Preliminary Hearing Post-Recess Open Thread
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 1:01 PM EST
in #PSUCharges
Email
PrintCourt back in session at 1:45 p.m.
/stares at title of post, shakes head in shame.
717 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Let's not continue on to the next line
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
i think you have the songs mixed up
Reporter: Can you give us a touchdown celebration, one that you would get penalized for?
Moye: I play at Penn State. I don’t celebrate.
It was even more fun 6 weeks ago
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
all my troubles seemed so far away
Reporter: Can you give us a touchdown celebration, one that you would get penalized for?
Moye: I play at Penn State. I don’t celebrate.
by psupride on Dec 16, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
We could talk about the Mark Richt to Penn State rumors
but somehow nothing seems important today
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, yesterday it was "PSU has settled on their guy, announcement coming Jan. 3"
Today it is more interviews.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
Joyner isn't doing anything
other than taking trips at PSU’s expense. I hope Lubert is up to some good.
I actually thought yesterday's rumors had something to them
I don’t know what to believe anymore, and I’m not just talking about a coaching search.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
Joyner is faking the end around
while Lubert takes it up the gut. The answer is our next HC is Joe Paterno.
I'm on the Internet cause I'm an Internet thug.
#OccupyESPN
Follow @134Lounge
Well it's bad luck for......
Tom Bradley and it’s too bad for those who backed him. You know he won’t be hired because “they” would have already done it, because he’s there already. He should have been sPitt’s HC already, but that will never happen because, as the media says, “He just has too much stink attached to him to get a HCing job.” All I can say to that is Bullsh^t! to the Media and the Search Committee. I have a little over 6 weeks to make my decision on seasons tix renewal. I never thought I’d say that 6 weeks ago.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Dec 16, 2011 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
Something else
MM testified that he would informally say things about not liking Sandusky around the football building. That right there might be enough to leave an indelible mark on the current coaching staff in many people’s eyes.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
I am going to cheer for whoever is coach.
I want Bradley, a lot, and think he deserves it. But whoever they hire, will have my support, even if the administration doesn’t get an ounce of my respect. If the new coach doesn’t uphold the traditions that JoePa, and Bradley, hold dear. Then I might consider something more drastic.
Agree completely
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
Agree
I’ve told my friends. If they put names on the jerseys, I’m not going anymore.
My response to all of this has been to just focus on Penn State hockey. All the news there is good. Even if we lose every game next year, it will still be a bright future. Great coaching hires. A new facility coming. It’s all good.
by reedjohnmiller on Dec 16, 2011 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
Daily Collegian:
Spanish Armada turned back in English Channel. #FrancisDrake
by Tezcatlipoca on Dec 16, 2011 1:06 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
I missed this daily meme..
what did they do now?
by Artiefufkin10 on Dec 16, 2011 1:07 PM EST up reply actions
They've been about 30 minutes or more behind
With all of their twitter posts on the hearing today
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
and you think a student would be a hell of a lot quicker at typing that shit out on their phone
but then they might be texting each other in court room to see what’s up after.
I just read.
My students could type in the last chapter of Ulysses by the time I'm done with LOL.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
If we are going that far back
they should soon be reporting on Paterno’s first win.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
We've still got the Middle Ages to get through...
… before reporting on Paterno’s victory over the Gauls.
by Tezcatlipoca on Dec 16, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
The Daily Collegian has just learned
that the Trojans were caught completely unaware by Joe Paterno’s “Hide in the Horse” strategy. Texas was still awarded the MNC, though.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Please don't confuse Jerry Sandusky's shower games
with JVP trouncing Troy
"my dad says Michigan used to be good"
Huge meteor headed towards Earth!
Dinosaurs doomed.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Dec 16, 2011 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
That's what the dinosaurs.......
want you to think………..
/evilplottinglaugh
Back when the quality of the writing
was the only crime.
Do internet trolls live under internet bridges?
Follow @stp147
It was a happier time
When all the sex that found its way into the Daily Collegian was buried on the editorials page.
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
by LegalLion on Dec 16, 2011 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Is Mount Joy
a dirty town name?
He completed 17 of individuals 26 passes for 192 lanscaping your yard and two touchdowns - Chan Luu
OSU fan stopping by...
Can I just say that – so far – it looks like JoePa got a raw deal? Also, is JoePa going to give any sort of testimony?
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 1:15 PM EST reply actions 9 recs
They will be reading parts of his GJ testimony into the record
Supposedly the full text will be available shortly.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
Word on the street is
Written testimony of his is being admitted and read into the record.
Do internet trolls live under internet bridges?
Follow @stp147
Wow...
I’m surprised an outsider is feeling that way.
And here I was, thinking I was a pathetic, brain-washed sheep who supports covering up child rape in favor of football.
by Artiefufkin10 on Dec 16, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I'm sure we will find out he drove through State College one time
so he must clearly be in on it.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:31 PM EST up reply actions
"He should have done more"..
on that drive through State College
by Artiefufkin10 on Dec 16, 2011 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
with the benefit of a rear view mirror
he wishes he had
by PSUgirl on Dec 16, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
You crack me up.
What the hell just happened?
by Pete the Streak on Dec 16, 2011 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
You caught me.
I own a Penn State shirt as well. I went up there for the Bama game to tour the campus and such because I’m looking at getting my MBA from PSU. As for the PSU shirt I own? Well I sure as hell wasn’t going to root for Nick Satan’s team.
I once dated a Penn State grad too. I’m certain she was in on it. I guess that implicates me even further.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
Well, if she was a grad, then she was in on it
I received a detailed account of the cover up with my diploma. And that was in 1997. I can only imagine that future graduates received additional detail.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Dec 16, 2011 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
By 2002 there was a required freshmen seminar on how to organize an institutional cover up
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
See, that's smart
Elinates the possibility of someone learning something about the cover up while in school and not knowing how to participate properly.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Dec 16, 2011 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
Holy Shit
/checks the back of diploma
Holy Shit. There is nothing there! The lack of evidence is evidence that it goes all the way to the top
Whittle your whiskey around like blazes, t'underin' Jaysus, do ye think I'm dead?
by psuphysicist on Dec 16, 2011 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
LOL
+1 for that
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
I knew you weren't a real Buckeye!
No such thing as a humble Ohio State fan
/JK
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You'll get an MBA degree from......
one of the Top Universities in the country regardless of what President Lackey says. Also your degree will also be gilded with integrity, regardless of what the Jackass says.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Dec 16, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
No doubt...It's a great school with serious name recognition in the Northeast
And it’s only four hours from Manhattan, and by far the cheapest option I’m looking at right now.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks
Since we’re in the fair-minded spirit. I’ll say that I think Ohio State got a raw deal. I don’t see why coaches and players who did nothing wrong have to suffer for what people who were there before them did. The players got suspended. Tressel will never work in college football again. Maybe he should have to pay a fine too and maybe some of the other administrators need to go too. But that should be enough. Why take away scholarships? That’s five kids who won’t get a free education. What purpose does that serve? The way the NCAA works punishes all the wrong people. I hate USC as much as the next guy, but Carroll got away scott free and now the players who had nothing to do with it suffer (albeit, not very much). How is that justice?
by reedjohnmiller on Dec 16, 2011 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I was away from my computer all morning
can someone sum up what happened up til now?
I'm on the Internet cause I'm an Internet thug.
#OccupyESPN
Follow @134Lounge
Who has that flaming bus picture?
Tom Bradley for PSU Head Coach!
Follow @Paige2PSU
by Paige2PSU on Dec 16, 2011 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I like this comment
KevinHornePSU:
Insert Gary Schultz for Joe Paterno in all the media criticism Joe’s faced and you might have a more accurate story.
by FB6244 on Dec 16, 2011 1:22 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Sorry if this has been repeated...
But I’m not swimming through the 600+ comments of the previous thread.
Grand Jury Presentment specifically says McQ “saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse.” Today he says he did not see “insertion” nor did he ever use the words “anal” or “sodomy” in describing what he saw to others.
@Kunk7
by Kunk on Dec 16, 2011 1:23 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Really
it should be repeated more. If nothing else than to show what the GJ Presentment actually is.
He also said both man and boy were standing up
and he saw no erection because he “did not look down there”
and he said the boy’s head came up to the man’s pectoral muscle
so we get something like this
leading us to think if he had “looked down there” he might have alleviated his suspicions about “SPINAL INTERCOURSE”
but he left both parties standing naked in the showers together
I imagine becase the boy was not in pain or distressed
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Ah yes - the circus days...
I remember them well.
I'm not rationalizing - I'm being totally irrational
only if his pectoral muscle sags like a well endowed grand mother
or a guy who requires a man bra?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Manzier!
He completed 17 of individuals 26 passes for 192 lanscaping your yard and two touchdowns - Chan Luu
You do know about the cups, right?
He completed 17 of individuals 26 passes for 192 lanscaping your yard and two touchdowns - Chan Luu
The "D" is the biggest.
You ask me to get a pair of underwear, I’m back in two seconds.
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
Mr. McQueary, would you describe the facial features of the older gentleman in the shower?
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
This is the Dennis Looks Like A Child Molester episode.
That’s the child molester.
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
anything in particular you had in mind?
glad to oblige if possible
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Anything will due...
… anything at all. Just do it fast.
by jessedotsmom on Dec 16, 2011 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
Conference call?
Are you going to vote to fire Joe again?
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Dec 16, 2011 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Joe thanks you.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Dec 16, 2011 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
All I picture is in chambers, the judge and counsel
trying to rush through a Wings Over Happy Valley Aircraft Carrier before the hearing resumes.
“All rise?! Ah hell naw!”
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
Two thoughts:
1) Reporters on this tweet feed are not reporting everything into the feed. I assume they are reserving that for their article or TV report.
2) After reading and seeing on TV what MM had said (some of which I did not see on the feed), I deem him very credible.
On MM
I agree, he sounds like he’s got his story straight. I’m curious to find out how the phrase anal rape made it’s way into the presentment. If he didn’t have the kid bent over or picked up (sorry, graphic, but it’s important), then how the hell was he sodomizing the kid?
/shakes head, wonders how this is an actual, legitimate question I’m asking in regards to Penn State representatives. sigh
by SkellerDweller06 on Dec 16, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
If he was asked what he believed what was happening
I could really see him saying anal rape. Depends on the flow of the questioning.
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
How quickly it goes from...
“Yea, I believe it was anal rape” to “McQueary testifies he saw anal rape” in the GJP.
Odds the prosecutor realized the MM was his only witness in any of this and needed his testimony to be money in order to get this monster? Therefore pushing him to testify what he thought he saw as “what he saw?”
by SkellerDweller06 on Dec 16, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I think the line of thinking
is what he believed he saw is what he actually saw. It really isn’t a huge leap considering what he heard correlating with what he saw without the actual penetration.
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
Anything important he said,
that wasn’t tweeted?
Actually, I missed the 45 degree mirror part
Saw that on the news.
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
I'm supposed to be writing syllabi for next semester.
I have a feeling I’ll be working on Sunday.
Tom Bradley for PSU Head Coach!
Follow @Paige2PSU
Why is this hearing in Harrisburg and the other one in Bellefonte?
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
Because the grand jury was convened
in Harrisburg and the perjury occurred there.
Tom Bradley for PSU Head Coach!
Follow @Paige2PSU
Because of where the alleged crimes were committed, I assume.
Curley and SHultz would have “lied” in H-burg.
one or both of them are also charged with "failure to report", right?
are they covering that/those charge(s) in the preliminary hearing today?
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
They're both charged
And being covered today. Likely to be thrown out due to statute of limitations.
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
do you think they'll get martha stewarted
and throw out the failure to report – but keep the perjury?
Somebody lied in Harrisburg? You're kidding me, right?
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Dec 16, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
As a favor to me.
I can hit the courthouse with a bucket of golf balls and a five iron from here.
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
And take off that pledge pin!
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Dec 16, 2011 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Honestly, it would look quite a bit like that scene.
Didn’t see any mounted police, though.
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
Just hoping that....
you don’t have to do any pushups in the horse manure Chris!
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Dec 16, 2011 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
It's okay, I have the perfect plan for revenge.
It involves a dead horse, chainsaw, slightly altered classic car, and a very confused marching band.
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
I'll bring the marbles
Reporter: Can you give us a touchdown celebration, one that you would get penalized for?
Moye: I play at Penn State. I don’t celebrate.
I'll pick you up in my car
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Dec 16, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
You need to spend more time on the range . . .
Sounds more like a seven to me.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
what's really important is to just have fun
"I've seen over 200 episodes of Law & Order and it's paying off big time!"
How big a bucket?
Guess we’ll find out at next fall’s BSD Fall Golf Classic.
What the hell just happened?
by Pete the Streak on Dec 16, 2011 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
Are they reading the Presentment or the actual Q&A I wonder?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
It will be the actual transcript
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
Hope the reader is faster than the replay officials
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
On stand for 7 minutes
Did the right thing. Least involved person, shouldn’t have been involved at all. Only person the focus is on. Makes perfect sense.
by FB6244 on Dec 16, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Perfect sense!
Unreal…ESPN can rot rot rot rot
"That's why you don't play! 'Cuz you're no good!" -Joe Paterno
I hate to say this
because I ams ure most of the people working there were trying to do the right thing for young boys, but all this testamony in my opinion really points to the people at the second mile as the ones who were negligent.
These guys have to be more careful on Twitter...
“Capitol_Ideas:
Paterno tells grand jury that he had seen an older person fondling a young boy. He IDs him as Jerry Sandusky. "
I believe Paterno was conveying what McQueary told him.
by dontcallmescooter on Dec 16, 2011 2:01 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Prosecutions questions of Paterno were incredibly short
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Surprisingly so
I figured they would have hit him with follow ups, or called him back after Curley and Schultz to see if they had ever told him what they had done.
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
He wasn't under investigation.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
I wish they would have asked so
because, for me at least, that is the crux of whether or not Joe should have done more.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
My guess is we'll need to wait for Josnaksi's book...
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
Posnaski?
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Dec 16, 2011 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
I like Josnaski.
Like an old-school M-Rob.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
Sure
And since I spelled it wrong too, I can’t really criticize. Posnanski.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Dec 16, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
I thought there was another 'n' in there.
Didn’t feel like tearing myself away to look.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
Like Archie Bunker might say:
“Josnaksi, Posnaski, what’s the difference Edith?
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
How about “Oh You ’Naski, Huh?”
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Works for Posluszny, too!
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
I have an injured finger
so typing is not my forte right now!
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
He didn't call Curley right away because he didn't want to bother people on the weekend?
Ugh. Really? Joe’s not nearly as culpable as the others in this story, but does anyone think that’s an appropriate response to being told of the sexual assault of a boy in the locker room?
