All Paterno knew of at the time was that a complaint had been lodged against Sandusky for hugging a kid in the shower two years earlier which had been investigated and dropped. He knew McQueary thought it was something sexual but the child’s mother two years before thought the same thing. And Paterno did follow through and report it just as he was supposed to according to established protocol at the time. And needless to say he had no idea than ten years hence a jury would find a felony offense had occurred. :rolleyes:
Oh, bullshit. All kinds of things have been discussed in this thread, and I’ve said a lot of things at different times in regard to different things and in different contexts. As I said just above, these statements are not mutually exclusive and they can co-exist quite happily together.
I have been quite vocal throughout this thread about the importance of due process and rules of evidence vs. presumption based on emotion and the dangers of the mob mentality. I will state quite clearly that under our system of justice Jerry Sandusky is every bit as entitled to due process and a fair trial as anyone else, including drug dealers, murderers and other pedophiles. If you want to regard this as an “admission” of a defense of Jerry Sandusky, then so be it.
It’s odd. You seem to think those things excuse Paterno’s inaction (or deliberate concealment, as the case may be). I believe those are all excellent reasons why Paterno should have done more than he did.
As you say, all kinds of things have been discussed in this thread. Are you claiming that the outcome of the trial vindicates you on all of them, or only some?
And I don’t recall you ever answering my question about what additional evidence you might accept, either in further investigations, or related to the lawsuit being pursued by victim #2.
Yes, Sandusky was entitled to due process. He received it, and will spend the rest of his life in prison. But that’s not what I’m talking about when I say that you have defended him in this thread. I’m referring to those posts (among the many things discussed here) where you say, in essence, he didn’t do it.
Maybe I’m naive, but people are trying hard (and failing) to nail SA on semantics. I think there is still more to be learned about how this all went down, such as what exactly MM reported to Paterno, but there is no question that JVP did at least fulfill his legal reporting obligations. As far as what more he could/should have done, nobody can really say with the information available at this time.
That character with the very heavy UK accent, lol, that was one of the funniest posts I’ve read in quite some time. The words, phonetically, somehow work.
There has been a lot of talk about a paper towel roll. Wouldn’t mind a quick link to its origin. TIA.
No question that Paterno fulfilled his legal reporting obligations; on what are you basing that? Do you believe that Paterno had no moral obligation beyond anything that might have been legally required of him?
And do you still claim to have only read the last couple pages of this thread?
I know that the training I had here in Minnesota specifically told us that this (what he did) was NOT enough to meet our legal requirements. And I think the Pennsylvania law is similar.
Heh, reminds me way back when a particular eight-word phrase about McQuery’s observations (something along the lines of “saw something of a sexual nature going on”) was being quoted repeatedly and exactly by Starving Artist. I saw it as a attempt to let the literal hide the factual, and I asked him he he seriously thought those eight words were the sum total of what McQueary told Paterno, and that Paterno asked no follow-up questions whatsoever. I suppose in the strictest possible sense, if that literally was all that Paterno ever knew about Sandusky’s actions, that McQueary once said that he “saw something of a sexual nature going on” (or whatever the phrasing was), then just passing that information along would satisfy legal requirements. Thing is, it also assumes Paterno was an idiot. It wasn’t like Paterno accidentally overheard McQuery telling someone else that he “saw something of a sexual nature going on”; McQuery was reporting it to him directly. Paterno has ample opportunity then and in the following years to learn more.
So if nailing SA on the literal is indeed being tried, it comes well after he tried using the literal as protection.
In any case, I personally get no inkling that Paterno was a complete innocent who had his reputation unjustly tarnished through no fault of his own. I’m okay with him being remembered as, to some degree, either complicit in or enabling of Sandusky’s actions. The most generous interpretation I can see is that he didn’t want to think about what Sandusky was doing… so he chose not to think about what Sandusky was doing, in the vain hope that the uncomfortable embarrassing situation would magically and quietly resolve itself. I can understand his thinking. I can vaguely picture myself in similar circumstances. I hope I would show a moral courage Paterno lacked.
1 - The police do not investigate crimes unless the victim is already identified
2 - The following are both simultaneously true
2a - McQueary eyewitness report was mistaken
2b -Details of mistaken report “prove” rape was impossible (how does SA know which parts are mistaken and which parts are accurate? we may never know)
3 - The following are both simultaneously true
3a - Paterno reported to superiors only, because he didn’t want to influence process
3b - Emails showed Paterno did influence process
4 - SA’s logic about physics trumps actual data. Why are we wasting money on these large colliders? Just ask SA what the particles would do, he can figure it out.
5 - Juries determine what happened in real life. For example: Nicole Brown clearly did not get murdered because the jury said so…she is still alive somewhere.
A lack of moral courage had nothing to do with it. Paterno was merely foklowing years of established practice when it came to reporting alleged incidents of crime on campus. I would be quite surprised if it ever even occurred to him to contact anyone else.
