I laughed.
Like much of what’s been said in this thread, you aren’t making sense. Essentially, you’re saying that the more Sandusky allegations that come to light, the more proof we have that Paterno was covering up for him. That’s nonsense.
Secondly, no, enough facts haven’t come out for me with regard to Paterno. We still don’t know precisely what he was told or how what happened was described to him, we don’t know how seriously he took the allegations, and we don’t know his thinking or motivation in reporting what he heard to his superiors rather than the municipal police.
In other words, we don’t know any more about Paterno’s actions now than we did before.
Stop this. You’ve done this 50 times and its both moronic and really annoying. We know that he was told of “sexual conduct with a ten year old.” DONE. Your stupid pretense that the EXACT VERBIAGE matters or that the content of McQueary’s communication to him is in meaningful doubt does nothing but display your own ignorance of law or logic. Frankly that’s lost whatever entertainment value it ever had.
And, the incremental detailed charges are incremental circumstantial proof of Paterno’s dereliction because, once again, they were taking place in part in conjunction with PSU facilities and events, yet more cumulative proof that Paterno should have known that at a minimum, this weird old dude spent A LOT of time with special little boyfriends, which ISN’T normal in anyone’s experience or in logic, and which should have made JP THAT MUCH MORE clear that McQueary’s report was the fire to the smoke that had been abundantly available for any to see over a period of years.
His own grandson? His own five-year-old grandson?
What the hell kind of women are his wife and the mother? What the flippin’ heck?
I swear I should simply stop reading the news.
Look, in this very thread it has been suggested that putting a hand on a child’s leg amounts to ‘sexual contact.’ Now obviously this is not necessarily so. The contact may have sexual overtones or it may be due to the thousands of other reasons why an adult might put his or her hand on a child’s leg.
The point is, one man’s view of what constitutes sexual contact may not necessarily be accurate. And to the degree that Paterno may have been unclear as to exactly what it was that McQueary saw (or from Paterno’s perspective, may have thought he saw), he may well have been uncertain also as to what he should do about it. Certainly a hand on a leg or tickling in the shower would call for a different level of response than would full-on anal rape.
Thus, until we know precisely what Paterno was told and how he percieved that information, we cannot be certain that he acted inappropriately and with wrongful intent.
That’s not been indicted and I think the lawyer is promising it will be shown to be trimped up “nonsense.”. Of course tat lawyer’s presented nothing the least bit persuasive, nor followed through on any of his promises of “the truth coming out,” to date, so I’m not holding my breath on the grandkid not being true too.
As a person of authority, it seems it had a duty to investigate it until he got to the bottom of it. If he was unclear in any way about what McQueary saw, he should have tried to clarify it.
What sort of conversation could they have had where Paterno would not have thought to do more? The only thing I can come up is something like:
And even that should prompt Joe to investigate further. Any mention of inappropriate behavior by McQuery should have prompted Paterno to do more to find out exactly what happened.
If you think it’s a possibility that Paterno is innocent, share with us how you think it’s possible. We already know from the grand jury testimony McQuery went to see Paterno. Come up with a hypothetical conversation that would allow Paterno to justifiably ignore the situation like he did.
He didn’t ignore it. He reported it to his superiors, just like the law required and decades of experience on campus had trained him to do.
Good god, man, seriously, what the flying fuck are you blathering on about? Do you honestly believe that touching a leg of a preadolescent is even in the same arena as showering and tickling one? Ganesh on a popsicle stick, you are a narrow minded troglodyte.
And more to my point here, SA, is that if you acknowledge that JP knew that JS was showering with and tickling preadolescent boys, and you continue to defend JP, out of ego and pride I can only assume, then I have to ask - if a 60 year old man was accused of showering with and tickling your 10 year old son, or nephew, or neighbor, or grandson, how would you react?
No no no do NOT fall for this disingenuous hack’s tricks. He’s spent the whole thread inventing testimony that no percipient witness made. He spent a good week relying on Curley’s perjured “horseplay” testimony. Paterno’s and McQueary’s testimony is entirely consistent that "sexual contact and/or “anal intercourse” with a ten year old was what was in play. No one in a position to know swore or ever will swear that (the two overlap by 90%) there was some mystery or imponderable uncertainty over whether McQueary saw “anal intercourse” or “a hand touching a leg.”. Please (no offense read the thread before giving this lying freak an excuse for three more pages of threads suggesting that there are some unknwn “full facts” that preclude condemning Paterno.
Much more to the point, you correctly note that NO scenario involving a sixty year old man naked in a shower with let alone touching a naked boy did NOT require a police report (but let’s still not indulge Paterno’s Kool-Aiders’ alternate tealoty hypotheticals).
Thanks for the response,** Huerta88** - I’ve actually been lurking through the entire thread. I’m all too familiar with SA’s pattern - I’ve always thought that he’d rather extend a thread by digging his heels in on something that he posted, hell, anything, than admit any fallacy on his own reasoning; that’s why I mentioned ego and pride.
You can think that, but personally, I think it’s just garden-variety stupidity and a knee-jerk hatred of anything that places him on the opposite side of a debate on this board, so he can continue his feelings of being so oppressed.
Not to interupt this circle-jerk, but FTR, I agree with SA that the new allegations have little to no bearing on whether JP (& the other two, FTM) did anything wrong.
And now, carry on.
“He’s evil!”
“No, he’s just dumb”
“He’s evil AND dumb!”
Makes you feel good …
What do you believe that JP had knowledge of, F-P?
Duh.
Horsing around.
As of today, there are 25% more reasonably-confirmed victims than as of yesterday morning. Each incremental victim brings with him (as the GJ counts have laid out all along) a history – lengthy and extensive in many cases – of Sandusky abusing, hanging out with, being publicly affectionate with, grooming through PSU events and facilities, yet another young boy. Each one accordingly lowers the odds, in linear fashion, that Paterno did not know and could not have known or suspected, that something odd at the least was going on.
Sixty year old men do not commonly spend significant public and private time accompanied by a ten year old boy unrelated to them. If it happened once, it might be explained away. If it happened twice, it would be a pretty damned odd coincidence. When it happens eight times – including road trips, lots of car rides, sleepovers, hotel sharing (all of which Paterno could have been exposed to or learned of, in some cases, definitely would have) – then the neglect to investigate a fishy situation, and report it if necessary to the highest levels – becomes extremely culpable, especially when in addition to all the circumstantial evidence, there are at least a couple of explicit allegations of sexual contact with minors in the record.
Linearly may be inexact, but nope, I’m sticking by my prima facie assumption that each additional confirmed victim has a directly proportional diminishing effect on any dwindling defense that Paterno or his fanboys could make of “improbable as it may seem, there just weren’t quite enough weird or sleazy facts available to me to rise to the level of making me do more than I did.” So – indeed – all the enablers look, on a rough justice basis, 25% worse than they did yesterday morning.
It would be unusual and suspicious if it was you. But Sandusky was involved in a youth organization and was a “surrogate father” of sorts to many troubled kids. It was not suspicious at all.
Your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, there are 10s of thousands of middle aged men in this country who have exactly this type of relationship with unrelated kids in similar circumstances and the overwhelming majority of them are fine and good people and not perverts.
[It’s unfortunate that you feel the need to characterize this type of behavior as suspicious, because there are a lot of kids who could benefit from this type of relationship.]
Would you characterize JS showering with and tickling a 10 year old as something suspicious?