It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.

[Drain_Bead]

Someone needs to photoshop Sandusky’s head onto that.

[ElvisL1ves]

The quicker picker-upper.

[Gyrate]

For when you’re stuck to what you know.

[CannyDan]

@Gyrate

For when you’re stuck to what you know.

Or stuck to you know what?

[MOIDALIZE]

This thread is an unflushable nugget.

[CannyDan]

@MOIDALIZE

This thread is an unflushable nugget.

Are you saying

“This shit don’t flush!” ?

(I feel so dirty…)

[R.P.McMurphy]

@Shakes

Brawny

Is there a certain irony in the fact that Brawny is owned by the Koch Brothers?

[kidchameleon]

Aha! Apprently it was long delayed, but Penn State is once again making national headlines!

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Interesting thing is that despite all the complaints, this thread has more page views than the Trayvon/Zimmerman IMHO thread, despite the latter having about 60% more posts.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Interesting thing is that despite all the complaints, this thread has more page views than the Trayvon/Zimmerman IMHO thread, despite the latter having about 60% more posts.

This one is significantly older; it started in late 2011, and the Martin shooting didn’t even occur until February 2012. I suspect the majority of the difference is due to people linking to Starving’s posts in Pit threads, though.

[JKellyMap]

@kidchameleon

Aha! Apprently it was long delayed, but Penn State is once again making national headlines!

That’s some golden showers. I mean parachute. Sorry, this thread being all about showers, I got a little mixed up…

[johnpost]

Paterno family vs. NCAA lawsuit illustrates that Happy Valley divide is still very real

Paterno family vs. NCAA lawsuit illustrates that Happy Valley divide is still...

[Bryan_Ekers]

Seems to me if one wanted to rehabilitate Paterno’s reputation, better to concentrate on whatever good works he may have done and start foundations in his name and such. Trying to disprove the negatives only prolongs his linkage to those negatives.

And, well, flushes money down the litigation toilet.

[JRDelirious]

At this point there is probably an element of “punishing” the other side by forcing them to spend in litigation and settlements, since the actual reputation damage is hard to undo.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Updates on some matters discussed here.

The Mag found that one grand juror who heard McQueary testify said he doubted his credibility. The grand juror, Stan Bolton, a 53-year-old employee of The Home Depot in York, Pa., now says he was skeptical of McQueary’s claim that Sandusky engaged in a sex act with the boy because McQueary told grand jurors that he didn’t see penetration.

When the presentment charging Sandusky, Curley and Schultz was released, it was written by the 33rd grand jury. In that document, prosecutors said McQueary, identified only as a graduate assistant, was found by the grand jury to be “extremely credible.” However, the 33rd grand jury never heard McQueary testify. An earlier grand jury, the 30th, heard McQueary testify on Dec. 16, 2010. Bolton was a member of that grand jury.

Re Amendola’s claim about “Victim 2”:

The Mag story also reports new details about “Victim 2,” the boy, now in his mid-20s, who was in the shower when McQueary witnessed Sandusky’s alleged assault. A week after the presentment was released, a young man in his mid-20s identified himself as “Victim 2” to Joseph L. Amendola, the defense lawyer for Sandusky. In a wide-ranging interview on Nov. 9, 2011, in Amendola’s State College law office, the young man, accompanied by his mother and brother, told Amendola and his investigator that at the time of the shower incident he was 14, not 10 or 11, as McQueary estimated.

According to a five-page memo detailing the interview written by Curtis Everhart, Amendola’s investigator, the man said the incident happened on Feb. 9, 2001, not on March 1, 2002, as prosecutors had written in their presentment. The man said “this particular night is very clear in my mind,” the memo states. In the shower after a workout, the man said he and Sandusky “were slapping towels at each other, trying to sting each other. I would slap the walls and would slide on the shower floor, which I am sure you could have heard from the wooden locker.” The man said he recalled hearing a locker slam but never saw the person who slammed it. “The grand jury report says Coach McQueary said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity,” the man said. “Nothing occurred that night in the shower.”

