Turning the Page

Do you:
a) wait until Sunday evening to do anything about it to avoid ruining someone’s weekend, then call a university administrator who oversees athletics;
b) tell your assistant coach to call the police and report it immediately; or
c) make your assistant call the police and report it before he leaves your house?

On Sunday morning I call Tim Curley the AD and my boss and VP Schultz – in charge of the PSU police and I tell them that Mike McQueary came to me upset because he saw Sandusky in the shower at 9:30 pm. That he walked into the locker room for 45 seconds and as he entered he heard 3 slapping sounds and thought a player or coach and a woman might be in the showers having sex.
But when he glance into showers for 2 seconds he saw JS back and a boy. Because he was predisposed to see a sex act he suspected that JS might be doing something inappropriate “Maybe something of a sexual nature??? But he was not certain and did not know what it was”

That is exactly what Joe did and exactly what he should have done. He put MM together with the AD and VP – the two appropriate university administrators who were best situated to deal with the information. And they dealt with it.

You can rant all you wish but it does not change the flimsy nature of MM’s experience.

His lack of action to ascertain exactly what was happening.
His ambiguous suspicions
His presumption of sex based on 3 slapping sounds
His 2 second glances of a back
His inability to convince his father or Dr Dranov that a crime was in progress.
His failure to call the police himself or to convince his father or Dr Dranov to do it
THE BASIC FACT HE COULD NOT REPORT A CRIME BECAUSE HE DID NOT DO THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH IF A CRIME WAS HAPPENING
He did not ask the boy if he was ok
He did not observe pain or distress
He did not ask Sandusky what he was doing
He did not wait to see them leave
He did not go back after his phone call to see if they were siill there
He left the boy with Sandusky naked in a shower

Nothing he did is consistent with witnessing a crime of anal intercourse or sexual molestation and his story is not credible to me as it was not credible to 5 responsible adults who heard it.

Yet you somehow are more credible than any of these 5 responsible adults and Mike McQueary because you know Joe Paterno should have called police other than the administrator in charge of the police.

You think a lot of your ability to know what happened 9 years ago and how credible you would have found these 3 slaps and 2 second glances.

You would have callled the campus police instead of the man who was the administrator in charge because you know better from some source of information unknown to any of us what would have been appropriate. You are better that Joe or Dr Dranov, or Dr McQueary, or Mike because _________________________?
1) You are simply better?
2) You know something they did not know?
3) Any freakin answer you would like to give?

This isn’t about your interpretation of Joe’s recollections of a 10 minute meeting 9 years in advance of his GJ Testimony. It’s about your presumption that you know better than the people who were there that night and heard what MM had to say in the hour after the event and the following morning. Two Doctors and a head football coach of impeccable reputation heard his story and they did what they thought was appropriate at the time.

IT WAS APPROPRIATE and they have not been charged with any wrongdoing.

Come on now and tell us why you are so much better than they were. I for one can’t wait to hear about your superior judgment.

Bullshit. That is your biased reading of it. It was not phrased as a question. It was phrased as a statement. "He was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was."

Nothing bullshit at all. The qualifiers both make this a question. There is no doubt about it. It isn’t even debatable.
WE know for certain MM did not see genitals or hands
We know for a fact he was no 100% certain
We know for a fact he saw a back for a couple of seconds.
Of course it is a QUESTION and a suspicion.

IN CONTEXT
“Well I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously he was doing SOMETHING with the youngster. It was sexual nature? I’m not sure exactly what it was” = NO evident crime involved with the obvious ? after sexual nature.

The question mark is not implied. It is expressed with “I don’t know what you would call it” an “I’m not sure exactly what it was”

You can say “bullshit” all you want. It does not alter the fact. And the fact is there is no victim 2 despite amazing publicity and a direct plea by the AG for the alleged unidentified Victim 2 to come forward none has.

So the NO BULLSHIT fact is there was no sex act in the showers on Mar 1, 2002. And the NO BULLSHIT fact is that Joe Paterno did not know exactly what is was that MM was trying to tell him but he called Curley and Schultz anyway just exactly as he should have.

Now if you want to argue about what they did it would be a matter of opinion – but what Joe did was right – The AG and prosecutors say it was right. There are no charges, And you can scream BULLSHIT til you are hoarse but it will not alter the FACTS. MM was a lame witness and a poor protector for a 10 year old that night if what he is saying 9 years after the event is true. I doubt it is an accurate account of how he felt in Mar of 2002
I think he was freaked out about an adult male in a shower with a boy and that was all it took to upset him at the time. I think the AG wanted him to say more and put words in his mouth
She certainly put words in the presentment he did not see or say.

A victim of what , is a different issue.