What it is, is a freely made admission that he knew damn well that Sandusky was raping kids, and all he did was the legally mandated minimum. And, when the investigation went nowhere, due to his “superiors” committing their own crimes, he didn’t ask any questions, he just let it drop.
There is nothing misleading here, it’s only a question of whether you find the behavior despicable, or whether you figure it’s A-OK because he dropped the problem in someone else’s lap.
This post, and subsequent posts from me along the same lines, came in for quite a lot of outraged criticism in this thread. However, note the following:
The only misleading or incorrect statements here, by and large, have been your bullshit about “horsing around” or “touching on the leg.” There are no more “facts to come out” about Paterno and no dispute that he knew that felonious sexual assault had occurred, and did the bare minimum to redress it.
I cannot believe you think that link vindicates you in any way.
From the same source:
How many alternative explanations are there to a naked man standing cheek and jowl (as it were) behind a naked boy, in a shower, after hearing “sex sounds,” that are something other than anal intercourse?
Nonsense. Virtually all of the dishonesty (and/or incredible stupidity) in this thread has come from anti-Paterno posters. Just look at the posts on this tab from Merneith and Cheesesteak, for example (I can’t be bothered to check previous tabs).
Fact is, Huerta, that you personally have adopted a position in this matter that it makes no difference how much detail Paterno knew, and this renders that issue moot. That’s your prerrogative. But others disagree with you about that, and from that perspective the details matter, and continued dishonesty about the matter by Paterno-bashers is thus significant.
OMG you are delusional.
Wishing that Paterno had called the police is EXACTLY what this damn thread is about. That’s it. That’s where the outrage is. That’s why people are mad at Paterno… he didn’t call the police when he could have. You have just admitted that you know this, by typing that very sentence. Do you even think about what you write? :smack:
Rape…molesting…something of a sexual nature… the exact words don’t matter, because ANY term is enough to have acted upon, as he himself realized when he wishes he had called the police.
And he did know that Sandusky was doing something of a sexual nature with a young boy because he said, essentially 'I was told that Sandusky was doing something of a sexual nature with a young boy." How could he have ever uttered that sentence if he didn’t know anything about it?
Doesn’t make much difference. My point (at the time) was not that there had been no rape, but that McQueary was likely unsure at the time of what he had seen and arrived at the rape conclusion subsequently. (This has a bearing on the likelihood that he told JP the next day that it was rape.)
But beyond that, you’re wrong as to the facts. As I’ve noted previously in this thread, in the 1998 shower incident Sandusky was in virtually the same position, and no rape has been alleged (despite a police investigation).
Sorry that I haven’t read all 1500 posts in this thread before responding to this one, but I’m curious. SA, can you please quote any Dopers that said "“SHRIEK!!!” “BULLSHIT!!!” “FUCKING CREEP!!!” "BET YOU’RE A PEDOPHILE TOO!!! “ASSHOLE!!!” "
Specifically the “bet you’re a pedophile too” part. Don’t worry. It doesn’t have to be an exact quote. Any similar phrasing that conveys the same meaning would suffice.
Thanks!
It’s there. I don’t have the time and energy to dig through the thread just now, but it’s there.
I don’t know what made you so sure it was a false claim and challenge SA about it, but whatever it was, you may want to reconsider it.
But there are two things that need to be considered in assessing Paterno’s alleged malfeasance with regard to what it is that he knew. One, “something of a sexual nature” is extremely vague and could refer to something that the witness misunderstood and only thought he saw, or it could refer to a range of behavior that includes something inappropriate but not necessarily illegal, such as tickling or hugging. Thus the response reasonably required of Paterno would depend upon how serious Sandusky’s behavior appeared to him. Some things might require that the university’s officials call Sandusky in and tell him to knock off the inappropriate but not illegal behavior, and others would require immediate and forceful action; and two, it is becoming more and more apparent that McQueary might not have said what people thought he said when this thread started, as it’s beginning to appear now that McQueary did not witness anal intercourse at all, but instead presupposed it based upon sounds he heard and observing Sandusky pull the kid back into the shower after the he peered around the wall at McQueary. Sure, it’s likely that something wrong was going on but we don’t know exactly what, and given that Paterno was given only a vague and speculative description of what was going on, it would not have been immediately clear to him what Sandusky was actually guilty of (i.e., inappropriate vs. illegal behavior) and which would be the appropriate action to take.
Sigh. Nope, there is nothing but supposition to support anything you just said regarding Paterno or me.
But you’ll be happy to know that I’ve got stuff to do now and will be gone most of the rest of the day, so you can give full vent to your nonsensical knee-jerk rage without factual interference from me.
I thought I saw somewhere upthread (have to leave shortly so don’t have time to look it up) that the story has been updated and what McQueary actually saw was a child look lean around the opening going into the shower to look at him, followed by Sandusky’s arm circling the kid from behind and to pull him back inside. If I’m wrong then I’ll retract that particular comment. However, my assessment of the nature of the statement made to Paterno remains as I described.