Amendola thought Victim 2 would provide a break as he began preparing Sandusky’s defense. But two weeks later, Amendola said he ran into a local lawyer at the Centre County Courthouse who told him the young man who had identified himself as Victim 2 had in fact been a victim of Sandusky and intended to sue Penn State.

“I said, ‘What?’” Amendola recalled. “And he says, ‘He’s one of the worst victims.’ I almost fell down. That’s not what this young man told me and my investigator.”

The young man who identified himself as Victim 2 was not called by prosecutors to testify at Sandusky’s trial. He has since struck a multimillion dollar settlement with Penn State, sources say.

I believe the claim about the date turned out to be correct.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

… Re Amendola’s claim about “Victim 2”:I believe the claim about the date turned out to be correct.

What does this mean? What date?

Supposedly, within a matter of a day or two or witnessing the assault, McQueary reported the incident to Paterno, who passed it up the line. This victim claims the date of his “incident” was nearly a month different from the victim #2 assault. Surely it would be quite easy to check some dates and determine whether this guy’s experience was the same as victim #2.

It seems far more likely to me that these were two separate incidents, and this kid is wrong in thinking he was victim #2.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Per Wikipedia

Mike McQueary, a then graduate assistant and later assistant coach at Penn State, initially testified on December 14, 2010 to Pennsylvania’s 30th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury.[23] He again testified on December 16, 2011 at the trial of Curley and Schultz that he was in the Lasch Football Building on the University Park campus on a Friday night in March 2002. [Note: In this testimony, Mike McQueary got the month and year wrong. On May 7, 2012, the AG’s office corrected the date of the incident to February 2001, estimating it occurred on or about February 9.

The guy’s interview with Amendola and his investigator was on November 9, 2011, 6 months before the AG’s office corrected the date. At the time of that interview, the AG was still maintaining that it took place in March of 2002, per McQueary’s testimony. But the guy was able to correctly assert that despite McQueary’s testimony, the incident actually happened on February 9, 2001. This lends credence to his claim to be that kid.

[Loach]

Quote:
The Mag found that one grand juror who heard McQueary testify said he doubted his credibility. The grand juror, Stan Bolton, a 53-year-old employee of The Home Depot in York, Pa., now says he was skeptical of McQueary’s claim that Sandusky engaged in a sex act with the boy because McQueary told grand jurors that he didn’t see penetration.
Quote:
When the presentment charging Sandusky, Curley and Schultz was released, it was written by the 33rd grand jury. In that document, prosecutors said McQueary, identified only as a graduate assistant, was found by the grand jury to be “extremely credible.” However, the 33rd grand jury never heard McQueary testify. An earlier grand jury, the 30th, heard McQueary testify on Dec. 16, 2010. Bolton was a member of that grand jury.

So what? You do realize that we are talking about a grand jury. In Pennsylvania grand juries have 23 jurors. Apparently we are talking about 2 separate grand juries. So out of 46 people you found a cite in which one person out of 46 found one of the witnesses to not be credible. Also remember that we are talking about a grand jury in which the prosecution does not have to present the entire case because they are only looking for a ruling of probable cause from a majority of jurors.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I don’t think I disagree with that.

The more significant thing - to the extent it’s significant at all - is that the grand jury which found McQueary “extremely credible” never actually heard him testify. But not a huge game-changer in any event.

[Loach]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I don’t think I disagree with that.

The more significant thing - to the extent it’s significant at all - is that the grand jury which found McQueary “extremely credible” never actually heard him testify. But not a huge game-changer in any event.

Often grand juries don’t here direct testimony from witnesses. I have been in front of many. Most of the time they hear from the investigating officer and maybe the victim. Often they just have access to the previous statements. Of course a case like this was much more complex than most so I wouldn’t be surprised that they called more witnesses.