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 2:06 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Threw up in my mouth a little bit when I read that
Jesus Joe!!!!!!!!
by SkellerDweller06 on Dec 16, 2011 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't see that on twitter...
source? also, now Curley is saying McQueary didn’t indicate it was sexual behavior – used the old “wrestling” and “horseplay” words.
So who’s lying?
by Artiefufkin10 on Dec 16, 2011 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
It most likely sounds a lot worse than he meant it to be.
Like a lot of things recently.
First of all...
You’re asking an 85 year old to recount something that happened over NINE YEARS AGO.
Second, you’re asking him in the context of how we understand things. You say “tickling”, “horseplay”, “fondling”, “wrestling” with a young boy, and all of us will assume something sexual. I don’t honestly think Joe made that assumption. I know my grandfather wouldn’t. They were raised in a different time.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
He said
“It was of sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was. I didn’t push Mike … because he was obviously very upset,”
So, no, this is not an assumption we’re making. He knew.
by M1EK on Dec 16, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes he knew it was sexual in nature
But McQueary himself testified that he toned it down “out of respect” for Joe (I don’t understand that sentiment, but there it is). So it seems like MM did not give Joe the full details of what he saw.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
McQ
Said he didn’t tell anybody it was anal rape or sodomy.
Where are the damn bunny pictures?
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Dec 16, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
I have my own bunny
at home. lop-eared. Cute as a button.
My first real pet was a dwarf rabbit
Got it for my 10th birthday. Died on the very day of my 16th.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I guess that wasn't necessary today
Sort of pales in comparison
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
My parents bought me a goldfish once when I was about six-years-old
It died in front of me in the plastic bag on the car ride home, sadness ensued.
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
You rang?
Tom Bradley for PSU Head Coach!
Follow @Paige2PSU
by Paige2PSU on Dec 16, 2011 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That bit is vague
I think there’s some gray area there. He might have thought Mike meant “it was sexual by definition because the dude was naked and that’s just never ok” but not necessarily that there was some kind of actual sex stuff going on.
I hope Joe gets a chance to testify fully or at least do an interview with Bob Costas or something to explain himself more completely. He clearly wasn’t trying to cover this up, but it does seem like the full gravity of the situation didn’t hit him.
by reedjohnmiller on Dec 16, 2011 5:02 PM EST up reply actions
Not as vague as you imply here.
Paterno sat back and sighed and said “I’m sorry you had to see that”. He also reported to the GJ that MM was “distraught”.
This does not reasonably equate to “no actual sex stuff going on”.
Sure
but I was replying to TheHumbleBuckeye above – who said he didn’t think Joe assumed anything sexual from what he was told. That is obviously not true.
Agreed
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
That and the supposed "Spring Break" delay
are both sticking points for me. I’m not exactly sure what they represent except to conclude that we’ve got some out of touch older guys at the very least.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
I really don't get why he would wait.
I mean why wait?
by Artiefufkin10 on Dec 16, 2011 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, that is disappointing to say the least
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
Source...
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/paternos_full_grand_jury_testi.html
Got news on a Saturday. When exactly did he call Curley? Following Monday?
by Artiefufkin10 on Dec 16, 2011 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
So he told him about it a day after?
if so, I hope I’m not being insensitive, but perhaps he needed a day to process the information and how he would handle it?
by Artiefufkin10 on Dec 16, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
It is a terrible sound bite, but hard to judge what it really meant
because all reported info says Paterno met with Curley in a timely manner, it was the contact that Curley and Shultz had with McQ that took over a week.
If we're going to play that game..
what was the exact time lapse between Red seeing the incident and talking to Joe, a day?
by Artiefufkin10 on Dec 16, 2011 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
appr. 12 hours or so.
I think really all this time stuff doesn’t matter. In my opinion if McQ thought he saw anal sex he should have called the police right away. A guy in Shultz position who was obviously brought in as a police administrator, and only one to have previously known about the 1998 incident that we know of, should have done a lot more.
by FB6244 on Dec 16, 2011 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
He testified that he called Paterno the night of the incident, didn't he?
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
I believe he said he called him around 7:30 or 8:00 am the next day
Specifically said he had never called him so early before. That is what I remember.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
I saw that he called around 730 in the morning
to tell Joe he needed to see him. Did they ask or did he say when he actually went to Joe’s house—and had the conversation at his kitchen table.
by Jeannine Pinaula on Dec 16, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
It was a dumb answer he used as filler
because he didn’t know the real answer. He also couldn’t remember the year.
Joe's timing isn't that awful
McQuery should have called the cops, but I’ll cut him some slack. If I saw something that awful I’d probably have just curled up into a ball muttering “can’t sleep, clowns will eat me.”
Why his dad told him to talk to Joe instead of the cops is not clear. Maybe it just didn’t dawn on any of these older guys that this is a hardcore crime. The fact is that child abuse was reported even less frequently in “their day” than it is now and it just isn’t something they’d thought much about.
Or maybe McQuery also probably was afraid of dealing with Sandusky directly. Remember that at this time, he didn’t know about any of the other evidence or accusers. So in the public realm, it would be his word against Sandusky’s. Who would be believed in 2002, the great defensive coordinator beloved for all his work with Second Mile or an ex-QB who was never really that good and had kind of a reputation in State College for being a bit of a dick? I can understand why they thought they needed to get a few more ducks in a row first. Not the best decision, but it’s understandable.
by reedjohnmiller on Dec 16, 2011 5:09 PM EST up reply actions
I think your point about McQueary is part of what is being lost (in hindsight)...
It seems pretty clear that Joe and McQueary knew nothing about the 1998 allegations (barring more evidence that they did). Assuming for a minute that they didn’t, this allegation is coming out of left field. McQueary is a low man on the totem pole with “he said, he said” allegations and Joe is having to believe that this was not all just some giant misunderstanding. They both do the appropriate thing and continue to report it up the chain of command in spite of this. But, I think the lack of really insistent follow-up is directly related to the position they found themselves in. McQueary was hoping for a job at PSU and was having to insist a coaching legend with lots of powerful friends be brought down (along with, at least somewhat, the school). Joe was having to trust the word of McQueary AND believe that the matter had not been investigated fully by an administration Joe apparently trusted. I suspect that if either of these two men had known that this was at least the second instance of this sort of reported misbehavior, they might have been more likely to insist that stronger action be taken.
by BNittsDeMilo on Dec 17, 2011 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think for a second that Joe Paterno didn't know about the 98 incident.
I think he essentially canned Sandusky over it. He let him retire, and save face, but I’m pretty sure Sandusky got the point when Paterno told him that he was “thinking about going in a different direction” at defensive coordinator.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
I think it's very likely Joe knew there was an investigation
But I’m not so certain he knew what it was about. From my understanding of the workplace, bosses will be told an employee is being investigated, but unless charges are pressed they won’t be told why an investigation was taking place largely because of our country’s innocence assumed justice system. Finding out Jerry was being investigated for something was likely why Joe told him that he would not become the head coach when Joe retired.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
Capital Ideas
Capitol_Ideas:
Curley said he told Sandusky that he did to want him using athletic facilities and not to bring young people with him.
Dude, this guys need to SERIOUSLY start checking his tweets before he hits ‘send.’ This is the 3rd one I’ve seen that leaves quite an integral word in his sentences. I assume he he meant “did NOT want him using athletic…”
Easily one of the most useless feeds
up there.
Yeah, that's the guy who has been terrible throughout the coverage. Not to mention that aside from the misinformation that he's tweeting, he just seems to re-tweet the work of other people.
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
Lots more to unfold...
But as of right now, Perjury sounds about right, huh? How did it go from “something extremely sexual” with Joe to “horsing around” with Schultz and Curley?
by SkellerDweller06 on Dec 16, 2011 2:11 PM EST reply actions
From Ganim
He continued to explain that he couldn’t be precise about when he called athletic director
Tim Curley because it was a Saturday, and he probably didn’t want to disrupt his weekend.
Dumb. But that doesn't mean that is the actual reason.
I thought he had reported it the next day anyway?
Yes it is, that he summoned Curley to his house on Sunday
Which is why I’m not ready to crucify him for not calling him at 8am Saturday morning.
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
If he just waited a day..
I’m not going to get bent out of shape about this.
by Artiefufkin10 on Dec 16, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
Well, because it fits their narrative I guess.
McQueary didn’t meet with Joe until the next day. Where is the head shaking over that? I
I think the reasoning of not wanting to disturb people will cause more headshaking
Makes it seem like priorities were a little off. However, that doesn’t even register on the list of mistakes that people made with regard to this whole situation.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
OK
I’ve just been going off the tweets. Hard enough to keep up with all of this and try to do SOME work (failing miserably at that).
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
Seriously?
McQueary’s been destroyed by everyone for his actions.
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 2:25 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't see you destroying him for waiting a day? At least not during his testimony today.
I can’t speak for the last four weeks.
Then you've missed one of the six thousand times
I’ve said that everybody screwed up in this case by not acting quickly or forcefully enough.
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
Just find it interesting that the one piece of "juicy" testimony from Paterno
was what you decided to comment on.
Paterno's the only one not in deep legal trouble
Everybody else is being handled through the courts. At the same time, a large contingent on this site insists Joe was completely innocent of all wrongdoing.
by M1EK on Dec 16, 2011 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Technically Paterno isn't in any legal trouble
I can’t think of any legal obligation he violated. Moral? Well sure, we can debate that all the live-long day. But legal?
Uh, that's what I said.
Everybody else is in deep legal trouble.
Unless you thought I meant Joe was in slight legal trouble. That was not my implication. Joe appears to be clear of any and all legal trouble.
(answering below, I was not thinking of McQueary in this because he’s already entangled with the courts as a witness, but you’re probably right, he’s probably not in any legal trouble either).
Ha, read that TOTALLY wrong
I read it as “he’s not the only one in deep legal trouble.”
The AJ came out and said Paterno handled it correctly.
But no one remembers that.
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
LEGALLY correctly.
Because all you have to do to be legally correct is inform your superior, and technically Curley was Joe’s superior, even though that’s complete and utter bullshit to anybody who doesn’t desperately need that to be true.
I don't see MM
being in legal trouble….his LIFE will never be the same, and he may not EVER receive a future coaching job as high ranking as he might deserve. But legal trouble? I don’t see it.
"my dad says Michigan used to be good"
IS this a troll?
Because there isn’t much right about it at all.
That's my main point of contention with all of this mess, and always has been.
All of these guys knew something had happened in 2002 (if not earlier, in some instances). All of them did the bare minimum of kicking the can into someone else’s office and thought that was enough. McQueary, Paterno, Spanier, Curley, Schultz, all of them. Hell, we can lump in McQueary’s dad, the janitor who discovered a different incident, the Second Mile people, and countless others.
They ALL are responsible for this.
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You forgot Sandusky.
Just a minor oversight.
by Btd121 on Dec 16, 2011 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
We're pretty clear on Sandusky's role in this, are we not?
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
Huh? Please tell me how I am trolling?
I promise you I mean everything last thing I write.
by Btd121 on Dec 16, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
ESPN isn't, apparently.
And a significant number of people get their entire sports point of view from ESPN.
Given that, it may be worth choosing wording very carefully.
by Tezcatlipoca on Dec 16, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Sandusky is like the rabid dog
that had already bitten somebody once before. Everybody knew or logically should have known what he was, and if they had done their job, he would have been locked up.
You don’t debate about what to do with that rabid dog – you just lock it up so it can’t bite anybody. Those who don’t lock up the dog are the ones we should worry about, because that dog ain’t gonna change.
by M1EK on Dec 16, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Actually, I think they put rabid dogs down
Just sayin’
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
You beat me to that.
And a rabid dog is different from an aggressive dog, seeing as how one has rabies and the other is just poorly trained.
Tom Bradley for PSU Head Coach!
Follow @Paige2PSU
by Paige2PSU on Dec 16, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah
Our legal system doesn’t allow for pedophiles to just be put down, which is where the analogy necessarily falls apart. But those who don’t make sure pedophiles are kept away from kids are the human beings who could have done the right thing and didn’t; and they’re the only ones whose behavior we can logically expect to change.
For what it's worth, Texas does.
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
I have mixed feelings on capital punishment
but if we are going to use it at all, I think we should use it in the most heinous cases of rape
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
came late to the internet party and don't know the actual definition of trolling
I know you do. This may be “trolling” I don’t know. I have viewed your comments over the last several weeks but have chosen not to participate. Please know, that while I may disagree with your method of delivery, you have many good points and I agree with a fair amount of them.
This analogy however, rubs me the wrong way. REALLY wrong. We don’t know who knew what about any 1998 investigation. We DO know, that no arrest was made. You are saying we should “lock up the dog” because of an investigation that some people knew about that led to no arrest? WTF? I knew JS in 1998, are you worried about me as one of the non-dog-lockers?
It really seems you drift from flaming comment to comment just to get a reaction while claiming to carry on this moral torch because “the minority need a voice” and you’re “the only righteous one to speak out”. It stinks. I use the internet (and BSD in particular) to get information and to crack jokes with (internet) friends. You’re ruining it for the rest of us.
"my dad says Michigan used to be good"
by hbeach08 on Dec 16, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
It's an analogy
it’s not perfect. I think after 2002 there was enough obvious evidence that Sandusky should never have been allowed near kids ever again.
Based on what he said while overheard in 1998, those who knew the details of that investigation were similarly culpable. (“I want to die”, etc).
Relatively few people knew about the 1998 investigation. More knew about what happened in 2002. I blame everybody involved in 2002 for some portion of the child assaults that happened afterwards, emphasis on “some portion”, ranging from slightly culpable to partly culpable. Paterno is fairly low on the list, but he’s on the list. Most of the controversy here is because there are people who think he did everything he possibly could have or should have, which is obviously not true.
Third paragraph ignored – that isn’t helpful.
I disagree.
First…
They ALL are responsible for this.
I am not a fan of this wording, just because Sandusky is the one responsible for this. He started everything with his (at best) wildly inappropriate behavior or (at worst) his inhumane abuse of minors.
That being said, I assume you’re talking about who is responsible for the scandal, not for the abuse.
Of all the people responsible for the scandal, Paterno is so far down the list that, in my opinion, he is innocent. It seems pretty clear that he was never given a complete picture of what Sandusky was suspected of doing. McQueary basically says he tap-danced around the issue and wasn’t explicit. Paterno was, at the time, a 74 year old man who was not ideally equipped to figure out what the hell a 27 year old was dancing around due to cultural differences (culture isn’t just a national thing, it’s a generational thing too, among others).
So, Paterno put it in the court of a person who he best knew was supposed to know how to handle this. Hindsight may be 20/20, but in 2002, that was a pretty damn reasonable course of action for him. It wasn’t perfect, but it was reasonable.
by Tezcatlipoca on Dec 16, 2011 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
the current players
this is not meant to minimize the pain of the victims, they are always foremost in my mind (and I am going to take a giant leap and assume that others assume that as well), but damn. How stressful this must be for them.