As far as this silly “nailing me on semantics” thing goes, it’s simply another cowardly and desperate dodge whose purpose is to try to show that I’ve been wrong about something.
But it’s all in vain for the fact remains that I have been correct regarding all the major accusations in the thread. There remains absolutely no evidence that Joe Paterno ever knew that Sandusky was raping children. No evidence that he knowingly and willingly covered it up because a.) he was fine with it and saw nothing wrong with enabling it; b.) he was a pedophile himself; c.) he wanted to protect his football program…all of which are allegations made with absolute certainty during the early stages of this thread.
And of course the biggie, of which people were every bit as convinced as of Paterno’s guilt, and that was of the alleged shower room rape. The horror and pain and humiliation allegedly visited upon that child was the key leverage point the thread’s hystericos were using to cast Joe Paterno in the worst and most evil light possible…and it never happened! Just like I said! All Joe Paterno knew at that time (I point this out yet again) was that two years before Sandusky had been accused of impropriety with a boy in the shower, it was investigated, and was dropped. He knew that McQueary was upset and that he thought “something of a sexual nature” had been going on, but the same was true with the other boy’s mother two years before.
Yet those two issues – that Paterno did not engage in a knowing, long-term coverup of child rape, and that what McQueary described could not reasonably be construed as anal rape – are the two issues that had everyone so het up and convinced not only that I was wrong but a sicko and likely pedophile to boot. (The sicko part laughingly remains even in light of the fact that I’ve been proven right and the hysterical lynch mob proven wrong.
So it’s in light of all this that my opponents find themselves flailing about in desperation, trying to find the merest tidbit of semantic error they might point to in order to declare “Aha! See? See? Right here! SA was wrong [about something, anyway!”
Post 2410 is where S A, who has no known medical or forensic education, claims that sex with Victim 2 was physically impossible.
Post 2430 is where the paper towel tube makes its immortal entrance.
Persons reading the above may want to ask themnselves, “What do the terms ‘Indecent Assault’, ‘Unlawful Contact With Minors’, ‘Corruption of Minors’, and ‘Endangering the Welfare of Children’ mean?” All of these were charges that Sandusky was convicted on regarding Victim #2. They likewise may want to ask themselves, “Does the law make any distinction between an appearance of “horror, pain and humiliation” on the part of the victim, or the absence of same in sexual crimes of this type?”
Lastly, readers may also want to ask themselves, “Is it commonplace, and unworthy of note, that persons in authority in university athletic programs are accused of sexual improprieties with minors, one of them an eyewitness account, twice within two years?”
Persons reading the above may want to ask themselves, "Given that not a single person who has posted to this thread, except one poster of dubious provenance, agrees with Starving Artist’s characterizations, what exactly would they be “desparate and flailing” about?
I think it’s perfectly chear who is “desparate and flailing” in this thread. Actually, scratch that; more like it’s perfectly clear who is desperately flailing for attention.
Projection, plain and simple. SA’s psychiatric issues run very deep, most likely rooted in childhood.
What I can’t figure out is whether he is indeed a pedophile trying to rationalize his crimes (his talking points sound like they were taken straight from the NAMBLA playbook and his disturbing interest in the mechanics of child rape and absence of compassion for the victims is highly abberant). Or if he simply lacks the intellectual capacity to understand what he is saying and why everyone disagrees with him.
I daresay he enjoys having everyone disagree with him. It’s not a bad feeling, I recall encouraging it myself in a long-past thread about “gay therapy”, in which I maintained - to near-universal disagreement - that individual determination was a factor.
Of course, I didn’t stubbornly spin it out for ninety pages, and cardboard was never a factor.
And perhaps persons reading the above should consider that these findings were made by a jury some ten years after the fact, and in possession of facts, victim testimony and history that Joe Paterno had not a glimmer of.
Further, I would go so far as to suggest that were someone else with no history of wrongdoing were to be spotted in an identical situation and with no child having been identified much less testifying, the case would most like never even be brought to trial, let alone result in such convictions. There are simply too many other possible explanations, whereas in the case of Sandusky there was simply no doubt he was up to no good.
They might also want to note that you are in error and that the person involved was not in a position of authority in university athletic programs at the time of either incident. This is just one more of the many ways you’ve let your emotions get the better of you in this thread in your eagerness to pin the blame on Joe Paterno. In actual point of fact Paterno had no departmental oversight responsibilities or authority over Sandusky at the time of either incident.
Already answered and illuminated by your own post – an eagerness in the face of well-deserved victory to show that I was wrong about something.
Perhaps it will occur to persons reading the above that my participation in this thread has been limited almost solely to remarks made to or about me. Were I participating merely for attention I be lighting fires of my own. Perhaps readers above might be inspired to ask themselves whether this might yet another dodge to try to discredit my arguments where facts and logic fail?
