky right there and then, in the shower. Since he didn't, once he told Paterno, Paterno should have gotten off his ass and, along with McQuerey, should have found Sandusky, confronted him and, then, dragged his scumbug ass straight to the police. I know that's what I would have done, with no hesitation whatsoever. That's not what cowards do, though. Cowards wait until the next day. Cowards call their superiors. Cowards take the easy way out.

When you weigh the advantages and disadvantages in your head, you will quickly realize that it isn't as open and shut as you would think.

If you were put in JoePa's position, and heard that story, you have a decision to make. First off, this is an unsubstantiated claim, with no real details. If you make the call to the police, and you are wrong, then the media is going to crucify you. In 2006, your team wasn't doing well either, which would probably give the board a reason to fire you for contacting the police, causing a stir, and being wrong. Lastly, you think damaging your reputation is bad by not reporting it? The media and fans would once again crucify him for crying wolf.

On the other hand, you follow the procedures, and the same thing happens. So I guess, looking in hindsight, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You are right, I have made up my mind and my decision on what I would have done.

So I guess I will have to agree to disagree with some people in this thread. Its not a big deal to agree to disagree. As for me being in the minority, that is incorrect. There are many others who believe as I do. Take the opportunity to read other opinions out there, and you will see that I am not entirely off base in my argument.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

Joe Paterno is not the victim here.

The kids Sandusky sodomized or raped or molested while working at Penn State and while using Penn State's facilities, with Penn State's permission, are the victims. There is no way to equate what happened to those kids with Joe Paterno getting fired.

On that subject there actually is some news: Few issues resolved at Sandusky pretrial hearing

quote:
Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's lawyer said after a short pretrial hearing Thursday that he expected the presiding judge to soon dismiss defense motions to have the child sexual abuse charges thrown out, but he hoped he would allow them to be refiled after more evidence is disclosed by prosecutors.

During a 20-minute hearing attended by the retired defensive coordinator and his wife, Sandusky defense attorney Joe Amendola withdrew his attempt to prevent the attorney general's office from using at trial secretly recorded conversations between Sandusky and two of the 10 boys he is accused of sexually abusing.

Judge John Cleland said it would probably be next week before he makes any rulings on the set of issues that are being ironed out before Sandusky's trial on 52 child sexual abuse counts, which is scheduled to start in early June.
Doesn't look good for the defense.
--
ooooooohoooohooooohoooooohoooooooooo


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

1 recommendation

said by fatness:

Joe Paterno is not the victim here.

The kids Sandusky sodomized or raped or molested while working at Penn State and while using Penn State's facilities, with Penn State's permission, are the victims. There is no way to equate what happened to those kids with Joe Paterno getting fired.

I am not denying this fact. However, in a thread that is all about this scandal at Penn State, there are many things we are discussing. Everything from the victims, to Sandusky, to the treatment of JoePa, students who support and critics that defend them, the politics behind it, and so on.

Nothing wrong with discussing something on the topic of Penn State.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net