"I've seen over 200 episodes of Law & Order and it's paying off big time!"
Again, The AJ went out of the way to praise Paterno on how he handled his part.
But M1EK, ESPN and everybody else know more than the AJ.
Go figure.
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
No, they're not. Sandusky is.
Everyone else – up to seemingly Schultz and Curley – did the right thing. Maybe not as quick as possible, but they did it.
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
by psume06 on Dec 16, 2011 3:05 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
I'm just saying according to more descript tweets,
that was not the lone reason he gave from when he called Curley. It’s a stretch to say that was the reason. We know the timeline on Mike for fact, Joe fumbling in the GJ interview to place the exact date of the call isn’t a reason to pile more on him is all I am saying.
I hope there is more to Paterno's testimony
that shows that he at least followed up Curley.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
Has anyone ever considered the possibility...
… that Sandusky is a weird friggin dude, but he may have never actually sexually assaulted a kid? I had a priest like that once. Weird dude. Never actually sexually assaulted any of us alter boys. The one guy that accused him ended up admitting that he made up the story when the defense cross-examined him. Trial within two hours of it starting.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 2:22 PM EST reply actions
I thought of that until I saw the Bob Costas interview
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
if I recall correctly
it was the Bob Costas interview that started making me think that what the Humble Buckeye is saying may be a possibility. Guy came off weird and creepy and attracted to little boys (the hesitation was about whether he was attracted or not), but he may never have actually did anything actually illegal (or at least to the extremes people are assuming).
Or perhaps he’s a serial rapist. Still, there’s a spectrum and he lays somewhere on it.
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 16, 2011 9:35 PM EST up reply actions
Curley Joe is even worse.
/anything to take our minds away from this
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
Don't really see it that way
the questioner seems bad to me
Curley is trying to recall his impressions of a 10 minute conversation in March of 2002
It obviously did not make a huge impression on him
He listened to Mike for a few minutes and came away knowing that Mike did not see anything concrete
That he simply had suspicions – no eyewitness sexual activity
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
As someone who works with kids and is well versed in it,
it’s not really up to the person to decide if it’s concrete to report it further. Schultz, with the knowledge of 1998, and Curley with knowledge of mandated reporting should have pushed this further even if nothing concrete ever came out of it.
I'm curious
If Schultz had knowledge of 1998, then he knew that DPW did nothing with the information they had then. They could have put Sandusky on a “watch” list to limit his involvement with children. As I understand it, that measure would not have required the level of proof that criminal charges would have. If Schultz was aware that the 1998 incident went nowhere, might that have influenced his willingness to pursue this incident?
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring". ~Rogers Hornsby
From his grand jury testimony, I don't know what would have influenced Schultz to pursue this.
There’s clearly times when things may be too blurry, not quite illegal to press charges (1998), but if Schultz had knowledge of this, this highlights a pattern of behavior.
He was the only one in this lineup that knowledge of both, so even if McQueary was vague, he should have been a lot inclined to push this than anyone else. Maybe he cared more about the police department looking bad because of 1998, or maybe he’s just a god damn idiot with no conscience. I have no idea.
Ouch
Audsnyder4: RT @andrewmcgill: Prosecutor brings up good point? Why go to the Second Mile if you didn’t know that this kid was in the program?
Well
It would make sense to go to the second mile if you thought he was messing around with kids.
…which begs the question, if you thought he was messing around with kids, why the hell didn’t you report it??
by SkellerDweller06 on Dec 16, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Obviously Paterno did do something in a timely manner.
audsnyder4:
RT @PatriotNews: Curley: Schultz and I went to Paterno’s house on a Sunday to discuss incident.
by FB6244 on Dec 16, 2011 2:26 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Where are the failure to report charges against Spanier?
If what Curley is saying is even half true about this, Spanier has no defense to not reporting, no one above him to pass the buck to.
And yes I realize those charges are likely to get thrown out anyway, just kind of a head scratcher with all the way the AG played to the media.
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
Capitol_Ideas needs to stop reporting
“Curley says Sandusky came back “a da or two later” to admit showering."
Can someone explain what this means?
"a day or two later"
But seriously, that guy is terrible.
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
Sandusky admitting showering to Curley though?
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
That's what I took it as anyway, now I have no idea.
Holy shit, I fucking hate this.
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
I'm trying to remove that feed. Site is very, very slow.
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
It's comical, really
but also distracting since none of us are there to see what is really said
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
twitter might kill me today
Conference call done, btw. In the best interest of everyone involved, we confirmed that Joe is still not Head Coach.
So Paterno did meet face to face with Schulz as well as Curley
Would be interesting to hear if he had the same impression of Schultz’s role with the police as MM.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
Maybe
Haven’t heard it directly from his testimony, at least not yet. Trying not to assume anything.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I agree wtih trying not to assume because we see where that can lead
but with McQ, Curley, and even Shultz’s own description of his duties I think Paterno assumed the same. BUt either way PAterno said forcefully that he trusted Curley to do the right thing, and he told Curley in a very reasonable amount of time.
Agreed
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
so, i've been unable to follow
Who brought Schultz into this: Curley or Joe?
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
That isn't clear to me
But my impression is Curley.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think the testimony makes it 100% clear
but they did say Paterno met with both of them the day after he was told.
Whether Schultz is a cop or not, CNN's take seems to be shifting to the affirmative on the issue.
Brooke Baldwin
(I’ll leave that on a line by itself)
was just speaking with Susan Candiotti in H’burg. They began to focus on the notion of Schultz as head of police with lots of “WOWs” interspersed for effect.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
He really looks like the "other" bad guy
in all of this and seemed so from the very beginning. Curly’s testimony saying it was his call not to notify the cops seems worse for him then I expected though.
by FB6244 on Dec 16, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
And I go back to
the fact that he had an obvious conflict of interest, brought up again a couple hours ago by JoePas_Doghouse:
Precisely the conflict of interest RT @jimbaumbach: Schultz’s “primary” concerns were business and finances, not police activity.
Most large universities
have that same (or similar) conflict of interest.
Do internet trolls live under internet bridges?
Follow @stp147
The conflict of interest issus is worth examining.
Those of us in university environments know that the campus cops are real. However, they are supervised by a system unlike anything else in the US — i.e., non-elected officials who are not accountable to the public in the same way that elected officials in an actual municipality would be.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Yes, I hope this system is reformed a bit to give university police a bit more independence
However, I honestly do not think that if I was in Joe’s or MM’s shoes, that I would have seen an obvious conflict of interest. I would have trusted in people to do the right thing. Maybe that is naive.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
Yeah
Its easy to see the conflict of interest when the system fails. Before then, you just have to be a very cynical person or have a stake/axe to grind
Whittle your whiskey around like blazes, t'underin' Jaysus, do ye think I'm dead?
by psuphysicist on Dec 16, 2011 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Cynicism is an interesting focal term here.
I’ve been teaching in a university environment for well over two decades and believe that a generalized cynical attitude has been continually rising as a function of generation throughout that period. This observation is anecdotal and impressionistic on my part, but it nonetheless makes me wonder how this mess is being read by people dependent on an age-group variable.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Can I take a guess?
but it nonetheless makes me wonder how this mess is being read by people dependent on an age-group variable.
Most probably, the strongest content that reaches ‘those people’ (dependent on an age-group variable) is that which has been shouted the loudest and with the most repetition. That content & style we’ve seen delivered by massive entertainment companies mistakenly referred to as media. Hell, we’ve even seen a microcosm of the style here in our own living room.
But that’s a half-assed guess and I remain mostly with you: with far more questions that answers (about the state of mind of our current information consumers).
Were I constructing a hypothesis,
I would expect that those in their 20s and 30s would be most likely to assume malevolent motive on the part of Paterno et. al.. There’s nothing wrong with skepticism, rather it is a healthy approach. But cynicism adds to skepticism the assumption of evil intent and is paralyzing to any attempt at constructing a viable social system. Trust is foundationally critical to a healthy social system.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
I have a very small sample size
but I am 28, and most my friends of a similar age that I have talked to about this have taken a less cynical stance than the general public (or so it seems to me). Take that for what it is worth.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
Cynicism is a function of age
As I see it, the path to cynicism directly correlates with the number of times you have seen your trust destroyed. Whether that is trust in ideals or trust in people. I am cynical that our executive and legislative bodies can ever do any good. I wasn’t always this way.
I’m cynical that ESPN will ever accurately report a story without an agenda. I wasn’t always this way either.
My conclusion: Growing up sucks.
Whittle your whiskey around like blazes, t'underin' Jaysus, do ye think I'm dead?
by psuphysicist on Dec 16, 2011 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
To sharpen the idea,
I would say that we have reached a place where we have institutionalized cynicism in our culture and are conveying it to our children at a younger age.
Because your point fits me. I’m much more cynical than I was 30 years ago. But more of the younger generation seems markedly more cynical than I was at their age.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Today on the Patty Winters Show: "Has Patrick Swayze Become Cynical Or Not?"
A pandemic of cowardice sweeps the nation.
I thought Patrick Swayze died of cancer
or is there something I am not getting here? Or is he actually alive and I just got confused?
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
100 BSD Bucks to the first to identify that reference.
but yeah he’s dead
A pandemic of cowardice sweeps the nation.
dissolve the campus police
Penn State needs to dissolve it’s police force and turn over all policing of the campus to the State College PD. Period. In turn PSU will be finacially reponsible to maintain the staffing needed to police the campus and the use of resources required. Remove the conflict of interest. Univeristy run police departments are a problem nationally – this isn’t the first problem like this (appears to be the worst though).
This seems to me a worthy solution.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
it wouldnt be hard to do
It would be a good action to take and would show the University is serious. Keep the security guards that patrol the dorm areas and hire State College to do the rest. Conflict of interest removed.
While that is a admirable thought
State College PD has pushed its own agenda at times (see State Patty’s Day stats that treated all arrests as students at first; Disclaimer: I think State Patty’s Day is stupid, I don’t need a Facebook event to enjoy adult beverages and vandalism is a ridiculous course of action)
Also, every small town PD has its own issues. They overreact on the small stuff and are ignorant in how to react on the big stuff.
Do internet trolls live under internet bridges?
Follow @stp147
Everybody has an agenda -- institutions too.
You are articulating what is really a problem with the very concept of a police force. And that seems an insoluble problem.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Agree with both of you
And while I’ll be the first to admit that I was only bringing problems not solutions to the table, this grey area between black and white just shows how at the end of the day all of these things are dependent on people doing the “right” thing. In risk management the term is residual risk, the amount of risk that remains after controls have been put in place.
As a side note this would have all been avoided if we had precogs. Would ESPiN be willing to fund a Penn State Pre-Crime unit?
Do internet trolls live under internet bridges?
Follow @stp147
A Penn State Pre-Crime unit would likely be a first if its kind.
Regardless of the route taken, changes clearly need to be made because the system failed at several points. Insert a different campus, or institution with a different cast of characters and outcome would sadly be very similar.
As a psychologist...
I wholeheartedly endorse the second paragraph. Blame and finger pointing obscure the fact that the scary thing is that most people reacted exactly as I would expect them to… especially with most being in situations in which the action that is most likely to not produce undesirable outcomes for them is inaction.
As for the first paragraph, sounds like a fun job, but I cannot foresee whether it will actually ever exist… so I’m guessing I’m not a candidate.
by BNittsDeMilo on Dec 17, 2011 12:41 AM EST up reply actions
this wouldn't completely remove the conflict of interest
since the funding would still come from, and be dependent upon, the university (and it’s success). Don’t think that those cops wouldn’t know where their paychecks ultimately come from and if we are assuming that the campus police are biased for essentially the same reason, then what reason do we have to believe that the State College PD would be any less biased?
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 16, 2011 9:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So it seems that according to both Curley and Schultz, Paterno did not convey that something sexual had occured
Is anyone else getting that? Credibility of those 2 is an issue right now, though.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
I don't see
Why it matters what Joe told them if they had the opportunity to speak with MM directly. All Joe had to do is the the right ppl together and it seems like he did that. The problem is “the right people” didn’t do the right thing.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
by belbijou on Dec 16, 2011 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Yes, if the eye witness tells them, they have no excuse
But it matters in the perception of whether or not Joe took this situation as seriously as he should have. And there are those who would argue that the way Joe framed things may have influenced how they viewed McQueary’s story
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
As VP in charge of facilities
I’m sure he has a ton of stuff on his plate
This was 9 to 10 years ago and it was a 10 of 12 minute meeting that seemed of little consequence at the time
A 27 year old “kid” GA football guy is upset about the saintly Jerry Sandusky – model citizen and founder of a well respected charity. MM has not seen anything that can be regarded as a crime.
Why do you think he’s a wanna be cop?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Not so saintly...
When he already had one shower accusation to his name 4 years ago that someone has testified that Schultz definitely knew a lot about.
by SkellerDweller06 on Dec 16, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But he also had heard of a similar report before
how does that not set off an alarm?
Wannabe was a joke
Incompetent was not.
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
Except that MM just testified
That he felt what he saw was a crime. The question is whether he conveyed that to Schultz and Curley…
How is that meeting "of little consequence"?
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
Several reasons
1 it lasted only 10 or 12 minutes
2) it was a GA of 27 who could not testify to seeing anything concrete
3) he wasn’t sure about intercourse or fondling
4) He only saw it for seconds
5) He left the two alone naked in the shower
6) he said they were both standing erect
7) jerry had been investigated for a very similar incident in 98 and cleared and this was more of the same.
8) Jerry had a great reputation as a do gooder and was around kids since 77 with only one unfounded incident of a similar nature that was investigated.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
and most importantly
the boy was not distressed, did not ask for help, was not in pain did not rush out of the showers with Mike but elected to stay with Jerry
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
the boy elected to stay with JS?
what?
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
Seriously what?
If you are serious – they left together. That doesn’t sound like the action of a kid who was being raped.
…at least not to anyone who’s not a rape counselor.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
WHat btohers me most about this media coverage
Is that it has focused on the wrong thing. It should focus on getting the kids to come forward when in this situation.
But a child of this age is in no position to make a reasonable decision.
He knows Jerry, He doesn’t know the big redheaded goof.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
You know that...
I hope I would realize that in the situation…
I definitely wouldn’t expect most people to realize it – hence my ‘anybody who’s not a rape counselor’ comment.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Jeez, I hope it wouldn't be "most."
But I should probably know better.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
I'm simply going by what I think Schultz was thinking
given the relative stature of Mike vs Jerry
and the investigation in 98 that turned up nothing criminal
and the fact that Mike was not able to say anything for certain
just conjecture.
I’m not condoning anything – just trying to figure out Gary’s thought process
I don’t think he’s a bad guy enabling a molester
I think he was reasoning like an administrator and weighing what he was hearing with what he knew or thought.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
I agree 100% with what you're saying.
