j_crazy;966818 wrote:At this point my belief is this:

McQueary is still coaching because of something heinous. Either he was bullied into not going to the cops or he knows something else that no one at PSU wants to get out.

Or he did what he was supposed to do and then was told that everything was taken care of. In which case most people would trust their Head coach or President of the University that it was all handled.

sleeper;966824 wrote:Once again, at the time of the incident that is merely all it was. Hindsight is 20/20. Enjoy!

That's funny. I thought the person that WITNESSED it told him. Enjoy!

sleeper;966823 wrote:#1 We don't know what the GA told Joe Pa.

#2 You don't go accusing people of rape. Joe Pa and the GA have no proof and these are very serious allegations that you don't just go throwing around. You are being unrealistic using hindsight 20/20 to craft your theory. Pretty ridiculous and embarrassing for people to be attacking Joe Pa with all the facts we now know.

Exactly. We don't know how serious or truthful it appeared to be to Joe. And I agree about the throwing around of those serious type of allegations.

How can the GA have no proof when he is a witness?

ytownfootball;966138 wrote:Regardless of whether Joe's firing was justified or not, Penn State did do what was right for the University. Speculation on what depth of knowledge he had will go on for months, who knows what will result. That said, you simply cannot, as a university, trot the old man out there with the possibility that he knew more than he says he did. They can't run the risk that he was either lying, negligent or both. They needed to start cleaning house asap regardless of legacies and bodies of work. Joe had to go as a result.

Great post. Pretty much exactly how I feel. He needed to be fired because the possibility is there that he knew a lot more, and he knew of inappropriate (even if not blatantly illegal) behavior at minimum. He doesn't need to be crucified as a monster until/unless more information comes out.

SportsAndLady;966272 wrote:If you could give truth serem to one person in all of this, who would you choose?

Gotta be Sandusky. #2 is easily Mike McQueary. There are several questions I want to ask him.

1. What exactly did you see in the shower in 2002, and why didn't you intervene?
2 - the question I want to know the most. What did you talk about with your dad, and how did you end up with the decision to go to Paterno and not the police? I don't know exactly what position his dad held or if he was affiliated with the university, but any coverup very well could have started right there.
3. What specifically did you tell Joe Paterno, and what specifically did you then tell the AD and man in charge of university police when you subsequently met with them? All 3 of them describe inappropriate acts, but nothing nearly as alarming or horrifying as what you testified.

Tiernan;966364 wrote:Did wealthy Penn State donors have Gricar wacked in '98?

Gricar didn't disappear until 2005, so I'd say no?

I work above a bank. If one of the tellers runs upstairs and says, "Someone just robbed us. Call the police!", I should say "No, that is just an allegation and you have no proof."?

sleeper;966823 wrote:#1 We don't know what the GA told Joe Pa.

#2 You don't go accusing people of rape. Joe Pa and the GA have no proof and these are very serious allegations that you don't just go throwing around. You are being unrealistic using hindsight 20/20 to craft your theory. Pretty ridiculous and embarrassing for people to be attacking Joe Pa with all the facts we now know.

#1. We know what Paterno testified that the GA told him Sandusky was in a shower with the boy doing something of a sexual nature. So your point is idiotic.

#2. I didn't think the second point could have been any dumber than the first but you managed. The GA SAW him anal raping a ten year old boy! HE SAW IT WITH HIS OWN EYES! He had proof. Joe had someone sitting with him telling him what he had seen (see point 1) I think that would at least merit a phone call to the proper authorities. I guess not in your world.


I also still believe Paterno helped actively covered this and did not just turn a blind eye, as he has testified to. But that is bad enough so we shall wait on the facts of the coverup.

alwaysawarrior;966838 wrote:#1. We know what Paterno testified that the GA told him Sandusky was in a shower with the boy doing something of a sexual nature. So your point is idiotic.

#2. I didn't think the second point could have been any dumber than the first but you managed. The GA SAW him anal raping a ten year old boy! HE SAW IT WITH HIS OWN EYES! He had proof. Joe had someone sitting with him telling him what he had seen (see point 1) I think that would at least merit a phone call to the proper authorities. I guess not in your world.

Couldn't agree more. It's becoming apparent that the Paterno apologists haven't read the grand jury presentment. smh

sleeper;966823 wrote:#1 We don't know what the GA told Joe Pa.

#2 You don't go accusing people of rape. Joe Pa and the GA have no proof and these are very serious allegations that you don't just go throwing around. You are being unrealistic using hindsight 20/20 to craft your theory. Pretty ridiculous and embarrassing for people to be attacking Joe Pa with all the facts we now know.

read this, and if you already have, read it again..and then get back to us

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf

WebFire;966837 wrote:I work above a bank. If one of the tellers runs upstairs and says, "Someone just robbed us. Call the police!", I should say "No, that is just an allegation and you have no proof."?

