I don’t recall trying to convince you of anything. You can damn well believe whatever you damn want. Yes, I’ll understand.
Especially so when you consider that given most of us are completely unfamiliar with encountering acts of child rape- and in this case the highly unlikely mechanics involved to make it child rape - it would be easy, out of both panic and revulsion-induced haste, for someone in McQueary’s position to jump to erroneous conclusions about what was actually going on without thinking it through.
Certainly there isn’t much question that what McQueary saw Sandusky doing was inappropriate, but Paterno was not apprised of the details of what McQueary saw. He was not told of the position the two were in. He was not told of nude body contact. He was not told of slapping sounds. He was not told of thrusting movements. He was not told of rape. All he was told was that McQueary had seen a coach in the shower who appeared to be “fondling or doing something sexual” with a young boy, and given the fact that McQueary’s description was so vague it would be easy to think that he may have simply misinterpreted whatever it was he saw. So, thinking that maybe there was something to what McQueary thought he saw and maybe there wasn’t, Paterno followed established practice and legal mandate and informed his superiors so they could investigate to see if there was anything to it.
It was not Paterno’s job to investigate it personally, as he had neither the time, training or experience to do so. It was not his job to follow up and make damn sure that Sandusky got arrested and charged, because: number one, it wasn’t his place to do so; and number two, he was unsure that a crime had been committed in the first place. Nor was it wasn’t his job to involve the police, especially when Penn State has a 256 person, fully accredited police force of its own which is most certainly capable of looking at videos and checking logs itself, and is probably no more under the influence of university officials than the municipal police would be anyway. Anyone who thinks the municipal police departments in big time university towns are free from the politics and influence of the university itself are simply being naive. Even the school’s professors have clout over their local police departments. As an example, look at the brouhaha that attended the arrest of Skip Gates at Harvard. It’s pretty much common knowledge - supported by at least one of our own members, Hippy Hollow, a college professor himself and Harvard graduate - that Gates could easily have had his arresting officer fired had he chosen to do so.
So no, Paterno did nothing wrong by reporting it as he did; by not “following up”; and not by relying on the university’s own police department to investigate McQueary’s allegations rather than contacting the local police. In other words, Paterno did nothing wrong, period, and what has happened to this excellent man of longstanding reputation for integrity and character is an outrage.
See? I told you people what this fucker was doing. He ignores the parts he doesn’t want to hear (such as Paterno’s definitive other sworn statement that what he was told of was “sexual in nature,” and McQ.'s recent testimony that he told Paterno of “extreme” sexual contact that he was sure was a form of intercourse, and completely invents what he wants to (“McQ’s description was so vague it would be easy to think . . .” – no one has testified or shown that McQueary’s description was vague).
Lying to oneself is a coping mechanism for cognitive dissonance.
“Something of a sexual nature” is vague and leaves room for mistaken interpretation; “stroking the boy’s penis” or “anally raping him” is specific and unquestionably calls for the police. One would think that if what McQueary saw was sufficiently sexual to warrant police action he would have been able to describe it in more specific terms. Of course he was able to describe it in more specific terms, but he didn’t do so in describing the incident to Paterno.
Defense of child rape is a distraction mechanism of pedophiles.
No it is not and no it does not, in connection with a child. There is nothing “sexual in nature” that is okay to do with a child and is not a crime.
And is your new defense that your boy Paterno is a licensed moron? Because only someone with such credentials could “mistakenly interpret” whether “sexual in nature” contact with a child was not a severe crime. By the way, “something sexual in nature” is Paterno’s own self-serving testimony. You can’t get away from it, and it is sufficient to indict him morally, but McQueary swore the other day that he told Paterno of “extreme” sexual contact.
I’m interested in the interpretation that would NOT require a call to the police. You’ve clearly got the handle on interpretations that do require a call, just curious what the alternative is.
That’s a relief. I thought Paterno may have made a mistake in not only not calling the police, but continuing to allow Sandusky the use of Penn State resources in obtaining child victims.
But if all Paterno knew of were “things of a sexual nature with little kids”, clearly there was no need for Paterno to intervene. Have fun at Sandusky’s camp (on a Penn State campus) kids! Maybe Sandusky will bring you to one of our practices, if you do just what he tells you!
By the way, did Paterno claim that McQueary used the exact words “something of a sexual nature”, or that he told him of something of a sexual nature? And in any case, given that McQueary continued to work for Paterno, and Sandusky continued to use the campus and other Penn State resources, wouldn’t getting some clarification have been in order?
Bullshit. The same rules of evidence apply no matter who the victim is. We don’t throw out reason simply because an allegation is made, no matter who the alleged victim is.
I don’t believe that’s the issue in question, is it? There’s no doubt that for an adult to do things of a sexual nature to a child is a crime. But mere allegations of sexual behavior with a child does not equal sexual behavior with a child. Even you should be able to make that distinction.
