He is a fucking idiot. I noticed it back around page 15 or so.
For real, right?
Outraged, yes. A moron? I think not. F-P pretty much has a monopoly on that title.
You really haven’t been paying much attention to most of the posts F-P has contributed to this thread, have you? I think he has offered up several dozen that could be in contention for that title. Sadly Starving Artist and his creepy paper towel tube theory distracted most posters from the stupid crap this shit-stain has been blathering about for the last ~75 pages.
As long as he can keep getting good people like you folks to pay attention to his idiotic yammering I would think he has a good shot at taking this thread well in to the 100’s. He is the worst sort of Paterno defender, willing to rationalize and deflect responsibility to protect the legacy and by extension college football. I mean, isn’t that what is really important?
Why are you the only person that isn’t outraged? And why do you accuse those who are of being “morons”?
Maybe the outraged people are the ones with brains and hearts. Who can understand both what the law clearly says, as well as common morals and decency.
*Possibly the only person who’s followed the story and isn’t disgusted.
Well, okay, maybe SA is still untouched by outrage, but who knows?
F-P made it clear early on that he thinks Paterno had no moral obligation to do anything more than pass on report to superiors, so it’s clear his moral’s aren’t really the same as most of the rest of us.
And after Joe Pa learned of the Sandusky grand jury investigation and that he’d be required to testify, what did Joe Pa do? Negotiate himself a $5 million golden parachute. According to the deal, 2011 would be his last year of coaching. Remember that little tidbit.
Remember how after the allegations surfaced, Joe Pa said that he’d resign ‘at the end of the season’? Which is pretty funny because he had already agreed to step down. In the end, he was forced to step down mid-season, but with the full retirement package - negotiated after JoePa saw the writing on the wall from Sandusky’s grand jury negotiated - fully intact.
How can F-P still defend this scumbag? To what pathetic depths will you go?
You’re wrong about this. Educate yourself about the facts here, then post. Sandusky was cleared by the investigator in 1998, who concluded there was no crime and that he was not a pedophile. See page 44 of the Freeh report.
You can be outraged without being a moron. But if you are also impervious to any sort of distinction, and actively resistant to the consideration any facts or logic which don’t support your outrage, then you are an outraged moron.
Outraged morons have said a lot of very stupid things in this thread. In the case at hand, I was referring to the fact that several people decided a legal question with no apparent basis other than the fact that their claimed interpretation supported their outrage WRT this particular incident.
For another example, see the latest post by DragonAsh. Walks like a duck…
I said at the outset that this was just my understanding based on what makes sense to me, but that I was open to correction from people with actual knowledge. What I got instead - unsurprisingly - was just a bunch of empty assertions.
No, what you’ve gotten is a consistent explanation that “mandatory” means “you must do it”. Not “first contact the alleged victim and see if he/she comes across as believable”. Not “first contact the alleged suspect and see if he isn’t just a heck-of-a-guy who is misunderstood.” It’s that way everywhere that has those laws. If you have enough suspicion that you feel an investigation is warranted, you are required to inform the professional investigators, not go Encyclopedia Brown.
Ummm… where precisely does it say that. Page 44 is the first page of the section labeled “A Second Evaluation of the Victim.” It make only a passing reference to the closing of the investigation (which hadn’t happened yet) and doesn’t say that what Lauro’s conclusions were (assuming that is who you meant as “the investigator”).
Now later on page 50 we do get this part, “was no criminal behavior established [and] that the matter was closed as an investigation.” However that is not coming from the investigator. That is Jerry Sandusky’s version of what the investigator told him. But even that isn’t worded as strongly as you have. Lauro never concluded there was no crime. At best (for Sandusky) he concluded that there was inadequate proof of a crime.
Even better, that part also talks about how the investigator was not given a copy of the psychological evaluation of the victim or the “full facts of the case” and the lead investigator “would not have stopped the investigation” if he had seen the psychologist’s report. Part of which stated: “the incidents meet all of our definitions based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile’s pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a ‘loving’ and 'special relationship.”
So the investigator of the 1998 incident states that he was not given the psychologist’s evaluation (you know, that person who goes and interviews victims like you are a huge advocate of), who determined Sandusky’s behavior to meet the definitions of a likely pedophile, and if he had been given the report he never would have ended the investigation the way that he did. That page 44, it’s a real boon to your case, you know.
The picture never became clearer because they never got any more facts. If they got anything at all, they got it from Sandusky, who certainly had a vested interest in lying.
So, you acknowledge they had a reasonable suspicion, which AFAIK this has been the sum total of your position so far. What is your issue now? Is a reasonable suspicion not enough to trigger the reporting requirement in your view? If not, what?
The caseworker assigned to the 1998 incident is quoted on page 44 as saying he thought the investigation fell into a “gray area” and involved possible “boundary issues.” He’s also quoted on p. 44 as saying that if he had all the available informatoin at the time he would not have stopped the investigation. That’s neither here nor there, but terms like “gray area” and “boundary issues” do not sound like convincing declarations of innocence.
Paterno knew there was an investigation in '98. Whatever the outcome of that investigation, how can you defend his actions after hearing McQueary’s story?
As for the Paternos doing their own “investigation.” Please. What good can come from it? Either they confirm Freeh’s findings or else they get hammered for being biased. It’s almost as bad as OJ searching for the real killer.
This whole “you should conduct your own interviews and investigation and gather evidence before going to the police” concept - again, annoyingly prevalent on the 'net - actually sounds a lot like witness tampering and interfering with an investigation. It’s a stupid idea. Invoking it as a defense of the PSU leaders in this case is that much stupider.