The reasons you’re stating may not be right, but they are rationalizations people could have made (and apparently did make) at the time.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
I brought that up a while ago
when the internet tough guys all said they would have run in and kicked JS’s ass.
I think the big redheaded goof pounding on Jerry while a little boy stood there naked and traumatized, would not have been the best solution. Slamming the locker stopped it in a non-violent way.
I am still absorbing what did/should/could have happened after
"I've seen over 200 episodes of Law & Order and it's paying off big time!"
by letsgopsu on Dec 17, 2011 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
the boy did not run after Mike
he knew he was there
looked him in the eye
did not show distress or pain
Could have followed Mike out if he wished
but did not
and Mike was evidently not concerned for him at the point he left him alone with Jerry
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Sorry, but that's a very black and white presumption
If I recall, JS conditioned the kids (allegedly) to trust him and to keep those things secret.
If the kid was raped by a complete stranger, then I would say yeah, the kid should have ran to MM. But this is someone the kid knew personally. It’s far more complex psychologically.
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Just because he didn't ask for help doesn't mean he didn't need it
I don’t think you can expect a young kid in that situation to know what to do
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with both Mr. Rosewater and Nittany_Ryan on this...
Child abusers are master manipulators and the child was likely not in a psychological state to act in a manner that we as adults would want the child to.
by Tezcatlipoca on Dec 16, 2011 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
These are very good points
And bring up even better points. How, as someone who will hopefully never be exposed to this, do I know if something is up. What does one look for? Are there any experts in this area that can help us out just in case we find ourselves in a similar, unfortunate situation?
Whittle your whiskey around like blazes, t'underin' Jaysus, do ye think I'm dead?
by psuphysicist on Dec 16, 2011 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
that is what organizations like RAINN are for
They can point you in the right direction. Education leads to prevention, IMO
"I've seen over 200 episodes of Law & Order and it's paying off big time!"
I think you are putting too much in to not running away
the lack of “screams” or the kid being upset is “interesting” though.
this may not have been the first encounter
its horrible to think, but perhaps the poor boy had learned to just bear it in silence.
"I've seen over 200 episodes of Law & Order and it's paying off big time!"
it's statutory rape when an adult has sex with a minor
regardless of whether there it was “consensual,” though I don’t think you can even use that word.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
by spakajewia on Dec 16, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, but you don't think most people have this mental picture...
of rape victims showing emotional distress? I would think one of the biggest things McQueary had to process in that moment was the fact that the kid seemed calm.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly
a big man raping a boy would strike me as incredibly painful and distressing
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Mikes slapping sounds and 'thrusting" comments
seem anything but gentle
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Clearly you have never been in boy scouts
nor the military, nor had a bath with your father. I’m not defending rape. When it does happen, it is heinous and unforgivable. But not all “fooling around” is rape.
poor communication on my part
by “fooling around” i meant “inappropriate contact”.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
I'm pretty sure that's a crime
even if there wasn’t “insertion”. Corrupting of youth, indecent assualt of a minor, etc. something…
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
Schultz's testimony
says he was under the impression that genitals may have been grabbed. It may not be rape, but how does he not believe this is a crime of sexual assult? And he was in the same meeting with MM as Curley, yet one hears inappropriate, ans the other hears of an assault. I can pretty much see how these two guys were not as credible as MM
by PSU Mudder on Dec 16, 2011 2:38 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Contextually, the only way genitals are being grabbed is either sexual or with intent to do great bodily injury.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Dec 16, 2011 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It would be a very odd replacement for a welcoming hand shake...
by Tezcatlipoca on Dec 16, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think you watched Crocodile Dundee one too many times.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Schultz said Mike was saying
Schultz testified to Grand Jury he got “the impression” it was inappropriate, Jerry horsing around, “maybe grabbing boy’s genitals.” #psu
“maybe grabbing genitals” not certain
could not see because their backs were to him. He could not know for certain
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Let the finger pointing begin....
Schultz: I believed Curley would handle the situation appropriately.
by SkellerDweller06 on Dec 16, 2011 2:38 PM EST reply actions
Exactly
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
Well, it's certainly a language.
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
It's employment law.
E.g., Superfly: “Workin’ some jive job for chump change.”
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Schultz's testimony is all over the place.
Then again it could be the twitter that is making it worse.
"Schultz: Sandusky commonly wrestled people, punched them, 'clowned around,' May have accidentally grabbed genitals."
What the fuck is wrong with this guy?
JS= the aforementioned ‘This Guy’
Run.
I have no idea how Schultz
reconciled this in his mind.
This...
is why I have had this incredibly heinous little idea festering in my mind ever since this whole thing broke.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
MOre than likely
he just wasn’t a responsible person and didn’t want to deal with it.
He does have a mustache.
/clinging
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
According to Schultz, JS liked to horse around, but was not sexually, but may have grabbed genitals, but maybe by accident, and didn’t meet with JS, and didn’t look for the kid because it wasn’t an investigation, but called Second Mile to report it.
Huh?
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
seriously
what, it was common for “kids of all ages” to shower with Jerry at odd hours?
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
Like I said earlier
Cop or not, Schultz is coming off TERRIBLE today.
A new player emerges?
Capitol_Ideas:
Schultz Jerry was the kind of guy who would regularly wrestle you and put you in a. Headlock.
Who the f*** is Schultz Jerry? (Sorry, I just like ripping on this guy.)
Hey guys I had to do work. Is some amateur going to provide a summary of this at some point?
A pandemic of cowardice sweeps the nation.
Schultz doesn't remember going to Joe's house???
I am surprised PSU facilities functioned as well a they did with this guy in charge.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
I'm surprised he hasn't urinated on himself on the stand...
… given that he seems to be a completely non-functioning adult.
by Tezcatlipoca on Dec 16, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry... in his seat, I mean.
I get caught up in courtroom talk. >.<
by Tezcatlipoca on Dec 16, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
That is what Papa McQueary mouthed to him
“I hope you brought a change of underwear”
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
"Man, you really smell like piss!"
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
Seriously man, Schultz is a total idiot.
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
But I sure he's a wiz with crunching numbers
And as a VP of Finance (his main job) that’s all he really had to be good at
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
I think he looks the worst coming away from today
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
Far and away the worst.
I was really interested in the tweets describing his demeanor today as well.
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
From what I think I learned today:
I can’t believe McQ didn’t call the police right away if he thought he knew what was happening. He obviously parsed some words when communicating to others. JoePa took a very appropriate first step, and we know followed up to some extent with McQ. Curley apparently took too much authority, and Schultz is criminally idiotic.
criminally idiotic
If this isn’t statutory, it should be.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Frank Zappa
(paraphrased) The scientists have it all wrong. Hydrogen is not the most abundant element in the universe. Stupidity is.
McQ went to people he trusted for advice: his dad and Joe
neither of whom told him to call the police. I blame them all for not calling the police immediately. People trusted the wrong people. MM shouldn’t have trusted Joe to solve the problem, Joe shouldn’t have trusted Curley to solve it, and Curley shouldn’t have trusted Schultz to solve it.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
...and yet University policy said they should have been able to trust the system.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
…and yet University policy Pennsylvania law said they should have been able to trust the system.
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 17, 2011 4:09 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I don't blame Joe
for setting up the meeting at that point. If someone told me they thought they saw something sexual with a kid, and didn’t go to the police right away, I would think there might be some doubt or something.
let the police determine if there's doubt
I think people are giving Joe more than the benefit of the doubt. If you think McQ’s dad should have told him to tell the police, then I don’t see what’s that different with Joe. He also should have told him to call the police.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
by spakajewia on Dec 16, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I think it is clear Joe thought he was telling an appropriate
police authority in Schultz. Which I think now is clear to everyone was an obvious error in judgement.
Not sure if you just phrased this badly or what.
In 2011, yes we can say it was an obvious error in judgement. But in 2002, it’s anything but. Especially since Joe apparently had no knowledge of the 1998 incident.
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
Well yeah
I mean in 2002 I am sure some people thought Schultz was competant in some respects. Or that Curley would have done more than just call Sandusky. But yeah, things look different in hindsight.
Gotcha, my bad.
Thought maybe you were condemning the judgement to go to Schultz in 2002, sorry.
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
Of course
It still stands to reason that Joe and McQueary THOUGHT Schultz was the police (McQueary said as much earlier). In terms of judging their moral guilt, if they truly believed Schultz to be of someone with law enforcement authority (Even if he didn’t have it!) can we judge them for not going to the actual police when they may have believed they already did?
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
by Rogue Nine on Dec 16, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This is a good question
I am inclined to say that if Joe and MM thought they had effectively talked to the head of the police, that it relieves them of a lot of the “moral culpability” that lots of people were charging them with.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
No.
Most of the moral culpability stems from not doing anything more for years afterwards when it was clear that whomever they thought they reported to didn’t do anything about it.
by M1EK on Dec 16, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I really want to live in your world...
it must be great to see every injustice righted my strong men of high character.
Outside of Fantasyland, not every crime can be prosecuted.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
and 1
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
Problem is, we still don't know he didn't do anything.
If he was told an investigation had turned up empty, why would he have to do anything else? He’d (incorrectly, though understandably) would assume Sandusky was innocent.
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
by dbl5030 on Dec 16, 2011 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
...or maybe he'd just have accepted as fact that there wasn't any legal action to be taken agains Sandusky?
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
You're making assumptions
If someone you believed to be the police told you “Well we looked into it but couldn’t find anything concrete” there aren’t really any more courses of action to take if those are people you trust and you believe those are people of authority.
To us we know Curley and Schultz didn’t actually do anything, but to Joe and MM at the time depending on what they told him and what they believed Schultz to be, it might have seen as if the police determined there wasn’t enough to pursue charges and the issue was over, nothing left to do.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
Joe knew
Schultz was just a bureaucrat and Curley was the kid he hired to be his boss after he got tired of being the AD. These are not professionals in law enforcement.
by M1EK on Dec 16, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
...and you still maintain that you're not given to trolling?
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
People respond
why should he stop? I have done it too. Sometimes it is really hard not o.
by FB6244 on Dec 16, 2011 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Yes.
And those of you who can’t imagine anybody can possibly disagree with you without being trolling are really, really, really in need of some serious introspection.
Those statements are true. Joe knew who Schultz was. Joe knew who Curley was. He knew those two guys were not cops. He knew Schultz was a university exec, not a member of law enforcement.
The actual GJ testimony also makes it more clear that Joe knew in more detail how bad the incident in the shower was than many people here wanted to believe.
by M1EK on Dec 16, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
what part of the actual GJ testimony makes that clear?
honest question, as I haven’t yet read the testimony. The only thing I saw was him confirming he was told of something of a sexual nature, but that was already assumed since that was part of his testimony as revealed in the presentment. Still begs the question as to what “a sexual nature” implies to him: naked in the shower with a young boy with any sort of contact, or actual molestation.
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 17, 2011 4:14 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
McQueary said Paterno appeared "shocked and saddened" and "slumped back in his chair," McQueary said. He added that Paterno told him, "I’m sorry you had to see that" and that he had "done the absolute right thing," McQueary said.
Add that to “fondling, or something of a sexual nature” from Paterno’s own words, which is something a lot of people here have been ignoring since the presentment came out.
Paterno knew it was molestation. I do not have any doubt on that.
Technically he hired him to replace Jim Tarmen.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
"Joe knew"
Your response to my belief you’re making assumptions is just another assumption.
I mean, if you can go and find me the written or spoken record of what Joe knew Schultz to be, fine, but if you can’t you’re making accusations based on your own beliefs rather than known facts.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
by Rogue Nine on Dec 16, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Joe isn't stupid
And anybody who isn’t stupid knew Schultz was a bureaucrat. How much more clear can this be?
It could be clearer if bureaucrats were never in charge of police departments.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:39 PM EST up reply actions
So you're admitting that bureaucrats can be in charge of police...
Interesting…
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Interesting
I’ve never said they can’t be “in charge of” police. That is different from “being” police.
Yet you're almost to the point of seeing how someone who's not a unifomed officer...
can be seen as representing Police Services.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
No.
We are nowhere near that point, nor will we ever be. You can go there if you want; I’m going to stay right here – where the guy in charge of the police department for budgetary and organizational reasons is not and never was a cop.
by M1EK on Dec 16, 2011 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You just completely ignored his statement.
“representing police services” =/= “is a cop”
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
I knew where he was going.
No, that doesn’t count as “reporting it to the police”. In this sense, McQueary is wrong. And if Paterno ever said it that way, he’d be wrong too.
Agreed. Shultz is not "a cop"
I think we can all agree that Shultz was not a cop—he didn’t go through the academy or have a bage or carry a gun. That said, I think it is important to consider what McQ and Paterno’s perception of Shultz was in 2002. If they perceived that they were reporting it to a person in charge of the police. Harmon even stated that he reported to Shultz while he was the police chief.
I think what you are discounting is that McQ stated earlier that he thought he was talking to the head of the police. In his mind, he was reporting it to the D.A.
by Jeannine Pinaula on Dec 16, 2011 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, but
He’s be wrong, but it was Schultz’s job to tell him he was wrong. It’s not his job to understand how University Safety’s org chart works.
by reedjohnmiller on Dec 16, 2011 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
So you're entire stance on this issue
Is boiled down to nitpicking the difference, and then arguing vehemently against one view using the nitpicked side? Instead of actually arguing the idea/point of a vast number of posters?
That is the very definition of a strawman argument.
For the record, I agree with a number of your points regarding possible follow up, etc. However, they don’t change the initial argument. Acknowledging this would go a long way towards making some progress in the actual discussion.
Whittle your whiskey around like blazes, t'underin' Jaysus, do ye think I'm dead?
by psuphysicist on Dec 16, 2011 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This argument
is me against a hundred people desperately searching for chinks in an argument so they can gleefully pound their chests and say “See?”. Please remember this isn’t just you and I at a table somewhere.
It’s important to understand that the rest of the country does not and never did buy the angle that by reporting to Schultz, they had “called the cops”. That is one important point. Even if you disagree, you need to understand that you are on very shaky ground there.
Second important point is that I believe Paterno knew Schultz was a bureaucrat and not a cop. So, yes, legally speaking, all he had to do was talk to Curley about it. But Schultz doesn’t bring it to the level of “calling the cops” for Paterno either. McQueary is, at this point, young and naive enough to possibly be fooled, but not Paterno (and remember, this is 75 year old Paterno, not 85 year old Paterno).
Ok, it is official. I will no longer read a word you say unless someone asks me to.
That is how wrong you are.
Who cares if Schultz was a bureaucrat?
The point everyone’s trying to make is that Joe wanted an investigation started. He went to someone who he believed had the power to make that investigation happen.
The issue isn’t cop vs executive.
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
The bureaucrat
is the one who, later on, y’all are assuming Joe should have trusted to have figured out that there was nothing to it.
And?
