Writerbuckeye;970052 wrote:BS. You keep ignoring Paterno's own words to the GJ that he was told something "sexual" had occurred between Sandusky and a child.

You don't need anything more than that to take the correct action -- which is opposite what Paterno actually did. He took the path of least resistance and least effort.

Following the law is the path of least resistance and opposite of the correct action?

"From the GJ testimony The AD said Sandusky's keys were taken away and that he reported to the head of the second mile what Sandusky was accused of."

The head of Second Mile doesn't have authority to arrest people or perform a criminal investigation. The police do. Why State College cops weren't contacted that weekend by someone is unfathomable.

Skyhook79;970060 wrote:Following the law is the path of least resistance and opposite of the correct action?

What does following the law mean? Aside from Seinfeld final episode laws I typically don't have a duty to report a crime. That doesn't mean that reporting it isn't the correct action, or on the other hand failing to report it is correct.

Manhattan Buckeye;970075 wrote:
The head of Second Mile doesn't have authority to arrest people or perform a criminal investigation. The police do.

Neither does JoePa yet you say he is suppose to conduct an investigation into the identity of a crime victim, after he was told that Agencies and people have been contacted and its being handled.

reclegend22;969869 wrote:Yes, but in this case, with hindsight Joe Paterno now knows new information. That he wasn't told the truth with regard to how key Penn State administrators handled their "investigation" of McQueary's story. And, also as we know now, Paterno was never told that anything relating to the seriousness of intercourse or rape of a child had ever occurred.

WRONG WRONG WRONG....READ THE GRAND JURY REPORT. Paterno told the Grand Jury UNDER OATH. QUOTE>>>>>"Sandusky was in the shower fondling AND doing something of a sexual nature TO a young boy. That's not "serious"??? If you don't think so you must be a deviant also.

Skyhook79;970093 wrote:Neither does JoePa yet you say he is suppose to conduct an investigation into the identity of a crime victim, after he was told that Agencies and people have been contacted and its being handled.

It wasn't handled. And the guy testifying that he "believed" they contacted a "child protection agency" [NOTE, the lack of specific term of which agency] is being charged with perjury.

All JoePa has to do is go to his old buddy Sandusky and utter four words, "Who is the kid?"

He didn't do it.

Manhattan Buckeye;970106 wrote:It wasn't handled. And the guy testifying that he "believed" they contacted a "child protection agency" [NOTE, the lack of specific term of which agency] is being charged with perjury.

All JoePa has to do is go to his old buddy Sandusky and utter four words, "Who is the kid?"

He didn't do it.

Sandusky has denied the allegations why would he tell him who the kid is if he denies it happened?

What does JoePa's superior possibly perjuring himself have to do with what JoePa was told? So he possibly lied to JoePa too.

Skyhook79;970119 wrote:Sandusky has denied the allegations why would he tell him who the kid is if he denies it happened?

What does JoePa's superior possibly perjuring himself have to do with what JoePa was told? So he possibly lied to JoePa too.

Perhaps he would have denied it, JoePa Leader/Legend didn't even bother himself to contact him. This is why the matter is so outrageous. These people didn't do anything.

Manhattan Buckeye;970136 wrote:Perhaps he would have denied it, JoePa Leader/Legend didn't even bother himself to contact him. This is why the matter is so outrageous. These people didn't do anything.

How do you know whether JoePa contacted Sandusky or not about the incident? No one from the GJ asked the question. Saying "these people" didn't do anything is also wrong, you may not like what was done with your benefit of Hindsight and testimony, but JoePa did what the law says he should have done and that doesn't fall under "didn't do anything".

"How do you know whether JoePa contacted Sandusky or not about the incident? No one from the GJ asked the question."

Exactly. You don't think that would be relevant? Sandusky is the main person on trial - any contact from McQueary, JoePa, etc. post the incident would certainly be presented by the prosecution.

Manhattan Buckeye;970179 wrote:"How do you know whether JoePa contacted Sandusky or not about the incident? No one from the GJ asked the question."

Exactly. You don't think that would be relevant? Sandusky is the main person on trial - any contact from McQueary, JoePa, etc. post the incident would certainly be presented by the prosecution.

Wouldn't the question have to be asked at the GJ hearing for them to know? It wasn't asked from anyone who gave testimony whether they contacted Sandusky.

From the Grand Jury report (yawn) yet again:

"....and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the University did so. Schultz did not ask the graduate assistant for specifics. No one ever did."

A good friend of mine who's ex-wife went to PSU is telling me the JoePa camp is claiming that when McQueary met him he stopped him before the conversation got too "graphic." That's the defense. Ignorance.

