I’m sure **Bricker **will be along any moment to explain how PSU doesn’t tolerate child rape anymore, and since they’ve got themselves under control now according to their own internal administrative policies, there’s no more need for anyone to be upset about it, and we’re all misguided about continuing to criticize them - IOW the same story he’s tried to sell us here about his Vatican’s own history of enabling child rape and protecting its practitioners.
Or maybe he’s now realizing he’s been just as foolish about that situation as Starvy is about this one. Maybe.
She’s just some annoying harpy along the lines of Ann Coulter, only somewhat more shrill and less political. I watched her during the Michael Jackson trial for a short time, but she quickly got on my nerves. I have no idea what Starving Artist’s fixation with her is all about.
Dude, I am really not that invested in this to keep going back and forth on this issue. If you really want to play this semantics game about how technically he could have been told, even though no alleges that he was, fine.
This coupled with an indictment that lays out only testimony that confirms this account tends to bolster that claim that he was NOT told.
Why don’t you come out say whatever is you are trying to imply you fucking coward?
The comment you are referencing was referring to the time period during the latest investigation in 2010-11. Per this quote:
[QUOTE=Sinsaint]
…they knew by the beginning of 2011 but they still allowed Sandusky on the campus. They could have easily banned him until at least the investigation was over.
[/QUOTE]
By this time period, his contact with kids was curtailed afaik. Please try reading more carefully.
Fair point. I am curious as to how they knew he was testifying, or if they just reached out because they assumed he’d be called.
They were isolated from the perspectives of many of the people involved in these incidents over the years. For example, there is no evidence the people involved in the McQueary situation knew about the incident with the Janitor, or the first incident with the dropped investigation in 98. To them and others, there may not have been a known history of abuse that would have colored their perspectives on the matter, or induced any further action in their part.
Again, we only “know” it’s true now. You don’t “know” that at the time. The point I was referring to is that stringing up the Joe Paterno’s of the world is not gonna prevent kids from being molested, nor will it prevent people from having the same blindness, cowardice, or lack of follow-through in the future. How far to people really want to go with this? Does the mother of the kid in '98 now have some responsibility since she didn’t go public? What about the state Department of Public Welfare investigator? Or the DA Ray Gricar? What about the supervising janitor? Maybe once you start to see systemic failures to protect kids, you should question the system a little more that the individuals. Of course it looks terrible in hindsight, but punishing people now does not help people make better decisions in the midst of situation like this. If this story says anything, it is about the bad decisions most humans make, not the individual failings of people unlucky enough to be acquainted with a monster.
Have I defended the witnesses (McQueary, et al.) at all?
As I outlined earlier, in 1998 Sandusky was investigated and admonished not to take showers with young boys. The event was heavily reported locally and nationally.
I knew of the 1998 investigation, admission by Sandusky, and admonishment. So, I knew of the investigation and admonishment, but Paterno, his boss at the time, did not!? That’s your stance?
You had no point. What you allege is a point is meaningless. It was a non fucking sequiter. Instead of commenting on the topic of the thread, you decided to launch an unprovoked attack on a poster who hasn’t even been here. You read his mind; decided what he would say; attacked that.
It’s not semantics. You claimed the record says he was not told. You are wrong.
It’s already been pointed out to you that the indictment is not the same thing as testimony; it’s a summary of the testimony. Regardless, show me anywhere in the indictment where it says what you claimed it says. You can’t, because it doesn’t.
And, by the way, an unnamed source referring to an as-yet unreleased Paterno statement is not part of any record, anywhere.
Well, as it turns out, I have just enough patience to respond once more. There’s about a 50% chance I’ll place you on my ignore list after this, the first poster in over nine years to be so honored, and surprisingly, one who is generally politically associated with me. You’re just that much of a lunatic.
You have unilaterally decided that Bricker will respond to the Penn State scandal in the same way that he responded to the Catholic religion scandal; have dredged out of the depths of your devious and cunning mind (or at least what passes for a mind on your part; heaven only knows if it’s really Jello inside your skull) his reasoning; and have attacked him based solely on that, the creation of your febrile imagination.
Do you have any evidence of this? I am sure it’s possible, but I have not even seen people mention that it was a big deal at the time in recent articles. Didn’t he release a book called “touched” in 2000? Why did the SI journalist write a puff piece about Sandusky’s retirement in 1999 if that was a well-known story?
Please show me any evidence that what you claim is true.
You can hang your hat on this all you want, but it would be more beneficial to all if you would actually address the original point of contention. There is no evidence that Paterno was explicitly told that McQueary saw a 10-year-old boy being raped. If you disagree with that statement, feel free to explain why.
My original point of contention was that you were wrong. I was just pointing out that you had made a mistake in your characterization of the record. It really wasn’t a big deal, but for some reason, you refused to acknowledge the mistake and argued yourself into a ridiculous position.
I’ve already said that we don’t know exactly what McQueary told Paterno. I’ve also already said that I’m not making any assumptions about what was said. If I were making assumptions, I suppose the section of the indictment that says McQueary “telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno’s home, where he had reported what he had seen” would suggest that McQueary did, indeed, tell Paterno what he had seen (which he earlier characterized as “anal intercourse” according to the indictment). But, like I said, we don’t really know.
What we do know, however, is that according to the indictment, Paterno claims McQueary told him that he “had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy” (p. 7). That’s Paterno’s own testimony to the grand jury, by the way, given under oath.
And it’s my position that that testimony–Paterno’s own sworn testimony–was enough to support all of the condemnation that is currently being hurled Paterno’s way. By his own admission, he was told that Sandusky, his former longtime assistant and one-time heir apparent, was “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy” in the PSU showers. And he did nothing about it, other than pass the news up the administrative chain. He kept McQueary on staff and even promoted him, while at the same time allowing Sandusky to maintain a constant presence in and around the PSU football program.