Yeah, in 2011 we know it was the wrong move. In 2002? Perfectly logical move.
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
No.
Going to have to agree to disagree here. A bureaucrat with obvious conflicts of interest is not the perfectly logical move. It’s somewhat defensible in some peoples’ minds, but even some of those people say it’s only defensible at first, not later on when nothing happened.
There is no
obvious conflict of interest. Should one person have both jobs? No, but not because of a conflict of interest.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Dec 16, 2011 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
obvious conflict of interest
As an executive, his interest is in protecting the school’s image at all costs. A cop would be most interested in protecting the victim and future victims, theoretically.
"at all costs"...
Good to know that, in your mind, that includes committing crimes.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
No..
I don’t agree with that. Any polic chief has to deal with budgetary matters. Schultz’s job wasn’t to protect the University at all costs.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Dec 16, 2011 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
You mean like the cops did in 1998?
I don’t get this constant assertion that if only a “real” cop had been called in 2002, everything would have ended differently.
I may be beating a dead horse (and it has nothing to do with the charges heard today), but even the DPW investigator in 1998 didn’t think there was enough to keep an eye on Sandusky.
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring". ~Rogers Hornsby
2002
had an adult eyewitness. 1998 was kids’ word versus trusted adult’s word, and somewhat creepy but ultimately non-convictable words overheard at the kid’s home.
I too am disturbed nothing more happened after 1998 – at least nobody watching – and I hope we’ll learn more about why.
Not just overheard
Actively investigated by “real” police and DPW.
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring". ~Rogers Hornsby
Cops worry about politics and budgets, too
See for example the work of Commissioner Burrell in Baltimore a few years back, when Major Colvin tried “unusual” police tactics in the Hamsterdam neighborhood.
First thing Burrell did when he found out was call Mayor Royce to see what he wanted to do.
Politics matter in police departments, too.
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Dec 16, 2011 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
I've pointed this situation out multiple times
Whittle your whiskey around like blazes, t'underin' Jaysus, do ye think I'm dead?
by psuphysicist on Dec 16, 2011 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
I'm seeing conflict of interest
built in to the organizational structure of the university. That’s not the same as saying that the participants ever thought of it this way.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
That's what I've been saying from day one.
It’s also the reason why I hold the BOT and University Administration responsible.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
Aye, this is what is so important!
Default human behavior gets twisted inside these orgs/cultures/institutions (this Uni, a church, a local school system, a Boy Scout troop, a family).
We gotta figure out how to flip the incentives so adults’ actions default in favor instead to children and not to other adults or the institutions—away from secrecy and toward disclosure.
And not even just from adult to children,
but from powerful to powerless as well. Which would automatically include the children.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Oh gawd
You gone and said the ‘P’ word. Power is exactly what’s at play here. Luckily Ice-T spat about it back in ’88:
I say what I think,
the system does stink
Money you walk,
you short,you’re writin’ from the klink
Come on,what’s up,you know the laws are full of bull
Prey on the lame,release those with pull
Power!I know you wanta try it
Well check it out money can buy it
Control and mold the world to do your wishin’
The knowledge of power is mine,so just listen
Money controls the world and that’s it!
And once you got it,then you can talk shit
I love Ice . . .
I quoted him a couple of weeks ago on here:
“I never cruise LA
without a gat in my lap.”
It suddenly crystallizes before me that I can rock Waylon and Ice-T.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Dec 16, 2011 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
AWESOME!
From Midnight, right? My wife didn’t really dig it the one night I sprung lyrics from that song on her:
Midnight, chillin from the a.m./p.m.
Coolin, drinkin apple juice in Evil’s BM
She was like ’drinking apple juice in a bowel movement? wtf?
Absolutely!
I heard the apple juice line that way the first few times myself.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Of course it's indefensible if
IF Paterno did nothing else when nothing happened. But we don’t know that yet. But the initial move is defensible if Joe doesn’t see Schultz in the negative light we all see him in now.
It seems like you’re saying it’s indefensible because obviously Paterno should’ve assumed the worst about Schultz.
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
No.
Even if you think it defensible to trust Schultz in 2002, how about in 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006? 2007? 2008?
Yes?
If Paterno was told nothing came up after an investigation, then why would it be any different than in 2002?
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
Simple
McQueary is sitting right there. “Son, remember that time you told me Sandusky was doing something of a sexual nature to that kid in the shower? Are you SURE? Because nothing seems to have happened about it”.
McQueary: “Yup, I’m sure”.
Paterno: “Sandusky is still hanging around campus and still working with kids. Maybe I ought to do something about that, since the guys I talked to last time clearly did nothing”.
We don't know the answer to that
We don’t know why Joe didn’t push Schultz further. Perhaps Schultz said “after talking to McQuery some more, we think he was mistaken and didn’t see a crime so we decided to drop it.”
Not good, but not much Joe can do with that.
University police, at all universities, are in a bit of a conflicted position, because they work for the university. Same with any police and the government they work for.
Schultz was not a cop, but it wasn’t McQuery’s (or Paterno’s) job to understand the distinction between his job and the police chief’s job. It’s an easy mistake to make. It was Schultz’s job to either tell the real cops or to tell McQuery that he had to tell the real cops.
I can tell you this, that if I ever see a crime on campus, I’m not going to the PSU cops. I’ll go to the State College cops. Tom King is a good guy and I have a lot more faith in them. He can tell me that it’s not in their jurisdiction, but I’ll let that be their problem. I think a good rule is to report it to some kind of real cop just to get it on some record and then go from there.
by reedjohnmiller on Dec 16, 2011 5:21 PM EST up reply actions
But why should
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
Sorry, hit enter too fast.
Why should Joe have assumed something needed to be done? You’re assuming he never talked to Curley or Schultz about it, and also assuming he thought Sandusky was guilty.
Neither of these are necessarily true.
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
right
because everything about McQueary’s story has been rock solid and consistent throughout the entire ordeal, despite 4 other people claiming conflicting (or omitted) stories from him.
There’s no possible way that McQueary’s answer to that wasn’t, “no, I’m not 100% sure. I think what I saw was inappropriate, but if nothing came of the investigation then I guess I’m cool with just watching him and making sure he doesn’t bring more kids on campus like was decided.”
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 17, 2011 4:25 AM EST up reply actions
MM's own words
that we can actually verify have been consistent – what we’ve seen that are inconsistent are leaks from people who were, honestly, likely connected to the defense teams.
Back home, all of the cops are from my town
Would it not be a conflict of interest to be arresting people they know or have regular dealings with?
There are conflicts of interest everywhere and it’s really just a cop out at this point to cite them as the reason people shouldn’t trust other people to do the right thing. There are people in this world who trust and people who aren’t paranoid of everything, you may fall into that category but most of us do not.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
by Rogue Nine on Dec 16, 2011 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And the military
is overseen by a political official. We’ve never seen the military be used in a political manner…
Do internet trolls live under internet bridges?
Follow @stp147
Do you think McQueary is stupid?
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:40 PM EST up reply actions
Seriously?
In 2002?
I’ll say he, in 2002, was a lot more defensibly credulous than Joe Paterno.
by M1EK on Dec 16, 2011 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think that makes Mike stupid
and I don’t think Joe’s readiness to trust people is any less defensible. My opinion. You are entitled to yours.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Having met Mike and followed his career
I know him not to be a stupid person, yet he testified he believed that Schultz was the police.
That doesn’t exactly meld with your theory.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
I'm so glad you're a mind reader
And can know with such exact certainty, every thought that anyone has had, might have, or will have about this entire situation. Just knowing that you knew what Joe knew at that exact point in time (sniff) makes me start to cry a little.
Nope, not cos you make sense, but cos you’re so great at knowing everything, and letting us all know how we are supposed to think. Heaven forbid anyone disagree with you – personal attack! Not Civil! Oh but the mind reader knows when we are trying to be civil and when not. Uh huh.
So since a guy sits behind a desk, he isn’t a cop. Go tell that to any cop on desk duty. Right very clear there, isn’t it.
"Success without honor is an unseasoned dish; it will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good."
Joe Paterno
by NUPSU on Dec 16, 2011 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Obviously Mike McQueary was stupid then.
And Brandon Short who earlier stated that he believed Shultz to be the police.
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
It seemed to me that lot of the moral culpability arguments stem from not going to the police
That is not all of it, but it seems to me to be a part of it.
If they believed they had effectively done this by involving Schultz (not saying Schultz=police, I agree with you that he does not, but if that is what they effectively thought) then I thin it relieves them of some of the moral culpability they were being charged with. If it turns out that Joe did follow up with Curley and/or Schultz and was told that the situation had been looked into and handled in a manner they thought was appropriate, then in my eyes at least, he will have fulfilled his moral responsibility. I’m not going to blame him for having trust in people. I am reserving judgement until I hear more, which has been my position since day one.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
M1EK
if you talked to the cops about seeing your neighbor do something suspicious, and they don’t arrest him… what do you do?
You probably assume that they cops found no evidence, or they didn’t press charges, or both. Maybe you think he’s a creep, but legally, he’s an innocent man.
Why is it so hard to imagine that Paterno/McQ assumed it was handled, and that they didn’t need to don their vigilante outfits and go all Curtis Sliwa on Sandusky?
It seems that Curley and/or Shultz made the call not to launch a formal investigation. The buck has to stop somewhere, but I’m not sure that Paterno/McQ is the last stop.
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Dec 16, 2011 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
Reductio ad absurdium
Nobody has ever expected Paterno to go vigilante.
I did expect him to go to the real cops; or follow up later on with some real cops. And Schultz is not a cop, by any stretch of the imagination. If that wasn’t obvious to McQueary, it damn well should have been to Paterno, who had worked in the university for decades at that point and knew he was a budget/finance guy.
by M1EK on Dec 16, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I would agree
with you more if MM’s testimony had been stronger on what he saw and what he told Paterno. I don’t even think MM is sure what he saw 9 years later.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Dec 16, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
I'll buy the follow up
curious to find out (hopefully) what he was told after the fact by Curley and/or Schultz and/or Spanier.
The assumption that everyone is wrestling with (no pun intended) is that Joe called a meeting, then never spoke of this again.
We don’t know that to be true or false.
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Dec 16, 2011 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
We know
he spoke to McQ about it from his testimony today.
Yes.
But nothing about his conversations with any of the other senior players.
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Dec 16, 2011 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
True enough...
but it’s enough for me to believe that Joe probably did follow up with at least Curley, and probably Schultz too. Not saying I know for a fact, just that that’s what I believe…
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, I certainly believe it happened
just don’t know what transpired in those conversations.
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Dec 16, 2011 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
You're still making assumptions about what Joe thought Schultz to be
Schultz’s job description may very well be clear to us now, but 9 years ago without research he may very well have appeared to Joe as police. I can’t imagine Joe has spent lots of time memorizing the university charter or if he even knew Schultz all that well at all.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
9 years ago
Paterno was aware of most of the major university administrators. It is revisionist history to suggest he was just a humble football coach toiling away in a quiet corner of campus.
It's revisionist history
to think (and conjecture) that Joe was an administrator 9 years ago.
Heck, most RAs are aware of the major university administrators (especially in student affairs and where the police fall in the org chart). That doesn’t mean they have their annual performance objectives on his desk and can tell what their priorities are.
Do internet trolls live under internet bridges?
Follow @stp147
He might have known their names
But like I said, do you think he read the university charter to memorize each and every single one of their functions within the school hierarchy? Listed under Schultz’s responsibilities is University Police, it’s absolutely no stretch to think he may have some sort of legal authority and McQueary testified that’s what he believed to be true.
Your description of Joe isn’t really far from the truth, he was just the football coach, he wasn’t the AD, he wasn’t on the BoT, he coached and administrated his team. Those were his responsibilities, he might very well have met Schultz along the line, but you’re assuming that at some point over his years here, they had some reason to interact a lot, and I don’t see why they would.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
if you want to go that route - then 9 years ago
is probably when JVP, as he has admitted, was at his lowest and most removed. He had lost his brother, Sue had been ill, and the team was disjointed. He admitted in speeches (of which I am 1st hand witness) that he had not been as engaged during that time. In his whole career it’s probably closest he ever came to being in a quiet corner.
You opened the door to “history” – and that’s not revisionist
it's not in any way an excuse
for action or inaction – but don’t rely on Tsar Joe to back up your characterization of Gary Schultz’ CV
Good points . . .
And explanations are not always excuses even though there is a contemporary tendency to tar them as such.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Dec 16, 2011 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good points
I generally support him, but he was pretty detached then.
It doesn’t really matter if Joe “should” have known Schultz’s job description. It’s very possible that he didn’t. He doesn’t know lots of things he “ought” to know, like how to use a headset.
In any event, I don’t think it was too much for him to assume Curley and Schultz would handle it properly if they told him that they would. Perhaps he trusted them too much, but that’s not a great moral failing on his part.
by reedjohnmiller on Dec 16, 2011 5:30 PM EST up reply actions
Reductio ad absurdium
sic
???
At surface this does not appear to be so.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
/philosopher burn
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
eh, Latin can get like that sometimes
I had convivite nudem stuck in my vernacular for a long time. Then I got married and partied naked far less often.
This is the truth
I’ve partied naked more often after I got married
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
hmmm....
(thinking….) I should clarify:
Then I got married and partied naked in public far less often
Then I got married and partied naked with far fewer others far less often
Then I got married and partied naked out of doors far less often.
I wasn't talking about Latin grammar so much.
I was talking about the fact that reducto ad absurdium does not mean what M1EK seems to think it means. He’s free to make all the asinine analogies he wants, but when somebody else makes one he doesn’t like, they’re taking the argument too far into simplistic terms.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 17, 2011 12:56 AM EST up reply actions
Indeed it doesn't.
Further, it’s absurdum, not absurdium. Thus my sic.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Disclaimer:
The closest I’ve ever come to studying Latin was three years of Spanish in high school.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 17, 2011 1:35 AM EST up reply actions
Hey....
that’s not Lindsay Lohan!
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 17, 2011 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Paterno doesn't necessarily have to believe that Schultz was a cop at that point.
He just has to trust that Schultz wouldn’t be flat out lying about a police investigation that went nowhere. Was it a mistake to not follow up? Absolutely. Was it morally reprehensible? Not if he thought he did everything he should have. To be morally culpable there has to be some intent to not pursue matters to the fullest, and a making a legitimate mistake (i.e. trusting the words of another) does not imply that intent.
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 17, 2011 4:32 AM EST up reply actions
I honestly now believe that anything short
of Joe Paterno beating the everliving shit out of Sandusky, tying him up to a chair and beating him into a full confession would be not enough for you m1ek.
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
I agree with that.
