Sykotyk;967274 wrote:Anybody who believes a good samaritan must risk their lives is missing the point. If your life is in jeopardy in order to help a victim, that's your personal call to make. Maybe McQueary feared the large naked man would try to fuck him if he interfered, who knows.

Misdemeanor crimes, etc. Yeah, maybe I'd just report it higher up. But a 10-year-old being rammed in the ass by an old man is something I would at least call the cops for. You're equating a 10-year-old being raped to witnesses a coworker stealing money from the register, etc. This is criminal. In fact, it's right up there with murder in terms of damage they're doing.


If McQueary walked in on Sandusky killing a full-grown man by stabbing them in the abdomen with a machete, would McQueary just run home to daddy? Would him and his dad just decide to tell Paterno in the morning? Would Paterno just tell his AD and wash his hands of it? Would McQueary just stay there knowing a murderer was walking around the campus and had free access to that building? Would the AD and VP just ignore it and tell McQueary he can't bring machetes onto school property anymore? Would nobody call the cops at all?

The people doubting McQueary's testimony would have to then question each of the seven boys that told their stories of what happened to them. All of which sync up with each other in regard to Sandusky's MO in how he befriends them, treats them, assaults them, etc. So, McQueary's testimony is not unbelievable. Considering the fact JoePa admits that McQueary came to him and was told of (in Joe's words) fondling and of a sexual nature, etc and then told the AD the next day himself.

So, there's no debate between anybody that McQueary came to JoePa to tell him. There's no debate by JoePa that he went to the AD. Only the AD and VP are in trouble because they lied about it (hence the perjury charges). The only dispute is that JoePa said it was 'fondling' and of a 'sexual nature', while McQueary claims he told him specifically what he saw. Which, in Joe's terminology, 'sexual nature' might mean the same as 'fucked in the ass'.

And despite all this, you have the one victim's mother who Sandusky told her he was sorry and that he wished he was dead. Police were in the other room. But the prosecutor felt there wasn't enough evidence to go after him. So, he walked there. The janitors witnessed something, but had a meeting first to decide if they should tell their boss (they were contract cleaners, not university employees) and were afraid they might lose their jobs. They went ahead voted amongst each other to tell their boss.

If it were one accusation, I could understand how this could be blown out of proportion. But, McQueary's testimony fits into the picture when confronted with the other seven victims that were known about at the time. Since then, more have come forward. But not the boy McQueary saw in 2002. It's not something the victim even wants to talk about. And a 10-year-old that's lived with it for nine years could've done a great job telling himself it didn't happen.

Skyhook79;967275 wrote:Yeah that happened in 1998 the mother of victim 2 called the authorities, 2 Police Detectives and an investigator took control of the situation and Sandusky was booked,charged and taken off the street...oh wait.

Skyhook79;967279 wrote:So much wrong information in your post I don't even know where to begin.

Manhattan Buckeye;967282 wrote:Begin somewhere. The next correct thing you say on this thread will be your first.

Skyhook79;967287 wrote:58% of Lawyers are ambulance chasing slime balls.

Manhattan Buckeye;967293 wrote:I would guess 57%, but I like that you are true to yourself. When people bring up logic, facts and reasoning you resort to nonsensical posts. In JoePa's GJ testimony he stated that he was told that the contact was sexual. It isn't even a debate. It is public record. That is enough for him to be in his current situation (unemployed).

The lack of action had real consequences. Sandusky was allowed to continue his predatory behavior because JoePa and others didn't stand up for the weakest in our society. Screw football, this is about real morality.

Skyhook79;967298 wrote:He was told it was "something of a sexual nature" not contact WAS sexual. Big difference. I thought Lawyers loved to play with "open to interpretation" comments of statements in testimony and eye witness accounts?

WebFire;967305 wrote:Is this ****ing serious?

Skyhook79;967298 wrote:He was told it was "something of a sexual nature" not contact WAS sexual. Big difference. I thought Lawyers loved to play with "open to interpretation" comments of statements in testimony and eye witness accounts?

Skyhook79;967298 wrote:He was told it was "something of a sexual nature" not contact WAS sexual. Big difference. I thought Lawyers loved to play with "open to interpretation" comments of statements in testimony and eye witness accounts?

Skyhook79;967298 wrote:He was told it was "something of a sexual nature" not contact WAS sexual. Big difference. I thought Lawyers loved to play with "open to interpretation" comments of statements in testimony and eye witness accounts?

Fab1b;967322 wrote:ESPN reported: JoPa has hired a CRIMINAL DEFENSE attorney!!!!!

ccrunner609;967348 wrote:He, PSU, THe Penn. Attorny general will all need this.

SportsAndLady;967350 wrote:I can't watch this Georgia Tech/Va Tech game and not think that GT's old, white defensive coordinator rapes little kids in their locker room facilities.

Manhattan Buckeye;967356 wrote:Al Groh? Doubt it. He's a good guy, not the best coach but not a child molester. He lives down the street from my in-laws.

Fab1b;967322 wrote:ESPN reported: JoPa has hired a CRIMINAL DEFENSE attorney!!!!!

sleeper;967383 wrote:I would too when you have the irrationality of the masses calling for his head.

Manhattan Buckeye;967385 wrote:I don't think he's going to face criminal charges, he's too old and too senile. What good would it do? He's out, that's enough.