Legally, he may have done all he was required to do. But he could have–and should have–done more, based solely on what he admits he was told.
I suggest you abandon this line of “defense,” because, if possible, it is making you look worse and worse by the post. As myself and now Mince have reminded you, you first brought this up in the form of a question a full two and a half days ago and have since received numerous replies as well as cites. All ignored, mind you.
Again, for you, at this point in time, to continue to spin forth the same tired excuse that no one knew the extent of the problem since they’d been fooled by the “isolated incidents” (or words to that effect) is mind-numbly stupid. To the point that it literally hurt my brain trying to reconcile all of the inconsistencies, coincidences, questionable decisions and the remarkably convenient ignorance that everyone involved displayed.
For instance, the connection between the '98 investigation of Victim 6 and Victim BK – an investigation which included University Police Detective, Ronald Shreffler, State College Police Department Detective, Ralph Ralston, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigator, Jerry Lauro, and County District Attorney, Ray Gricar. Then you have the testimony of Shreffler that he was told to close that investigation by the Director of Campus Police, Thomas Harmon, which, IMO, is a very telling aspect of this entire saga.
For an investigation that included several university detectives, city police, the District Attorney, AND the state’s public welfare office to just vaporize without any effective change of course (other than Sandusky acknowledging that he would not shower with any kids again!) is difficult to believe.
It is just as difficult to imagine how many other campus officials, including the A.D. and Coach Paterno, could not have been aware of this early investigation, its target, and its premise – once again, one must keep in mind that this was a matter of public record! yet the sleezebag was allowed continued access to all Penn St. Facilities?
Then there’s the whole coincidence (?!) of Paterno telling Sandusky, shortly after his '98 DCOTY Award, that he wouldn’t be getting the Head Coaching job (quite the surprise as, again, already mentioned upthread) and the subsequent perk-full, “retirement” at the ripe old age of 55.
Pull the other one.
In closing, let’s take one more look at the timeline of the incidents. But just the ones prior to 2002 to see how they match your narrative:
Please list the people you feel were aware of multiple incidents of abuse, and any evidence that supports your claim.
In what sense? The link says the case was closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decided there will be no criminal charge.
What are you trying to say?
I will ask you the same thing I asked before in this thread. Why do you think all these people decided to sweep all this under the rug? Even if I were to grant that someone like Paterno would be desirous to not see this get out, why would Gricar cover it up? Why would the dozens of people you allege were fully aware of the events of abuse not say anything?
To keep their jobs. To protect the program. Because they were scared to take on the most powerful man in Happy Valley. Because they went through Starving Artist-like mental contortions to convince themselves they’d met their responsibilities. Who knows?
If we’re going to get screamed at for “speculating,” I guess you shouldn’t ask anyone to speculate about what was going on in people’s brains when they did what they are known to have done. Ask them.
You are right, of course. But when I read that JoePA did what was *legally *required of him, I have to wonder people actually think the responsibility of others actually is?
I’ve been thinking about my “shut the season down” comment, and I know it was a gut, emotional reaction. I don’t think it’s fair that seniors would miss their own senior day, or the kids not going on to play pro ball are going to miss their final home game of the season. Maybe my idea does punish too many innocent people.
But what exactly is the punishment? They miss a few games? Yeah, that would suck, but it wouldn’t change their lives. What happened to those kids changed their lives forever. And apparently, the football program felt it more important to protect itself than to do the right thing. Sandusky would have been in jail now, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
When SMU got the death penalty, a lot of innocent kids got caught up in that scandal. Never took a PED, or got a payment from a booster, or whatever. And yet, they lose the football program that gave them a scholarship to play at SMU. I think those players were hurt a LOT more than PSU players would be if they shut down the season today, but it’s irrelevant. PSU played today, will finish out the season, and the beginning of the off-season can’t come soon enough.
Will PSU accept an invite to a bowl game? Should they? Unless the money goes into a victims fund (which the University would never do if they thought it would show an admission of guilt), I think PSU should take themselves out of the Bowl Pool and get themselves off the front page. At least for a while.
And going forward, what is PSU going to do? They HAVE to gut the entire coaching staff. Tom Bradley, the interim coach, has been there 33 years. Are we to believe he never heard the rumors? Or worse, actually knew? Even if he’s not accused now, PSU will not want to take the chance of something coming out down the road. So, guilty or not, Bradley will lose the opportunity he always wanted, which was to coach at Penn State. So will the rest of the coaching staff.
PSU will hire from outside the university. That’s the only way to make sure Sandusky stories don’t take another coaching staff down.
Killing the program probably won’t happen because of the money involved with PSU football. But my guess is if they did give it the death penalty, even if for only say 5 years, I’m guessing the next time some coach sees another guy sodomizing a 10 year old in a shower, he’ll call the cops, not his dad. And if he decided to call the coach first, he would say, “Coach, I need to know what you are going to do about this, because if you aren’t calling the authorities in, I will have to.”
I admit I would feel bad if they got the death penalty… for the players, students, and alumni that love PSU and their football team. But I already feel badly for the victims, who will now pop into my mind each time PSU football plays another game. PSU can recover from this, even if they get the death penalty. I’m pretty sure that Sandusky’s victims will carry these scars for the rest of their lives.
Sometimes doing the right thing is painful. I still think PSU’s football program should get the death penalty. If not now, then immediately after the season.
Anyone know what, if anything, the Big10 is looking to do? Are they able to do anything?