In hindsight you could have always done more.
by FB6244 on Dec 16, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't know
Frankly, I’m not sure how much I trust McQ’s testimony that he felt like Schultz was the DA. But if we take him at his word, then I think it would absolve him of a lot of the guilt. And same with Joe, I guess, though I suspect Joe knew better. But if I assume that Joe really thought Schultz was the police (an assumption I’m not ready to make), I would then feel a good deal better about his moral culpability.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
This all comes down to whether or not you take people at their word, and which ones you will do that for
I have to wonder why Schultz would have been brought it in the first place, if it wasn’t believed even a little that he had some sort of law enforcement authority.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
My belief
is that Curley brought him in so they could decide together whether to investigate or, and this is important, not to investigate.
Agreed.
do you think that Schultz was brought in because:
- he oversaw police?
- he oversaw the budget?
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Dec 16, 2011 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
Yes..
you don’t bring in Schultz for shits and giggles.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Dec 16, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
nah
schlitz for schlitz n giggles ;)
"Success without honor is an unseasoned dish; it will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good."
Joe Paterno
schlitz n giggles
A pizza joint in Baton Rouge.
True.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
It's the Killer B trip.
Bring it on.
They serve Schlitz in the bottle and on tap and I’m just ironic enough to drink and enjoy it.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Gtfo!
You’re just ironic enough to drink AND enjoy it?
And, oh gawd, you gone and said the Killer B’s. Let’s hope this road trip brings some sunshine ala The Jungle Brothers:
Nighttime fades away, on to the next day
The weatherman predicts a clear sunny Saturday
Relax laid back and feelin the cool breeze
Positive vibes in sauce and the melodies
Gather my leaves and all my minerals
Fix myself a bowl of vegetables
Ice cold water and chopped up fruits
Gonna be a long day so I throw on my boots
Stretch out my hut and beyond the sun rises
Clouds gather round and suddenly hides it
Doubled back cause it started pourin
Children scared of the thunder roarin
Given the light but now there’s darkness
Started with intelligence, now there’s ignorance
Negative vibes now I don’t feel right
I want my sunshine, I want my sunlight
Same old story, over and over
Somebody tryin to take knowledge over
So I fight back with a native dance
Sing my song and chant my chants
Rain, rain, go away
Please come back another day
The sun will shine and now the sky is gray
Please rain, go way
{Lah lahhhhhhh-lah.. lah-lahhhh..}
{Lah lahhhhhhh-lah.. lah-lahhhh..}
{Lah..}
Yes
That’s what I have thought all along. Why was he there if not in his capacity as head of the police?
And even if he was the wrong guy to ask, he talked to the police EVERY DAY and could tell them “look into this, but don’t blab about it until you get something solid.” The fact that he never told them is unconscionable. He can’t argue “oh, well that wasn’t really my job.”
by reedjohnmiller on Dec 16, 2011 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
Because
Curley wanted to bring him in, so that he could decide whether to investigate or, and again important, not to investigate.
This was an ass-covering move, first and foremost. As noted in other subthreads here, you don’t decide whether to report; you just report – and for moral culpability, you don’t decide to just hand it off to somebody else and then wash your hands of it forever.
You keep implying Joe washed his hands of it forever.
We don’t know this yet.
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
by dbl5030 on Dec 16, 2011 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
So you're saying you think that Curley believed Schultz to have the power to kick off investigations or not
But if Paterno believed that he’s an idiot?
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
by Rogue Nine on Dec 16, 2011 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
I am anxiousley awaiting a reply on this one
"I've seen over 200 episodes of Law & Order and it's paying off big time!"
M1EK will have a hard time replying with an exploded head.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 17, 2011 12:52 AM EST up reply actions
OR NOT
Do you understand why I keep putting in the “or, again important, not to investigate” in there?
A real cop would just open the investigation, unless the reporter was known to be completely batshit crazy.
That isn't true
A real cop also has the ability not to open the investigation. Happens all the time.
Whittle your whiskey around like blazes, t'underin' Jaysus, do ye think I'm dead?
by psuphysicist on Dec 19, 2011 8:45 PM EST up reply actions
Ass covering move?
If JoePa was truly worried about covering his ass, he would have thrown Sandusky under the bus right away. It’s not as if Sandusky was a player he was trying to keep on the field so he could win. By all accounts, Sandusky and Paterno didn’t interact much after 1998.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
ok, so i lied. I can't stay away completely.
Pretty sure Curley testified Paterno brought both Curley and Schultz in. Not Curley brought Schultz in.
Both Curley and Schultz say Paterno brought Schultz in according to tweets:
Curley: Paterno called me and Gary Schultz, said he wanted to report something
Schultz testified the mtg included Paterno and Curley. Paterno requested the meeting. Schultz said it was Sandusky and “some unnamed boy”
I would appreciate if you stop saying incorrect things.
This was unclear to me
and I appreciate you clarifying.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
M1EK is pushing the envelope
My lord, I have been trying to catch up on this thread and I keep on seeing somebody bring up so many outlandish things that I finally had to put my two cents in.
Look, we all get it. Everyone could have done more.
Big Red doesn’t even know what he saw, obviously. His story has been bent several times over, on record.
Schultz is not a gun-toting cop but any ignoramus can infer that bringing in a guy who manages the University Police would know how to handle the situation. Put Mcqueary’s shoes on for once, idiot. He just testified that he thought Schultz carried the clout to handle it and I am sure Joepa thought the same. Did he pass the buck? Maybe a little but he got the info secondhand himself. That’s McQueary’s job to press the issue. I’m sick of everyone coddling poor old Big Red. He sat on whatever he saw for 8 years which draws one of two conclusions:
1) What he saw was probably inappropriate, but he obviously had enough doubt that he didn’t stop anything and let the boy just “chill” in the shower with the mudshark.
2) He saw something that was over the top and is a part of some grand cover-up with several other high-ranking administrators to keep the football program rolling.
Please stop with the insanity and take it for what it’s worth. They all thought Schultz = police.
Finally, the Big Ern is above the law!
by MillerBoi on Dec 16, 2011 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
absolutely correct - and well said
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Dec 17, 2011 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
if you want to have some real fun
read the “Schultz is not he cops” Fanshot
"I've seen over 200 episodes of Law & Order and it's paying off big time!"
So
you think MM lied under oath today?
.....that which we are, WE ARE;
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Heres a question.
Why the Hell does Curley bring Shultz if Shultz isnt being used as a police figure?
Is there any other reason to bring Shultz whatsoever?
Please, someone answer to me why Shultz gets involved in this if he’s not being used as a police figure.
Anyone?
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
"I can’t believe McQ didn’t call the police right away..."
I believe that’s an indictment on the politics of powerful programs and powerful people.
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
So Predictions?
After following all of this anybody care to offer? I’ll go first:
I think the perjury gets held to court, based on the differences between Curley and Schultz’s testimony. Without a lot more, I don’t think the State can get a conviction on it though.
I think the State could get a conviction on failure to report, but I think it gets tossed either today or some day in the near future due to statute of limitations.
And I think today couldn’t have gone much worse for all parties involved.
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
Definitely agree with that last line.
I’ve always had the feeling that all of these non-Sandusky charges would get tossed at some point.
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
It was pretty bad for Curley and Schultz
I’m sure it could have gotten worse, but I can’t see how.
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
They could have had to sit next to Giger
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
With frosted highlighted hair
who wouldn’t want to?
by Mr. Rosewater on Dec 16, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe that wouldn't be so bad...
I mean – some people probably like the stench of ass.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
If I sat next to Giger I would have at least had to have eaten Mexican food prior.
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
Knowing my grandparents and their response to the Catholic priest stuff
I really think its possible that JoePa was just an old dude who might not have understood the gravity of the situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Early_writings
Child sex abuse was relatively unheard of before the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#History_and_social_attitudes
The age of consent was 10-12 in most states in the late 19th century, and as low as 7 in Delaware.
Just some food for thought, that’s all.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 3:05 PM EST reply actions
late 19th century
Joe’s old, but he isn’t that old.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, but he's only one generation removed from the late 19th century...
I don’t like it used as an excuse, but Joe really does come from a different era.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly.
My grandma is a northerner, but even she uses the n-word all the time and doesn’t see anything wrong with it. She legitimately has no clue that it’s socially unacceptable.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
Funny, I don
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
't remember my grandmother ever talking about Nebraska.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
It might not even be an age thing. It's just maybe not being equipped to deal with.
And trusting someone who was. I had to report physical abuse against a minor before, my manager was 60 at the time, and referred to someone who was in the power to help me. She worked with children for decades, but she trusted the system. So it may be that Joe was out of touch with the fact that if you report something to someone, and something truly happened, then it would be dealt with accordingly.
Good point.
It’s not as if JoePa is “in touch” with the present day (Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum, anyone?). I bet he watches Andy Griffith reruns and not SVU.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
If he is anything like my Grandpap he watches nothing but EWTN
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
Talk about Sodom, sure...
sodomy, not so much…
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, I think we understand
you think Joe is old and out of touch now.
Thanks.
Except it doesn't hold up
Of the people in (Schultz, Curley, Spanier, Paterno), Paterno seems like he got it the most of anybody – actually tried to do the most.
Don’t confuse this with “enough”, but the reason he’s not involved at all with criminal proceedings and the reason I wanted Spanier fired with extreme prejudice but Paterno to be allowed to resign, is because Paterno actually got it and did more right than any of those guys did.
So the 75 year old guy was with it enough to outperform a bunch of people a lot younger, in other words.
by M1EK on Dec 16, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Wow...
We actually sort of agree on something.
by Artiefufkin10 on Dec 16, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Been saying this all along
but the people who are the adult internet form of the State College rioters aren’t capable of nuance between “look, even though these guys were worse and are probably going to jail, Joe didn’t do what he should have done either” and “OMG HE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING AT ALL WRONG AND WAS RAILROADED BY ESPN!!!!!1”
Can you please stop the "so many said x" three weeks ago meme
And just argue what you want to argue? You’ve made some decent points, but undermine that with your persecution complex style of delivery.
Thanks.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Dec 16, 2011 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's not three weeks ago.
Right up until today, it was the prevailing opinion on this site that Joe was railroaded, fired unfairly, etc.
I understand it’s somewhat more difficult to make that case right now, against the headwind of the actual testimony, although some are still trying.
More difficult? Really?
I’m very happy with the testimony when it comes to support of Joe. Thanks.
Ok....just admit it now
you are trolling. Paterno came out of this looking just fine, as anybody not a complete imbecile assumed he would.
I don't think anyone came out of this looking just fine
Better than he was portrayed in the media? Yes. And I am not surprised by this.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
I'm refering to
people like aurabass, who gleefully insisted the GJ presentment was a lie because of the layout of the shower and locker room, or because of Dranov’s testimony.
Or the people who insisted that Paterno never knew anything sexual had happened (despite the “fondling, or something of a sexual nature” line in the presentment).
I'm honestly not saying this to be difficult
and I don’t want to get sucked into this discussion, but if you changed your picture, it might calm everyone down, at least a little. I feel like encourages me to scream just like Homer is. Just a thought.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
Ha.
I’ll think about it. Bear in mind, the avatar is how I feel when I see my fellow alums defending the indefensible instead of facing some painful truths.
Man..
I follow your arguments, don’t always agree with them, but I have not seen one person on hear defend the indefensible.
You make some good points, but you hurt your credibility with your lack of maturity at times.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Dec 16, 2011 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I agree fully with this statement
About 5-10% of what M1EK says are good points and presented well. It’s the other 90-95% that are either repetitive, vitriolic, or condescending in tone that are a pain in the ass to sift throught.
by SBlion on Dec 16, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
defending the indefensible
Saying Joe did everything he could and should have is, IMO, indefensible.
I eagerly await you telling the dozens of people here calling me a troll or suggesting I ought to stake myself to an anthill how mature they are.
Ok...
not everyone on BSD has been mature 100% of the time.
I don’t recall anyone saying Joe did all he could have done. Everyone can always do more.
Based on MM’s testimony, I’m not sure I would have done more than what Paterno did.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Dec 16, 2011 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
I recall
dozens, if not hundreds, of people insisting that Joe did nothing wrong, either by commission or omission.
Did nothing legally wrong yes...
morally wrong? Open to debate.
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Dec 16, 2011 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
I think we all agree
That if Joe clearly did something legally wrong he should face the consequences. I think it is much more grey as to what he is morally repsonsible to do (and anything based on someone’s moral code will always have a high level of subjectivity in it). To summarize what almost everyone is thinking is that we don’t know enough to know Joe’s full involvement and therefore would like to reserve judgement. As of right now, no one has proved Joe is morally “innocent”
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
Yes.
someone’s moral code will always have a high level of subjectivity
Moral codes are foundationally plural. Only the most positivist-trapped-in-the-Cartesian-Anxiety sort would think otherwise today. Hell, Hume crushed this crap along time ago.
Anyone that wants absolutist moral codes should visit the mullahs in Iran.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Dec 16, 2011 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Captain Hindsight
I don’t think a lot of people are saying thet JoePa “did everything he could or should have done”. I think a lot of people are questioning whether or not he fully understood the gravity of the situation to begin with and whether or not he took appropriate action accordingly.
It’s really easy to say what we could or should have done. It’s also hard to recall what exact words were exchange in a conversation nine years ago.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
Gravity of the situation
wasn’t helped by McQ couching his explanation out of respect for Joe.
McQ sounds like he could have used plainer words to describe what he thought was happening.
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Dec 16, 2011 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
Nobody thinks Joe did all the right things. Obviously not, or we wouldn’t be here.
But there’s a big difference in suggesting, as some have, that he didn’t do enough because he didn’t care, or because he was covering it up, and saying, as I believe the evidence shows, that he didn’t do enough because he just didn’t understand how bad it really was and because he put too much faith in the administrators.
Joe’s failure seems to be mainly a “failure of imagination.” He just couldn’t imagine the founder of Second Mile raping a kid in the shower. Who wants to imagine that? But for somebody so close to the situation, it was probably just too awful to imagine.
I can say that I reacted that way too. When this first came out in March I totally didn’t believe it and then I totally forgot about it until a month ago. Then it took me several days to really come to grips with it. And I’m just a fan and a State College townie. I don’t actually know Sandusky from Adam. Imagine what it’s like for people who know him. It takes some time.
by reedjohnmiller on Dec 16, 2011 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
EXACTLY
People have asked me “was Jerry Sandusky a creep?” “did you suspect anything?”
How can anyone in their right mind make the leap to indecent sexual assault of a child? I’ve stated before, EVERYONE, myself included, thought JS was honorable for donating so much of his life and time to helping young kids. Think about that for a second. The next time you see an adult holding a child’s hand, or holding him, try and make the leap that that adult will be molesting them later on in private. You will go FUCKING INSANE!!!!