According to some on here yes that is exacting what you should say.

dat dude;966588 wrote:Would it be correct to assume all the Paterno apologists would feel Paterno did all he was obligated to do if their son was raped in 2005 by Sandusky? He went up the chain of command, right?

Assuming I'm an apologist, based on the information available now? Yes. Because he did do all he was obligated to do.

I'm not getting pissed at a guy who received an allegation of "something sexual" that he didn't commit or witness because he followed protocol and passed it to his superior, who had the witness meet with the man in charge of the campus police department. Sorry. Just not happening. I'd be too busy exerting all of my anger at the man who committed the crime, the man who saw it and did nothing to help my son, and the people who sat on the information instead of meeting their obligations like he did.

If he had witnessed something firsthand or if he knew more and that detail simply hasn't come out yet, then it's a different story.

Again, quote from a victim's sister:

Joe, I think, did what he was supposed to do and was focused on his team. I never blamed him.

OneBuckeye;966715 wrote:Last time I checked Joe Pa and McQuery both know how to use a phone and both could have called the police.

One of them was a witness to a rape in progress, and the other was a witness to an allegation of rape the next day. They aren't really comparable. But yes, they both could have called the police. In my opinion only one of them was definitely wrong not to do so.

Little Danny;966767 wrote:For instance, if you were to knock on my door and say that there is a crazy man with a hockey mask and chain saw chasing you but I do not see him, are you to say I am not to contact the authorities because it is a hearsay statement?

Let's make the situation a little more applicable.

You knock at my door and tell me there was a crazy man with a hockey mask and chain saw chasing you yesterday. Why should I be concerned enough to call the cops today based on your allegation after the fact when you weren't concerned enough to call the cops when it was actually occurring in front of you yesterday?

I would probably ask why you didn't call the cops and suggest that you do so now.

WebFire;966837 wrote:I work above a bank. If one of the tellers runs upstairs and says, "Someone robbed us yesterday. I didn't call the police! What should I do?"

Fixed for a more accurate comparison. I would say "you probably should have" and recommend that they either call the police now or report the robbery to their manager. If they didn't call the cops when the robbery was taking place and waited a day to tell me I'm suspicious right there.

"In hindsight...I didn't think we'd get caught"

vball10set;966842 wrote:read this, and if you already have, read it again..and then get back to us

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf

This x elevnty billion

Mulva;966855 wrote:
Fixed for a more accurate comparison. I would say "you probably should have" and recommend that they either call the police now or report the robbery to their manager. If they didn't call the cops when the robbery was taking place and waited a day to tell me I'm suspicious right there.

Ok, I can play along. Let's fix it for even greater accuracy.

I am the bank manager. I was off on Tuesday. When I come to work on Wednesday, a teller tells me she was robbed at gun point the prior day, but didn't tell anyone. What should I do?

WebFire;966859 wrote:Ok, I can play along. Let's fix it for even greater accuracy.

I am the bank manager. I was off on Tuesday. When I come to work on Wednesday, a teller tells me she was robbed at gun point the prior day, but didn't tell anyone. What should I do?

Actually, hell this isn't even accurate. How about this.

I am the bank manager. An employee comes in to my office and tells me she witnessed a 10 year old boy getting raped by another employee in the bathroom the previous day. She did not call the police. I called my manager and told him. Nothing ever happened. What should I do?

WebFire;966861 wrote:Actually, hell this isn't even accurate. How about this.

I am the bank manager. An employee comes in to my office and tells me she witnessed a 10 year old boy getting raped by another employee in the bathroom the previous day. She did not call the police. I called my manager and told him. Nothing ever happened. What should I do?

apply for the OC job at PSU?

sleeper;966823 wrote:#1 We don't know what the GA told Joe Pa.

#2 You don't go accusing people of rape. Joe Pa and the GA have no proof and these are very serious allegations that you don't just go throwing around. You are being unrealistic using hindsight 20/20 to craft your theory. Pretty ridiculous and embarrassing for people to be attacking Joe Pa with all the facts we now know.

READ THE GRAND JURY REPORT! You are making a fool of yourself. Paterno told the Grand Jury under oath that his GA told him he saw Sandusky in the shower fondling AND doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.

What do we know by Paterno's under oath testimony? There were TWO acts. Fondling AND something of a sexual nature. ALSO, we know that that the sexual act was done TO the young boy not WITH the young boy.