This isn't a Duke lacrosse situation where you had a rogue prosecutor making a case to save his re-election attempt in a matter of days. This case has been investigated for years, the state prosecutors are involved.

When they claim "No one ever did." I know that they have chosen their words carefully.

Manhattan Buckeye;970196 wrote:From the Grand Jury report (yawn) yet again:

"....and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the University did so. Schultz did not ask the graduate assistant for specifics. No one ever did."

A good friend of mine who's ex-wife went to PSU is telling me the JoePa camp is claiming that when McQueary met him he stopped him before the conversation got too "graphic." That's the defense. Ignorance.

This isn't a Duke lacrosse situation where you had a rogue prosecutor making a case to save his re-election attempt in a matter of days. This case has been investigated for years, the state prosecutors are involved.

When they claim "No one ever did." I know that they have chosen their words carefully.

Well why didn't you tell me earlier one of your good friends whose ex-wife went to Penn State knows what happened and what JoePa's defense team defense plan is even though no one ever testified to JoePa stopped McQuaery even McQuaery himself. /sarcasm
Prosecutors are so good that after the GJ testimony it still took them 11 months to arrest Jerry Sandusky, a supposed serial rapist.

Skyhook79;970210 wrote:Well why didn't you tell me earlier one of your good friends whose ex-wife went to Penn State knows what happened and what JoePa's defense team defense plan is even though no one ever testified to JoePa stopped McQuaery even McQuaery himself. /sarcasm
Prosecutors are so good that after the GJ testimony it still took them 11 months to arrest Jerry Sandusky, a supposed serial rapist.

Wow. That made no sense whatsoever.

EXACTLY "hind sight" means in the past....when the sexual abuse took place in the past Paterno admits he didn't do enough.

Manhattan Buckeye;970221 wrote:Wow. That made no sense whatsoever.

Makes more sense than saying "who's ex-wife". It's "whose ex-wife" Mr. grammar police man. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Skyhook79;969803 wrote:Here is his ENTIRE quote: “This is a tragedy,” Paterno said in a statement addressing the allegations against Sandusky. “It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, I wish I had done more.”

Way to pick out only the part that benefits your argument.

EXACTLY..."hindsight" means in the past. When the sexual abuse happened in the past, Paterno admits he should have done more.

Skyhook79;969363 wrote:Why don't you answer the question? It is a yes or no question,pretty simple, except for a Lawyer I guess.
Were you lying when you said the AD has been fired?

He is as good as fired. He WILL be fired, once his trial is over, guilty OR not.

Big Gain;970232 wrote:EXACTLY..."hindsight" means in the past. When the sexual abuse happened in the past, Paterno admits he should have done more.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hindsight


1. Perception of the significance and nature of events after they have occurred


1. the ability to understand, after something has happened, what should have been done or what caused the event


Any questions Big Gain?

You know he let it go because if the most powerful man on the campus of Penn State wanted more done TI WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE, he remained silent.

Big Gain;970236 wrote:He is as good as fired. He WILL be fired, once his trial is over, guilty OR not.

Are you also having trouble with "Has been fired" vs "will be fired"?

Skyhook79;970056 wrote:From the GJ testimony The AD said Sandusky's keys were taken away and that he reported to the head of the second mile what Sandusky was accused of. Shultz testified that he and Curley reported the incident to the Child Protective Agency. It is completely plausible that Paterno was told by 2 of his superiors that he reported the incident to that the incident has been reported to the proper authorities and they are looking into it along with what Curley said was done. You cannot just assume what Paterno was told about what was being done.

It does not matter. Paterno knew Sandusky messed around with young boys. How many molestations was Paterno going to allow? He admits he should have done more.

Big Gain;970243 wrote:It does not matter. Paterno knew Sandusky messed around with young boys. How many molestations was Paterno going to allow? He admits he should have done more.

We have already had the hindsight discussion, have you learned the real meaning of hindsight yet?

Skyhook79;969980 wrote:How do you know he let it go? The GJ testimony has nothing about what JoePa did or didn't do for follow-up. There are 23 pages in the GJ testimony and there are 5 sentences from JoePa total.
Why would you bring the moral into the legal? everyone gets to interpret that (moral) in their own way.

PATERNO BROKE NO LAW.

Would YOU consider this a moral or amoral happening?? "Sandusky was in the shower fondling AND doing something of a sexual nature TO a young boy."

Simple question, simple answer. Multiple choice. 1) moral 2) amoral. Pass or fail.

Take your test.

Skyhook79;970246 wrote:We have already had the hindsight discussion, have you learned the real meaning of hindsight yet?

YES indeed, a PERFECTLY chosen word by Paterno. Hindsight - Bias, or alternatively the knew-it-all-along effect.