"my dad says Michigan used to be good"
by hbeach08 on Dec 16, 2011 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 11 recs
I've thought that one sad outcome of all this is it might make adults reluctant to volunteer with kids
A few years back I considered getting involved in a local Boy Scout troop, not because I have any kids of my own, but because I really enjoyed my time in Scouts and wanted to give something back. One of the reasons I did not was because I thought it might look creepy. I’d be even less inclined after all of this.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
I've had the same thoughts
and haven’t volunteered with Scouts since moving away from my “home” troop.
Do internet trolls live under internet bridges?
Follow @stp147
My buddy who played D-1 football
already told me this made up his mind about coaching minors. Sad really. He’s a professor and would make a wonderful coach.
I ran D-I track
And I had an opportunity to coach at an all-girls school right out of college. I turned it down. Not because I didn’t trust myself, but because I don’t trust other people. One accusation or rumor, and my life would be ruined, even if I was innocent.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 6:49 PM EST up reply actions
It's insane.
You can’t even have pictures of yourself in a swimsuit at the beach on facebook if you work with children.
"The only difference between a brown-noser and a shit head is depth perception"
-PSU_Lions_84
Yes but for different reasons altogether
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 7:43 PM EST up reply actions
why haven't we seen a #HBEACH4PSUHC
"I've seen over 200 episodes of Law & Order and it's paying off big time!"
I am one of few males studying child development...
and even before this issue I’ve worried many times about my behavior trying to carry out research. I’ve thought many times about how a parent, chilling on the other side of a double-sided mirror, might respond to truly innocuous behavior. For example, I was reading a book to a kid sitting in front of me one time and he stood up with the book, turned around, and plopped down in my lap as I was sitting indian style. Now I’m sitting with a kid I’ve known for 5 minutes in my lap. If Mom didn’t see the kid do this (took 3 seconds), then Mom looks up and sees me sitting with kid in lap (inappropriate, at least in some parents’ eyes, had I initiated it).
I also never physically handle children in the same way the girls in my lab do. At some point, these worries override your ability to be effective working with kids.
And just look at the number of male teachers in elementary school (somewhere around 15%). This is certainly not doing anything good for boys interest in school. Also, try this exercise. Start typing “male teacher” into google…
by BNittsDeMilo on Dec 17, 2011 1:03 AM EST up reply actions
appreciate the consideration!
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
It looks way more likely
that Schultz was considered to be some sort of police type figure by MM and Paterno. MM actually said today he thought he was like a DA.
It also seems more likely Paterno followed up as he asked MM several times how he was doing. Still no report on whether he followed up with Curley or Schutlz.
Shall I continue?
We also know he was not told rape, or sodomize, or anal rape
or anything like that.
And we know he was the one that brought in Schultz.
All in all, I think we answered a ton of questions today about Paterno and he is looking better and better by the minute.
by Btd121 on Dec 16, 2011 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I've followed the testimony..
11/9/11 - the day the music died.
The bitter with the better.
by Esteban d' Amur on Dec 16, 2011 3:38 PM EST up reply actions
The fact that the AG actually praised Paterno's actions...
Means more to me than a couple of guys opinions on the internet.
We still need to find out who else he followed up with. I think its obvious when Paterno heard these allegations he was absolutely shocked. I think considering how long he’s known the guy that there is a time period after MM tells him that he has to be wondering if he could have known this guy for that long and not known if he was molesting children. That he was tricked for that long. I assume he spoke with a lawyer after MM left. I believe thats another reason he didnt contact Sandusky… as to not interfere with what he most likely thought was an investigation going on.
Theres an awful lot to this that we dont know before we condemn Joe here. The wild speculation goes both ways. Some say “Joe should have done more” when we really dont know what other options he had if he thought (And I believe he did) Shultz was representing the police. Because if Shultz ISNT representing the police he has absolutely no reason to be at the meeting whatsoever.
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
Well
We agree that Joe did the most out of all those involved is good enough for me.
The complete legacy tarnishing by the media is something I probably won’t get over and pisses me off.
by Artiefufkin10 on Dec 16, 2011 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
Ill never forget..
And I will do my darnedest (?) to make sure my kids and their kids never forget. Its something we can all learn from in our own lives.
by archerbullseye on Dec 16, 2011 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
darn'dest? darndest? meh none of them look right..
wheres my wife when I need her to spell a word for me!
by archerbullseye on Dec 16, 2011 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
You rang?
Oh. Wait. /not archer’s wife.
Anyhoo, as a fan of linguistics, just wanted to weigh in on your creation. Wholly approve of darnedest!
Awkward.....jk
But thinks for answering the question haha… I am not a fan of swearing so I try my best to be creative. :-)
She has the gift of spelling and I have the gift of… umm… hmm… well I am sure I have some gifts.. Ill get back to you on that.
by archerbullseye on Dec 16, 2011 5:04 PM EST up reply actions
I had some hard core party bros back in the day
Who taught me that The Gift was a pooh which required no TP.. So maybe you’ve had that at least once?
Well I did spend some time in China
Where they didnt have seats and sometimes no TP. So maybe thats it.
by archerbullseye on Dec 16, 2011 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
I got stuck in a train station in Korea once with no TP.
Receipts for the win!
Also lived in China for three years, so I know your experiences there.
by Tezcatlipoca on Dec 16, 2011 7:38 PM EST up reply actions
Thats a completely inaccurate characterization of everything thats happened
And everything that was said. And if you really believe that, then I don’t think you’ve been reading the comments on this board.
Whittle your whiskey around like blazes, t'underin' Jaysus, do ye think I'm dead?
by psuphysicist on Dec 16, 2011 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
Given their position...
Schultz and Curley would have had to been up to date on such laws, and probably had to attend seminars. Unless he coached high school in the past 20 years (which he didn’t) JoePa would have never been subjected to such education.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
Dude
he watches Matlock. Like all old people do.
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Dec 16, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
Curley and Schultz should have gotten him to wear his white suit and whisper something to them today.
It only costs $10,000 and juries love it.
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Dec 16, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't mean out of touch being the reason why he's not equipped to deal with it.
But more about his job title, responsibilities. The person I reported to over saw the general functions of the organization, not the interaction with children. We had a supervisor higher up that dealt with personal issues, instances of abuse, etc. She was equipped to handle things of that nature, both emotionally and professionally. I’m sure Joe trusted his superiors “capable” of handling this : Curley and Schultz. I think this is his biggest fail. Trusting these two clowns.
Joe's comments to MM after being told at his home seem to indicate he realized it was serious
He said that it was terrible and he was sorry Mike had to see that. It does not seem like Joe knew the graphic details of what Mike saw, which I think most of us suspected for a while now, but it does seem like he was aware that what went on was serious.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
He seemed to say
he didn’t press further because he knew McQ was upset and didn’t want to put him through more. McQ also said Paterno followed up to some extent with him.
Yes, which leads me to hope that he followed up with Curley at least once
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 3:20 PM EST up reply actions
I find it hard to imagine
he wasn’t atleast informed that Curley and Schultz took what they felt was appropriate action. But I don’t want to assume.
Whether or not this gets sent to trial there is no possibility of conviction
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
A jury is a very unpredictable thing.
Nothing a jury does would surprise me.
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Well it's being sent to trial.
So we shall see.
please stop with the hyperbole; you are giving false hope and information.
ask any lawyer on this Board, “no possibility of conviction” is nonsense. There is always the possibility. It is one reason innocent people go to jail and the guilty go free sometimes. Courtrooms are inherently risky places.
and, fwiw, based on what I read via the twitter feeds, Schultz is in very deep trouble.
He knew of the 1998 incident, thinks Spanier was aware, talked to Paterno, talked to McQ and then talked later to Dad McQ and Dranov. Every witness (Dranov is still the mystery) said some variation of "I told Schultz of acts of a “sexual” nature." McQueary was unequivocal this morning. He made sure that Schultz and Curley knew sexual contact had occurred.
but in front of the Grand Jury, he said: “I got the impression that there may have been some wrestling activities, and Sandusky may have grabbed the boys genitals by accident.”
if the jury believes Schultz, then he’s free; if the Jury believes the other witnesses, Schultz will be convicted of perjury.
Schultz will come off very badly based on his GJ testimony. For example, he said he was stumped on a question about whether or not Sandusky being naked in the shower with a boy would be considered criminal. Really? That is going to go over very badly with a jury. He also said he couldn’t remember, but thought Childrens Services had investigated in 1998 (not the campus police). Said “wow” when told there was a 90+ page report of the 1998 incident? Really? That is just the kind of thing that makes witnesses look like liars.
i predict that the jury will not believe Schultz.
ergo: quite the opposite of what you said: based on what we have seen/read, imho, there is a high probability that Schultz will be convicted.
Same with Curley.
by WarBuck46410 on Dec 16, 2011 5:28 PM EST up reply actions
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say...
I don’t really care if those charged with crimes are convicted, lose their jobs, and spend a lot of time in prison (assuming they are guilty and apparently there is at least a hunch that they are).
My only truly angry reaction to this situation (aside from the anger I get seeing Sandusky “explain” the misunderstanding and continue to wear PSU gear as if he deserves to continue to represent my alma mater) has been the firing and subsequent character assassination of Paterno based on pure speculation. My reasons for being mad about that are that he was not an eye witness (not McQueary), did do something that could have reasonably be considered appropriate given the situation he found himself in (not Curley or Schultz), most likely did not know about other incidents (not Schultz), and had no input on or authority in deciding if Curley/Schultz’s course of action to the situation was appropriate (not Spanier or McQueary).
I agree with you… based on the testimony today, Schultz is looking pretty bad, especially with MM’s Dad confronting him later about the situation (which was actually very new info). He definitely didn’t come out looking unfairly accused to me.
by BNittsDeMilo on Dec 17, 2011 1:19 AM EST up reply actions
Please remember
aurabass has been wrong on every prediction so far – from the GJ presentment being a lie because of the layout of the locker room to Dranov’s testimony to the charges against Curley and Schultz being sure to be thrown out at the preliminary hearing.
Well at least we will get to hear more of the story.
Assuming no plea.
I say look for a defense motion to dismiss
The MDJ passed this along to trial but the defense is probably going to make the same arguments to the trial judge before this gets to trial.
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
A jury would be overruled in this situation
These may be valid questions but they have nothing to do with Perjury
audsnyder4:
“The key question is why didn’t anyone follow up?”
roxburynews:
Prosecution asserts Curley & Schultz intended to mislead Grand Jury into thinking their actions were appropriate. #psu
audsnyder4:
RT @BBumsted_TRIB: Beemer — material pt. of invetsigation is why? Why didn’t any 1 follow up?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
From KevinHornePSU
tweet, whoever he is, I agree with this statement: More ignorance than maliciousness.
What about the statute of limitations?
Before this hearing I heard a lot about the statute of limitations on the failure to report charges. Why did I hear nothing about that today? Is it possible that the timeline is longer than we were led to believe?
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Well, it wasn't summarily dismissed today on those grounds...
so I’m guessing it’s not an issue.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
That makes me wonder
what the actual statute of limitations is, and where people got the idea that it would have expired since 2002.
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
I double checked the statute
The Statute of Limitations is 5 years. A lot of MDJ’s just don’t like making these legal determinations and figure that it can all get sorted at through pre-trial motions in the Court of Common Pleas. People shouldn’t read anything into the fact that the charges weren’t dismissed today. If I were a betting man, I’d bet that all of the non-Sandusky charges will be thrown out before trial.
I also didn't hear one mention of it in any of the coverage today
I might guess that it has been withdrawn by the State because they knew it would get kicked at the prelim. We’ll have to see if it shows up when a criminal information is filed in the Court of Common Pleas.
I am a Penn State Nittany Lion, and I played for the legendary Joe Paterno, and more importantly, I am a man because of it. - Lavar Arrington
the alleged perjury occurred on January 12, 2011. well witthin any Statute of Limitations.
by WarBuck46410 on Dec 16, 2011 5:30 PM EST up reply actions
Failure to report is the one that might get thrown out
based on the Statute of Limitations, not perjury.
Tom Bradley for PSU Head Coach!
Follow @Paige2PSU
Well it's a ruling that will cost the state and PSU $$$$ for nothing
There was no indication that Curley or Shultz knowingly lied
and once Dr Dranov’s testimony is brought in along with the other McQueary statements there is no certainty ’beyond a reasonable doubt"
I’m sure the lawyers are not unhappy. They will rack up nice paychecks
The bar is so low for binding a case over to trial and they barely made that on by keeping the Dr Dranov testimony out. There is no corroborating witness other than John McQueary and he is Mikes father
A perjury trial based on 9 year old recollections and those statements in this ‘Perjury Trap" is one of the longest shots I’ve seen a prosecutors office attampt. It shows the political nature of this situation and the state’s desire to keep MM a credible even though he is unable to testify to seeing anything concrete and criminal.
The idea of some cover up being master minded is now ludicrous.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Dec 16, 2011 3:30 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
um, no.
see my post above: you said. “There was no indication that Curley or Shultz knowingly lied.”
you could not be more wrong. I am at a loss for more words.
by WarBuck46410 on Dec 16, 2011 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, aurabass is pretty accurate.
While I think he may be downplaying the unpredictability of a jury, he is pretty dead on when it comes to future testimony, the prosecution’s burden and lack of corroboration.
For anyone to think that MM’s testimony will go nearly as easy as it did today they are fooling themselves. The defense was severely handcuffed. They were playing Alabama without Redd, Still and Hodges. There is no doubt that Schultz came off like a bumbling idiot, but it is still going to be he said/he said. Throw in Dranov’s alleged testimony that McQuary said no three times to the question about the contact being sexual and you have way more than reasonable doubt.
by Btd121 on Dec 16, 2011 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Somewhat off-topic
but according to comScore, ESPN had 2 million less unique users in the month of November (when all this went down and I would think would be a huge visit-driver) compared to October. Meanwhile Yahoo Sports had 2.5 million more in November, and Fox Sports had way more (can’t remember their Oct numbers).
Yahoo is now #1 by 5.2 million unique users – 52.7 to 47.5 million. Fox Sports is creeping up at 38.8 million. Interesting stuff for a numbers nerd like myself.
by TheWrathofQBEagles on Dec 16, 2011 3:37 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
I use Yahoo for everything I can.
I try not to use google.
I disconnected from all the major news outlets
Were Yahoo and Fox Sports better in their coverage of all this (i.e. more factual, less prone to speculation and self-righteous moral grandstanding)?
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
I basically unplugged too
I don’t think they were better.
I have proudly removed 50 of those pageviews
Also stopped watching their channels.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
Awesome.
We can make a difference. I am one of those who have eliminated ESPN and embraced Yahoo.
.....that which we are, WE ARE;
One equal temper of heroic hearts
ESPiN alienated two of the largest and most passionate fanbases in all of sports.
Not just college sports, all of sports. Per the New York Times, the number of fans between the two schools who follow these two teams and try to watch every game numbers around 6 million. Now we just need them to give the same treatment to ND and M*chigan, and the network might go bankrupt (kidding… but I think it would seriously hurt their pocket books).