What is your definition of an act of a "sexual nature". There are several, picture ANY of them being done TO a young boy? All would be considered heinous if done TO a young boy.

What about you, would YOU consider them heinous? If you were Paterno and you see nothing is done about this man fondling and doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy in YOUR shower what would you do? Are you just going to let it die? You're not going to find out why nothing was done? You're not concerned that Sandusky is still around your facilities with young boys? NO ONE DID ANYTHING, including the most powerful man at Penn State.

Crimson streak;966805 wrote:How do you know at that time that he thought everything checked out or was told it was nothing after the investigation? I don't know you don't know and that's my point no one knows what joe pa knows so you can't crucify him when you don't know everything that happened. He says it now after the fact that he wished he did more I'm sure a lot of people are saying the same. That doesn't mean he knew everything that was happening

READ THE GRAND JURY REPORT it will tell you EXACTLY what Paterno says he knew/knows and he tells us UNDER OATH.

You protect children. Period. If you don't, you aren't worth a warm bucket of spit. I don't care how many games you have won.

Skyhook79;966626 wrote:99.99% of my anger would be directed at Jerry Sandusky the other .01 would be divided up among the 2 detectives and 1 investigator in 1998,the BOT who gave Sandusky emeritus Status in 1999,the 2 janitors in 2000,the 2 superiors JoePa told and Mike McQueary in 2002.

Hope that helps

Right. Paterno doesn't deserve any blame. 0, nada, nothing. GTFO. No one is saying Paterno is more to blame than anyone else, but he for sure deserves partial blame. When you're a leader, you lead. Not report it and then hope it doesn't come back to you.

Crimson streak;966756 wrote:Exactly people don't get it that joe pa followed the right steps. Who seriously calls the police on hearsay? He filled a report with campus police what more do you want the guy to do? Joe pa will forever be a legend and one of the greatest people in college football history. What he has done for the university, basically donating his pay check from the university every year back into the school. The reason he was fired is because the board has wanted him gone for a whole now and this was the way to get rid of him

Hearsay? The GA admitted that he saw it with his own eyes. That's not hearsay.

Pariah;966876 wrote:You protect children. Period. If you don't, you aren't worth a warm bucket of spit. I don't care how many games you have won.

Winner!

Stay classy, Bielema:

@trenni Trenni Kusnierek

Award for tackiest sound bite on PSU incident--Bielema. Talks scandals at PSU, UM & OSU & says, "guess it's a good time to be a Badger fan"

http://twitter.com/#!/trenni/status/134703222307827713

gorocks99;966883 wrote:Stay classy, Bielema:



http://twitter.com/#!/trenni/status/134703222307827713

he's an asshole...33-29 :thumbup:

gorocks99;966883 wrote:Stay classy, Bielema:



http://twitter.com/#!/trenni/status/134703222307827713

smh...33-29

gorocks99;966883 wrote:Stay classy, Bielema:



http://twitter.com/#!/trenni/status/134703222307827713

Nah, it's still better to be a Buckeye fan.

WebFire;966859 wrote:Ok, I can play along. Let's fix it for even greater accuracy.

I am the bank manager. I was off on Tuesday. When I come to work on Wednesday, a teller tells me she was robbed at gun point the prior day, but didn't tell anyone. What should I do?

I'm not the moral authority, but I would say something along these lines. Ask her why she didn't call the police, whether anyone else was in the bank working/as a customer at that time, call and report the incident to whoever your supervisor is, and have her file a report with the cops (hey look, I can be rational and not deny it should have happened!)

But, let's say you don't have her call the cops. Instead you report it to your supervisor. He speaks to the teller who was robbed at gunpoint, and tells you he will handle it. 6 months later (let's shorten the time frame) another bank is robbed, and the teller is killed. The teller sees the suspect on the news and realizes he is the same one who robbed her.

Turns out your supervisor never went to the cops. The CEO of the company finds out and determines that you should have done more than just reporting the incident to your boss and fires both of you. Is it justified? Yes. Are you a monster and an enabler of armed robbery for reporting the incident to your boss (who then met with the teller)? No. Do you wish you had done more? I'm sure you do.

Plus, I would hope you can admit that there's a significant difference between reporting that someone robbed your bank and that a specific identified person sexually abused a child. One has to be handled with a little bit more discretion.

Plus plus, what if you dispute the teller? She says she was robbed at gunpoint. You and your supervisor say all she told you was that "someone took money from the register". If your version is accurate, running to the cops doesn't seem as obvious. It still should have been done so feel free to save the READ THE GJ!!!!!!111 comments, but it makes following procedure more appropriate than the other case.

Again if more comes out that he was actively involved in a coverup then my opinion will completely change. But for now those are my feelings.