I think you’re the one ignoring the context. As stated above, Paterno’s own testimony to the grand jury was that McQueary “had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy” (p. 7). At night. In the Penn State locker room.
Even if you assume that Paterno knew nothing about any other incident, including the 1998 police investigation, how is that not enough to warrant a call to the police under any reasonable standard?
It just seems to me if McQueary went to the coach and said it was horseplay, Paterno would have never remembered the incident, much less reported it. If it was so minor, why would McQueary be visibly upset about it? I would think he would only remember it if it were important.
Yes, it does. No testimony states Paterno was told about anal sex or the specific acts McQ witness in detail. PERIOD. If you disagree feel free to link to the text.
You can’t prove something like that didn’t happen. The indictment does not state that Paterno was told about anal sex. This is a fact. If you are contending he was told this, there you are speculating. As I said, feel free to link to the appropriate passage, and I will apologize and retract my claim.
I have to laugh, albeit sadly, at the fact that at this point the discussion has devolved into whether or not Paterno knew specific details about the anal sex with a 10 year old boy in his locker room showers. Specifically heard the words anal sex, and didn’t just think run-of-the-mill sexual activity was happening with the 10 year old. Specifically rape. Jesus christ.
That’s different than what you said earlier. Do you not see the difference between “the record states that Paterno was not told about anal rape” and “the record does not state that Paterno was told about anal rape”? They’re not the same.
I agree completely. Paterno’s already characterized what he was told as “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.” What difference does it make whether he heard anything more detailed?
If ever there was a message board in which people would be vehemently arguing in support of the anal rape of 10-year-olds, it’s the Dope. No matter what heinous act occurs, somebody on this board will jump in to defend the perpetrator, or argue that the act wasn’t really that bad, or probably didn’t occur in the way that it was reported, or parse the exact meaning of anal intercourse.
There’s a lot that has made me laugh sadly in this thread.
*Do we know this really happened? I mean, no one heard the kid scream.
I don’t really see why they are being faulted for not banning Sandusky from the showers, seeing as that was only one of his preferred venues for raping children.
Well, you know, there IS a big difference between sexual acts and anal rape.
Being the friend of a child-raper and losing your job because you didn’t act when you found out he was raping boys is almost as victimizing as the anal rape*.
I’m a parent, and I was raped as a child. Having something like that happen to one of my kids is one of my biggest nightmares. Who knew that I’d have to add a subset of nightmares: If (god forbid) that ever were to happen, please don’t make the adults be as uncaring as some of those Straight Dope posters were. ETA: What Kolga said, better than I did.
Actually, it does. The omission of facts and statements is sufficient evidence to assume they did not happen until further notice. PERIOD. Please note the indictment also doesn’t say Joe Paterno told the GA to cover it up, or a number of other things people assume happened. If the indictment says X, then X is alleged to have happened. Choosing to view vagaries in the light most positive to your position, and most prejudicial to the people involved is not only wrong and unfair, but completely unsupported by the statements made in the indictment.
Grand jury investigations are held in secrecy. Perhaps this wasn’t technically a grand jury, but I see no evidence that Sandusky was aware of the details surrounding the investigations of him and his activities.
A distinction without a difference. The point is that the facts of the case are obtained via things stated affirmatively (eg. I told Joe Paterno …). Anything not stated affirmatively is assumed to have not been proved, and can essentially be assumed not to have happened, or to have not been alleged to have happened. If it happened the way you allege it did, then it would have been stated that way by at least one of the witnesses. If you want to ASSUME Paterno was told, than you are making an ASSUMPTION based on your biases, not facts.
The Pa AG seems to have a problem with the way the University Trustees are handling things… /joe-paternos-firing-penn-state-attorney-general-concern
None of the other networks seem to have picked this up yet? Guess it isn’t ratings building enough?
Did you read the post? Jeez. The point is that the Texas AG is looking into the matter and may bring criminal charges in the state of Texas. Hell, maybe they’ll find a way to get him the death penalty. Seems to be an easy thing to do in Texas.
Actually, no, it doesn’t. You’re way off-base in your interpretation of the presentment if you think it affirmatively states anywhere that Paterno was not told that Sandusky was raping a kid.
Sorry, that’s just bullshit. The distinction between the two statements is huge.
We know two things about what Paterno was told: (1) McQueary said he “reported what he saw to Paterno” and (2) Paterno said McQueary told him he saw Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.” Maybe McQueary actually said “anal rape” and maybe he didn’t. I’m not assuming he did; you’re assuming he didn’t, which is not supported by the presentment.
Yeah. Also the Dope (and maybe NAMBLA’s forum) is about the only place where you will find people who support the idea that if it is not your kid who is getting raped, it’s not really your business to intervene.
So the university fired Paterno but Curley and Schultz are still officially on the payroll and the school is paying their legal expenses. What are you bitching about now?
Do you have a comprehension problem? The point is if the indictiment doesn’t allege Paterno was told about anal sex, then we cannot assume he was. The indictment does not say that, hence assertions to the contrary are speculative at this point.
Yes, you are assuming he did. If he was told that, then it would have been recorded. For our purposes, anything not specifically alleged did not happen. New facts may change out understanding of the situation, but if it’s not explicitly noted as it is in the latter interview he did with the higher ups, then it didn’t happen that way. Your position, that the indictment doesn’t specifically exclude your speculative interpretation, is laughable. That standard would be a ridiculous burden. The indictment also doesn’t say the GA didn’t try to extort a job out of Paterno. It also doesn’t say a lot of other things. What we need to focus on is what it does say, and it DOES NOT SAY PATERNO WAS TOLD OF ANAL RAPE.
brickbacon, do you not realize that both anal rape of a 10-year-old and sexual fondling of a 10-year old are illegal? It doesn’t make a difference if Paterno was told rape or fondling. He was told illegal sexual activity involving a 10-year-old boy was going on in the locker room of the football building.
I am also confused by this odd obsession with the specifics of rape. He was told there was sexual contact between Sandusky and a 10 year old. Does that substantially change his obligation to report if it was say, oral sex, fondling, mutual masturbation, etc. vs rape?
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. This IS the message board on which people argued that an adult man violently beating a teenager with a belt isn’t really all that bad.
The biggest lulz for me are that people are arguing that because Paterno might possibly not have heard the words “anal intercourse,” and instead might possibly have only heard the words “sexual activity,” that difference COMPLETELY exonerates him. As if anal rape isn’t sexual, or something.