Have you been taking Huerta lessons? Paterno didn’t know of it, he only knew of a vague and possibly erroneous allegation of it. Even you should be able to make that distinction.
Let me be very, very clear: if you think someone even MIGHT be doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy YOU CALL THE POLICE. YOU don’t try to “interpret” it. That is NOT YOUR JOB. The police will deal with it.
I REPEAT, for the cheap seats: if you think someone is doing any naked fondling? Or something even vaguely sexual? YOU CALL THE POLICE. I don’t care if the guy who might have done it has been your friends for 30 years. I don’t care if you’re not sure. YOU CALL THE POLICE.
“Sufficiently sexual”? Is there an act that is sexual, but insufficiently so, that would be acceptable for a grown man to do to your grandson? There is no iota, no tiny bit of sexuality that does NOT warrant further investigation by law enforcement. YOU CALL THE POLICE. Got it?
But it’s clear that you will not even admit that Paterno showed moral cowardice in this situation. Can you even admit that it would have been braver, more correct, and more in the best interests of the children if he had? That he could have done BETTER than what he did? That would be a start.
“…sexual in nature…” is the summary statement in the indictment describing the words Paterno used to explain what he knew…he most likely said those exact words, but he likely said a lot more in the actual questioning/conversation. We don’t have the transcript, we have a summary of the transcript which is sufficient to relay the necessary information for the purpose of a trial.
:rolleyes:
FTR, it does appear to me that McQueary did convey to Paterno that what happened was sexual in nature, so I’m not challenging that.
But I do find some amusement in the way you note that Paterno’s testimony was “self-serving” while pointing out that McQueary “swore”. Cleverly omitting, of course, the fact that Paterno also “swore”, and that McQueary’s testimony was also “self-serving”. Nice footwork there.
[On another note, can you provide a link to what you describe as Paterno’s “definitive other sworn statement that what he was told of was “sexual in nature””? Also, from my reading of the GJ report it’s not clear that the words “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” are Paterno’s or the GJ’s. Again, I don’t think these are significant issues, because it appears that JP understood that McQueary was referring to something sexual, but I’d like to keep the facts straight.]
Wow, no. No no no. NO. What is an OUTRAGE is that Jerry Sandusky was using Penn State as a pipeline to groom and molest multiple young boys over the course of many years, right under the nose of Joe Paterno, and no one did anything to stop it. No one gave a tin shit about any of the boys, because if they did, they would have been UNABLE to do nothing. They would have been compelled to follow up, whether their official procedure “required” it or not. You are outraged about the wrong fucking thing, Starving Artist. This is why people are outraged at YOU.
I admit it’s been fun, lo these past few years, poking you with sticks at every opportunity— Starving Artist the old buffoon, the anachronistic clown, the tedious old gasbag who manages to pack so much wrong into his terse, boozy little 500-word diatribes. It wasn’t until this thread that I fully realized what a despicable and decayed human being you are. I pity your family, truly.
No footwork at all. Paterno had an incentive to downplay or perhaps be somewhat vague about the amount of detail he was given, to excuse his conduct/inaction, and McQueary had an incentive to emphasize just how much detail he’d given Paterno, to justify his own lack of earlier/further action. Paterno was stuck with admitting some degree of sexual conduct was reported, both because McQueary was going to swear to this, and because Paterno had to subsequently swear to giving a fairly serious report to Schultz and Curley. I suspect both Paterno and McQ. shaded their respective testimony, of course they would, but unlike Schultz and Curley, both told the truth on the core fact that McQ. had seen sexual contact. There’s no inconsistency or footwork required.
“sexual in nature” – I goofed a bit, that was McQ.'s testimony last Friday. Paterno said “of a sexual nature.” I’m sure SA will now convince us that those are very different or vague statements, as opposed to completely consistent and mutually-authenticating.
Thank you for that. We could start a Talmud study group with the degree of enthusiasm here for parsing alleged inconsistencies or vagueness in perfectly-consistent summaries or rephrasings.
No, people around here get outraged any time someone fails to follow the hive mind. I get it all the time and over an endless number of issues.
I take it then that you have no substantive argument to make by way of rebuttal? Ad hominem insults are after all the last refuge of the man without an argument, and since I don’t remember much of an argument from you anywhere else in the thread I can only assume you have nothing but insults to make your case with. This I do not find this surprising.
The “rules of evidence” don’t apply at all, retard, because we are not in a fucking courtroom, which is the only place the “rules of evidence” apply. They don’t apply to a prosecution investigation. They apply to a prosecution indictment only to the minimal level of probable cause. They certainly don’t apply to the moral calculus of whether to pursue vigorously a shocking and credible report of sexual crimes against a child.
Look, I’m pretty sure you’re not a lawyer. You humiliate yourself when you try to play one, so don’t do it.
The only person – ONLY – who has characterized McQueary’s report as “vague and possibly erroneous” is you. STOP DOING THIS YOU RETARD – YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS.
You and Jesus. You poor martyr.
Sure sign of a winning argument, playing that card.