Nope, sorry, I guess I should have spelled it out. Yes, Paterno wishes he had called the police! And why? Because people have used the fact that he didn’t to bring down the university. It’s not because he thinks he did anything morally wrong regarding what he was told by McQueary.
And now I’ve got to go.
Wow, looks like Joe Pa is a much more disgusting person than I first thought. Little kids brought onto the Penn State campus were getting sodomized in a Penn State locker room, and his regret is that his lack of action may make Penn State look bad? He’s not so much worried about all the other little kids that may have been raped, just the tough PR spot that the school is now in.
I’m not going to say anything bad about Joe Pa anymore, even I don’t think he’s as horrible a person as you seem to think.
Well I wasn’t sure. That’s why I asked.
That’s an alternative version, not an “update”. One of the first guys McQueary told it to says this is what McQueary told him at the time.
I linked to that earlier because it too supports the notion that McQueary was not initially sure it was a rape. But it conflicts with the story that McQueary told the GJ and what he said in court today.
There’s some more details in this account
Now if you look at the GJ report, it describes Sandusky’s propensity for giving naked bear hugs to kids in showers WRT Victims 3, 5 & 6, and he is not alleged to have raped any of those kids. So it’s very possible that - beyond initial uncertainty - McQueary is actually wrong, and he did not witness a rape. (Might depend on what underlies the “in part”.)
[Obligatory disclaimer: this is not to say that giving naked bear hugs to kids in showers is OK, so any dimwits who would otherwise carry on about this can spare the effort.]
He’s as full of shit on this as he and SA are on the topic generally. It isn’t there, and if it is, quote it. Otherwise, no one will believe you because you’ve both shown yourselves to be hysterical liars. Enderw24, look over this page and the last one. Just those two. Even setting aside what you presumably already know about SA’s character from having posted here previously (it’s very poor), you can see clearly who the crazy frothers are, and who is justifiably outraged at child rape and the subsequent apologetics.
Here’s one example.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14458908&postcount=980
I’m pretty sure there were others along these lines. But one should suffice.
Gone for the weekend. Adios for now.
How convenient of you to leave out the sentence right before in your cite that describes McQueary hearing slapping sounds before seeing them in the shower.
Incorrect.
Therefore, Paterno’s only acceptable response would have been to contact those whose job it is to investigate Sandusky’s behavior after he was informed something sexual occured between Sandusky and a child.
It actually doesn’t matter what McQueary saw or what his exact words to Paterno were. Once Paterno was told something (anything!) sexual occured - and by his sworn testimony we know that he was told this - then he should have called the proper authorities.
That would be police, if you were wondering.
And I’ve already pointed that this “alternative version” is a story being floated by an anonymous source. The “One of the first guys” who supposedly heard McQueary’s story, which you’re refering to, family friend Jonathon Dranov, is not mentioned in the Grand Jury testimony and has refused to comment or confirm this anonymous source’s version of events.
Today's devleopments, courtesy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11350/1197337-100-0.stm
McQueary just testified today the following description:
[quote]
His voice clear and steady, Mr. McQueary said he had been watching a football movie that night in 2002 -- right before spring break -- which motivated him to go to the Louis and Mildred Lasch Football Building to pick up some recruiting tapes and drop off a new pair of sneakers. Walking into the locker room, he said he heard a "rhythmic slapping sound" he believed was skin against skin.
He heard something coming from the shower.
Mr. McQueary said he "shockingly" saw a boy against a wall with Mr. Sandusky behind him. Both, he said, were naked.
"The boy was up against the wall, facing the wall," Mr. McQueary said.
Mr. Sandusky stood behind the boy with his hands on the boy's waist, Mr. McQueary testified.
He didn't see sexual penetration or hear yelling, but he thought the boy was being molested, Mr. McQueary said. He thought Mr. Sandusky was "having some sort of intercourse with him, that's what I thought I saw. I stepped back ... I didn't want to see any more."
He slammed a locker, he said, and went back to the shower a third time. Both had turned and were facing him. Mr. McQueary said he didn't go into shower or say anything -- nor did they.
Then he said he went to his office and called his father.
[/quote]
Still no mention of Dranov. Dranov has not testified. (FTR- they're testifying today in the preliminary hearing on Curley and Schultz.)
So until Jonathon Dranov himself steps up and says that he heard something different from McQueary, I dont think there's any reason to give much creadence about the anonymous source.
Mc Queary goes on to testify that he didn't use the word sodomy in front of Paterno, but he certainly said it was very sexual behavior that he had witnessed, and used the word "fondling."
As I said, whether McQueary said sodomy or fondling or buttfucking, it wouldn't change the fact that Paterno should have called the police, not just kicked it upstairs to the Athletic Director and pretended it all never happened. The way he washed his hands of the matter is why he deserved to be fired.And here we are, 30 pages later, with the point of the thread (not that we haven’t made it before). Paterno knew sexual contact between an adult and a minor had occurred. He had a moral obligation to do more than he did. He failed that moral obligation.
I’m glad he at least slammed a locker.