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
And they also alienated half of the Big XII
through their promotion of Longhorn Network as well as the constant slobbering over the SEC which contributed heavily to swaying voters in favor of Alabama over Oklahoma State for the national title game. People are sick of ESPiN.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Dec 16, 2011 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
My disgust began five years ago with the clear editorial policy
of denigrating the NHL coming out of the lockout in order to elevate the NBA — behavior intensified because they were pissed that the league went in a different TV direction rather than take ESPN’s lowball offer.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Dec 16, 2011 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Yahoo: The Worldwide Leader in Sports
I kinda like the sound of that.
by newenglandnittanylion on Dec 17, 2011 9:01 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
+1
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
/heads to Boalsburg
Get Joe to fire up that pipe!
by jtothep on Dec 16, 2011 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I wish the hell I wasn't 1200+ miles away.
Particularly if Peanut Butter Bacon Fudge might be involved.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Attn: M1EK
Do some god damned work in your office?
Do you work for the federal government or what?
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
My quick take on today:
McQueary: he had every reason to believe that he did the right thing. I believe what he said today was true. Based on what he saw, what he told Curley and Schultz, and how he believed it was being handled, I find very little room to blame him. He was misled as to Schultz’s role and responsibility—Schultz was clearly NOT the right person to talk to, but McQueary had every reason to think that he was.
Paterno: when looked at in relation to the media circus surrounding him, JoePa’s role in all this is comically small. It seems clear that he understood the gravity of what McQueary told him, though the “I didn’t want to disturb (Curley) over the weekend” comment makes it seem like he didn’t respond to the news with appropriate urgency. Still, he believed the matter would be handled appropriately by Curley, as he had every reason to believe. Nothing about today informed my opinion about JoePa.
Schultz: Before today, I thought that Schultz seemed at least complicit in any cover-up conspiracy. After following today’s testimony, he sounds like a beaurocrat who was in way over his head witht this whole thing. Which brings me to…
Curley: wow. Did anyone else get the sense from today’s testimony that Curley’s the one who is responsible for keeping this thing covered up? It’s not just that he’s lying about what McQueary told him; he’s the one responsible for bringing in Schultz and holding him out as being in charge of the police force.
by newenglandnittanylion on Dec 16, 2011 4:10 PM EST via mobile reply actions
This is a fair takeaway.
The “disturb Curley over the weekend” stuff is a really bad answer. I don’t know what he thought. Perhaps something like “there’s not a crime in progress . . ..” Still, I don’t know.
I’m becoming more disturbed over the implied “spring break” lag. Students and faculty are off for spring break. Staff and administrators are not. Of course this problem does not involve Paterno.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Whether he calls him on Saturday or Sunday
does it change anything?
Not like anyone was still in the shower.
If anyone gets demerits for not calling quickly, it’s McQueary that night (and for not dialing 911).
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Dec 16, 2011 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
Posed as is, perhaps not much (change anything)
But this is a core issue in the macro pedophilia problem: most (like 90%!) assaults go unreported.
As such, predators go unidentified.
As such, new assaults by that same predator become possible and more children become at risk.
and those victims see asshats like Bonheim and Amendola go on TV and call them liars who are looking for money
and decide to just say nothing
"I've seen over 200 episodes of Law & Order and it's paying off big time!"
I've been thinking the same thing
It sure sounds bad, but since the crime wasn’t in progress, did it really matter?
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring". ~Rogers Hornsby
I think I'm more annoyed with the stated reason for the delay.
Because sure, it’s one extra day. Fine. But not wanting to ruin Tim Curley’s Saturday plans is a monumentally shitty reason to avoid reporting a possible child rape in the Lasch locker room. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
Unless I missed something by not paying attention to any of this today...
It’s pure speculation at this point that Tim Curley’s Saturday plans weren’t objectively too awesome to disturb.
A pandemic of cowardice sweeps the nation.
by WorldBFat on Dec 16, 2011 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This is true.
Curley could’ve had a surprise picnic lunch planned for his wife at Black Moshannon State Park.
by Chris Grovich on Dec 16, 2011 6:14 PM EST up reply actions
I heard that the Culrleys prefer
the austere, conquered-nature look of Raystown Lake.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Dec 16, 2011 6:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There is no doubt it was an asinine statement.
But it certainly seems like he was doing nothing more than guessing as to why he didn’t call Curley that second. At least that is my impression reading Ganim’s summary.
Seems reasonable
He said he didn’t remember what year either. It was a long time ago and he is older. My dad is 78, I doubt he can recall any reason why he might have done anything 9 years ago.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
I'm 30
and I don’t know if I can recall why I might have things done 9 years ago.
//Too many monkeyboys
Fire Dan Snyder
sometimes I go upstairs and wonder "what did I come up here for?"
"I've seen over 200 episodes of Law & Order and it's paying off big time!"
Wait, you leave the Saloon and ask yourself that?
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 17, 2011 1:36 AM EST up reply actions
Let me speculate
That I think maybe Paterno was going out of his mind on that Saturday trying to figure out if this could really be true, speaking to a lawyer to find out what was the next right course of action and how to handle it, and trying to determine how serious MM’s charges are considering MM didnt call the police that night HIMSELF.
Even though he said it, its hard for me to believe that he talked to MM and then went out and had a party on Saturday night. I believe that Saturday is one of the longest days of Paterno’s life.
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
Yeah, the "weekend" quote is nothing more than a bad sound byte
Especially considering Joe and Curley apparently spoke on Sunday anyway.
I don’t know quite what to make of the Spring break lag. In any event, it doesn’t look good for Curley.
by newenglandnittanylion on Dec 16, 2011 4:54 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Campus police
Is it just me or does there seem to be more of an outrcry about campus police. It seems unusual that I haven’t seen an article saying that the institution of campus police makes no sense. If there were a separation between school officials and school police, wouldn’t this problem have been avoided (or at least there would be no excuses)? Just a thought.
Bigger issue than Penn State
You’d fundamentally change the org structure of almost every major university.
Do internet trolls live under internet bridges?
Follow @stp147
Interesting question that I hadn't actually thought about until now
Why do university’s have their own police forces to begin with?
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
One reason is that you have a community
with often 20 to 30 thousand residents who contribute a big fat zed to the tax base funding such services — at least in the case of state universities like PSU or LSU.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Good point about not contributing to tax base
I was thinking that in cities lots of PDs cover areas with large populations, but I hadn’t thought about the funding implications when most/all of those people aren’t paying taxes.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
The State College Police
Do not hurt for resources.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
I assume you mean
contributing zero to the tax base. Most students that contribute mildly to the tax base in some way.
Do internet trolls live under internet bridges?
Follow @stp147
I've come to believe it should change everywhere thanks to this case.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
You can rightly question the lack of administration follow through. Was it just that particular time or Institutional?
You can hardly fault the actual force in 2002 if the chief and/or proper investigative arm was never contacted. We’ll never know what would have happened or not happened had a phone call been made in ’02.
If someone has a bone to pick with the current UPP, that’s a whole different matter, but will not change the results of ’02.
I guess my only question is...
was there enough positive reinforcment to reinstate Joe?
I'm assuming you are joking
He will never be reinstated.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
No not joking...
MM’s testimony was shaky to say the least. The fact that he saw JS and didn’t “notice” if he was sexually aroused and the child showing no signs of fear or pain puts a wrench in the whole deal. Besides, this whole thing was about Schultz and Curley and their ineptness. Not much more JoePa could have done based on what we now know.
The problem with that is
Is that in Joe’s testimony he says it was clear it was something sexual and he didn’t want to push Mike on it anymore because he was clearly upset. Those words lead me to believe he understood the gravity of the situation.
What I think clears him of any moral wrong is if he and Mike DID think that Schultz was the cops (Mike stated that as his belief today). If that is what they believed then in their minds they reported this to the police, and if Schultz later told them that they couldn’t find anything strong enough to continue with charges, they would have to believe that the legal process had run it’s course on it. As I’ve said, it doesn’t matter if Schultz was the cops, in terms of Mike and Joe’s moral trial, what they perceived him to be is the most important thing. If someone I believe and trust to be the police tells me that there isn’t anything more they can do, I would accept that, even if I didn’t like it I would have accepted that there wasn’t anything else for me to do.
If that’s what happened, then I think Joe and Mike are in the clear both morally and legally. In hindsight yes there was more they could have done, but in this scenario with the knowledge they had in 2002, I think they may have done the very best they could.
I don’t think Joe will be reinstated though. Between his health and how the board went about getting rid of him, I just can’t see that being an option, the school is going to move on. I think it may be enough to put his name back on the trophy.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
by Rogue Nine on Dec 16, 2011 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Very well said
In my mind, Joe’s moral culpability always hinged on 2 things that were absolutely not clear from the GJ testimony: 1) what exactly did MM tell him and did he appreciate the seriousness of it?; 2) beyond initially telling Curley, what else did he do?
It is now clear that MM did not tell Joe all the details of what he saw and left out some of the graphic language “out of respect”, but that Joe still understood that something serious happened. If Joe thought that Schultz essentially oversaw the PD, then by bringing in him, I think he is relieved of a lot of the moral culpability that he has been charged with. But I still want to know if he followed up after the fact, even if all that entailed was asking Curley what came of the investigation. If he did follow up and was told that the issue had been handled appropriately, then in my eyes he will have done all I can reasonably expect anyone to do. I won’t blame him for trusting other people. Could he have still done more? Sure. But I won’t hold him accountable for not doing more.
If it turns out that he didn’t follow up at all, then I will agree that he deserves some of the moral culpability. I think he had a clear enough understanding of the seriousness of the situation to warrant a follow up. But I still won’t crucify him for it, and I will still think that the media firestorm surrounding him was totally out of proportion to the role he played in all of this. And I will still respect him for the all the good he has done.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Again.... If Shultz isnt being brought in as "The Cops" what the fuck is he doing at the meeting at all?
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
This is WILD speculation.
Straws anyone?
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
I am just sick of this
Everyone screwed up. Everyone. And it sucks…I am ashamed and disgusted. I’m tired of trying to defend Joe Paterno, its exhausting and pointless. The narrative has been written regardless of the outcome. I just hope our PSU community can move on and eventually return to talking about football. Sorry, I am debbie-downer…but I just can’t go on paying such close attention to this anymore…it hurts my soul
"That's why you don't play! 'Cuz you're no good!" -Joe Paterno
by pmm156 on Dec 16, 2011 4:23 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
We could talk about our new head coach
Oh, er, wait. Damn.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
carolinaeasy or WorldB could have us one up on Wikipedia quicker than you can say Jack Robinson in a Paul Neuman voice.
SlapShot style.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
I actually thought last night that they may have settled on Richt
But when I checked his Wikipedia page, there was no mention of Penn State so I knew it couldn’t be true.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
Based on the twitters (still haven't seen the full transcript, so that's all I have right now)
Both guys look really, really bad. Schultz especially, since there is testimony stating that he was very involved in the 1998 scenario, so this new one should have raised a red flag for him.
McQueary’s story looked more buttoned up than expected, but we still need to hear the Dranov thing.
End of the day, if you’re Schultz and a guy comes to you saying that he saw McQueary in a shower with a kid….again….and you don’t think that you need to get this to the cops…you’re a pretty huge jackass.
by SkellerDweller06 on Dec 16, 2011 5:12 PM EST reply actions
Not McQueary in shower...
Sandusky. Long day.
by SkellerDweller06 on Dec 16, 2011 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
You dont think McQueary has been practicing this testimony in a mirror since the story broke?
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
Can somebody just give me, like, a quick recap
(Post removed by moderator. Please type 12 year old translator into google to find out what it would be)
Forget the 409 wins and 2 national championships. Joe Paterno helped mold thousands of young men into productive members of our society.
by ICEICETHATGUY13 on Dec 16, 2011 5:22 PM EST reply actions
Court
Judges
Testimony
Pooh
Bound over for trial
Likely not enough to secure perjury convictions then
Something about
Craig James killing 5 hookers.
"I will not stop supporting PSU nor will my children because of one guy’s actions. Its that simple. I tell the people who give me grief about PSU to stop watching ESPN and wait for the facts to come out before they have to pull their foot out of their mouth and my foot out of their asses."
Apparently some former coach was touching kids.
I forget the rest. Something about a purple monkey dishwasher.
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
by MainLion on Dec 16, 2011 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Flaming bus.
Tom Bradley for PSU Head Coach!
Follow @Paige2PSU
by Paige2PSU on Dec 16, 2011 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Don't believe all that you read in the media
Check this one out:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Joe-Paterno-told-a-grand-jury-he-8216-knew-ina?urn=ncaaf-wp11597
I wrote an email asking him to correct things and hope others will as well. He says that JoePa waited several days to talk to Curley. (I didn’t realize the next day was several days later.) It seems like a big detail to goof. Also, he says that Paterno, Curley and Shcultz have all resigned.
Time is relative?
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Dec 16, 2011 6:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Are you high?
…or have the decent comments just dropped way the hell off the bottom of the pile?
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 16, 2011 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
Had been the first headline
This was Yahoo!’s first story that comes up. An hour later the story is nowhere to be found. Maybe they realized their error and hid the story. Also, looks like they fixed the mistakes. So Yahoo is back in my good graces.
The story is now on that rotation at the top of the screen
I just wrote Matt Hinton a rather long email about his “journalism”.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
In his editted article
Paterno waited “at least a day” and that resigned is now “resigned” (with the quotes in the article).
I wrote him an email just now. Lecturing him on responsible journalism.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
he tweeted defending himself
I didn’t read the article, only his tweets. He has been fairly good throughout this whole thing, especially in comparison.
Fire Dan Snyder
I’d be better with it if his “opinionated blog” wasn’t linked to on the Yahoo! front page as news. If it was amongst their other sports blogs I wouldn’t mind as much. But Yahoo put him right up front with no disclaimer as to what he is and presented it as their factual reporting article on the issue which is in no way was. It’s better than most but was misleading in it’s presentation.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
I totally get that.
When I went to the Yahoo NCAAF page, it wasn’t on the front page—a different article was, as was the AP article. But I definitely see your point.
Fire Dan Snyder
And not even there
it was on Yahoo.com, the homepage, with a picture of Paterno in that rotating marquee at the top of the page where they put the other news articles. There was no way to determine if the link you were clicking on was news or an op-ed blog without having sports knowledge, most of the people on the homepage don’t.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
Today
I think what today did for me was bring back some of those initial emotions of being pissed off at my alma mater and how they handled this. And, I sort of think that’s a good thing. I was falling into the trap of going after the media coverage and getting overly defensive. While there’s some validity to all of that, ultimately Penn State fucked up. None of these guys handled this well and I have no problem with all of them no longer being part of Penn State.
by speedomike on Dec 16, 2011 8:35 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Black Shoe Diaries
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE BLACK SHOE DIARIES STORE
