Skyhook79;967967 wrote:and probaly named the next Head Coach at Penn St by the BOT for his bravery and dedication to not stopping/watching/testifying against a child molestor.

sleeper;967965 wrote:Maybe the boy slipped while taking a shower and Sandusky went to pick him up?

dwccrew;968032 wrote:I get it now, the kid slipped and fell on top of Sandusky's naked body and then his penis slipped into the kid's ass. What a misunderstanding! Have you ever considered becoming an attorney? Seriously, this is a stellar defense.

sleeper;968126 wrote:The point was, it explains why the act was not interfered with. It isn't all cut and dry, at the time mind you, for Joe Pa to instantly call the police. That is the entire purpose of my defending Joe Pa, and is seemingly lost behind all the "he rapes children" talk.

dwccrew;968134 wrote:The act was not interfered with because McQueary is a coward. He testified that Sandusky was sexually assaulting the kid. JoePa testified that "it was something of a sexual nature".....what is not clear? McQueary knew what he saw at the time he saw it. A grown man (that had been accused of sexually assaulting children before) naked in the shower with a little boy, raping him.

sleeper;968142 wrote:Cool, glad you were there and have all the facts.

#ignorance

dwccrew;968146 wrote:Just read the GJ testimony. It has all the facts.

sportchampps;967955 wrote:From what I've read Big red would probably be facing charges if he wasn't such a bug part of the case against Sandusky

Mulva;968151 wrote:You don't actually believe that, do you? A grand jury is the prosecution making it's case, nothing more. There's basically no standard of proof, no defense arguments, no rebuttals.

You're crazy if you think anywhere close to 'all the facts' are out.

A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether a criminal indictment will issue.

dwccrew;968156 wrote:Meaning it is a fact finding inquiry that will determine whether there is enough facts to bring a criminal indictment. What don't you get? It has all the facts we need to determine that Sandusky was raping children.

bigkahuna;967690 wrote:The point I'm trying to make/speculate is maybe that report from the AD saying basically "we checked it out, nothing to see here..." was the same information that Joe Pa was told, and they went with "Don't bring any more kids around," to cover their own ass. I don't know, but this is why I'm defending Joe Pa and his actions until I/we know more. Right now, there isn't anything out there that shows me that Joe Pa deliberately tried to cover this up and make it go away. I see a man who at the time thought he was doing the right thing and now reflecting on whether or not it was. He's had almost 10 years to think about it. It depends on what information he knew/ignored from the beginning on.

Like skyhook said, the AD isn't fired, he's on leave still collecting a pay check. The VP resigned/went back into retirement. Joe Paterno and the President were the only ones who have actually been fired as of yet.

I know we've all beaten this to death, but I still point everything on McQueary for not stepping in immediately, for not reporting his own eye witness account to authorities, and what he did/didn't do after it came out that no wrong doing was found.

There are some many questions involving him that need to be answered. The biggest ones are who told you/what was told that made you decide not to call the police with what you witnessed? Why are you still allowed to coach?..... It just all starts with him.

Mulva;968161 wrote:No, it has all the facts we need to determine that Sandusky can be charged with raping children. Huge difference. Again, there's basically no burden of proof. Otherwise Sandusky would be guilty right now and not out on bail.

I think it's pretty clear he did it, but being good enough for a grand jury doesn't make it fact. Otherwise people would never be acquitted, and you'd never hear of wrongful convictions being overturned.

lhslep134;968166 wrote:Get out of here with your voice of reason.

Mulva;968161 wrote:No, it has all the facts we need to determine that Sandusky can be charged with raping children. Huge difference. Again, there's basically no burden of proof. Otherwise Sandusky would be guilty right now and not out on bail.

I think it's pretty clear he did it, but being good enough for a grand jury doesn't make it fact. Otherwise people would never be acquitted, and you'd never hear of wrongful convictions being overturned.

dwccrew;968146 wrote:Just read the GJ testimony. It has all the facts. It is a fact finding inquiry. Let me educate you yet again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

#notverybright

Mulva;968161 wrote:No, it has all the facts we need to determine that Sandusky can be charged with raping children. Huge difference. Again, there's basically no burden of proof. Otherwise Sandusky would be guilty right now and not out on bail.

I think it's pretty clear he did it, but being good enough for a grand jury doesn't make it fact. Otherwise people would never be acquitted, and you'd never hear of wrongful convictions being overturned.

It has all the facts we need to determine that Sandusky was raping children and all we need to indict.

Timber;968182 wrote:Just for conversation/observation sake:
1- Why in the Grand Jury testimony is McQueary's name never mentioned? I am not familiar with Grand Jury testimony or how it works at all... just seems strange that everyone else at Penn State involved has their name mentioned.

2- Picture this imagined senario:
Say you are a 28 year old GA at Penn State and it is Friday night of Spring Break, I for one would be going out with friends and enjoying adult beverages, and maybe not even responsibly.

I go back to the locker room to pick-up these recruiting tapes because I forgot them in my haste to get ****-faced. (also...why do I have to purchase new tennis shoes if I am on staff at Penn State University) And I hear someone in the shower and find one of my friends dad's, a former coach of mine, having sexual relations with a minor. Holy **** what do I do. I can't go to the Police or Coach paterno because I have been drinking.... I might get fired... I will call my Dad instead.... he will help me figure out this God awful thing that I witnessed.

Just an idea... not saying any of this happened, nor am I making excuses for this awful, awful series of tragic events.

I know I would have tossed back a few on the first night of Spring break... I only bring this up because the timing is mentioned in the Grand Jury testimony.

dwccrew;968188 wrote:Wow, delete this post before you really get made fun of for all the assumptions in it.

dwccrew;968171 wrote:That is exactly what I said....to bring a criminal indictment.

dwccrew;968171 wrote:What I said is that the facts from the GJ can prove that Sandusky was raping children

dwccrew;968180 wrote:Also, you could have quoted my entire post instead of cutting that sentence short. I said:

It has all the facts we need to determine that Sandusky was raping children and all we need to indict.

It is a slam dunk case for the prosecution. Only Marcia Clark could fuck this case up.

Meaning it is a fact finding inquiry that will determine whether there is enough facts to bring a criminal indictment. What don't you get? It has all the facts we need to determine that Sandusky was raping children

For the record, I have zero patience for anyone who has tried to rationalize the response of Joe Paterno. He was told of unconscionable and (according to a grand jury) criminal behavior by former assistant Jerry Sandusky that took place in the Penn State football complex, and he failed to lead or inspire.

I don’t care if Paterno did what was required under the terms of his employment contract – waiting a day to tell his boss, then essentially pretending the matter didn’t exist for nine years – or that the grand jury chose not to charge him with failure to report his knowledge of the incident to law enforcement, as it did two of his superiors. And I’m not moved that Paterno seemingly did everything right for 46 years as Penn State’s coach in terms of propagating positive values and avoiding the temptation to cheat or short-change academics.

He built a tremendous legacy, but his name no longer stands for all that is supposed to be good about big-time collegiate athletics.

Instead, he’s the guy who put his program – and himself – above the needs of Sandusky’s helpless victims. That’s not going to change, no matter how many people might try to excuse Paterno’s behavior. If Bill Buckner can be indelibly stigmatized by a ground ball going through his legs, and “Wide Right” can be Scott Norwood’s epitaph, it’s not especially outrageous that a heretofore revered coach will feel the permanent stain of a horrible, horrible decision.

It was a defining moment, and it reverberated on a massive scale.

dwccrew;968171 wrote: What I said is that the facts from the GJ can prove that Sandusky was raping children.