Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jul 13, 2016 9:42:48 GMT -5
those look like the statements you were making a few years ago when this first came out. seriously, are you surprised that there's a segment of every major cfb program that's going to lean toward defending everything associated with the team? well they sort of have a point. imagine if schiano is fired b/c ohio state doesn't want to be attached to this. wouldn't that be wrongful termination? mcqueary's testimony was hearsay of hearsay that contained no specifics or even any allegation of any wrongdoing. he just said he was told by tom bradley that schiano looked stunned at something he saw. and if you pay attention to the reputation schiano has made for himself as head coach of rutgers and tampa bay, does he seem like the type of person that would idly sit by and ignore the sexual assault of a child? from back to front... based on what i've observed of schiano's personality, and all i've seen has been on the football field, no it doesn't seem he would simply turn around and walk away. but i seem to recall you justifying that kind of reax out of mcqueary, in a sort of shock trying to make sense of what he thinks he just saw. as for what osu might/could do? if after vetting everything the powers that be felt that whatever schiano's involvement was at psu re sandusky reflected poorly on his current employer, i'm guessing they'd either buy out or negotiate a settlement to end his employment, if that language isn't already in his contract.
|
|
mark scott tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Jul 13, 2016 9:53:28 GMT -5
It does put Meyer and Ohio State in kind of an awkward position. Schiano has already denied it, so that should be interesting.
the best part is reading other ohio state fans justify shiano. here are some exact quotes from another message board and let me know if any of these arguments sound at all familiar: "Is it possible McQueary isn't remembering things exactly as they happened?" "it's just one persons testimony based on a story told to him by someone else about a previous incident. Which is hardly the end all be all of the story. " " If the testimony about Schiano's knowledge is true, then I will be the first to grab my pitchfork, but we should withhold judgment until the facts unfold about Schiano's accused involvement, which, to my knowledge, has zero supporting evidence to this point." "McQueary could've misremembered part of his conversation with Bradley or, over time, combined two stories into one, and Schiano's name could've gotten mixed into it. I'm not defending anyone, but it's not fair to Schiano to assume this is true. No one is assuming it's false, either." I get what you're saying, but I still think it's apples to oranges. First of all, unlike Sandusky, Schiano isn't a perpetrator. Second, the tOSU fans aren't exactly circling the wagons. As I said before, imo, the truth will never be known. As for Schiano (and Bradley) I have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth or not. Same for McQueary.
That said, my personal opinion hasn't changed...I don't believe Sandusky operated in a vacuum. Nor do I believe anyone around the program was all that shocked to "discover" that Sandusky liked little boys.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Jul 13, 2016 10:19:39 GMT -5
from back to front... based on what i've observed of schiano's personality, and all i've seen has been on the football field, no it doesn't seem he would simply turn around and walk away. but i seem to recall you justifying that kind of reax out of mcqueary, in a sort of shock trying to make sense of what he thinks he just saw. as for what osu might/could do? if after vetting everything the powers that be felt that whatever schiano's involvement was at psu re sandusky reflected poorly on his current employer, i'm guessing they'd either buy out or negotiate a settlement to end his employment, if that language isn't already in his contract. Best guess is if Schiano had any "involvement" it would be limited to looking the other way.
If Schiano (again IF) saw something it's easy to see how he could look the other way and convince himself it just couldn't be what he thought he saw.
Taking on a Jerry Sandusky and Penn State itself is not easy to do when you have a mortgage, no job security, a wife, kids to feed, etc. Risking all of that over a kid whose name you don't even know is not a slam dunk.
We all say we know what we would do, but the truth is, we don't know until we are faced with the situation.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Godlike Member
|
Post by daleko on Jul 13, 2016 14:33:36 GMT -5
those look like the statements you were making a few years ago when this first came out. seriously, are you surprised that there's a segment of every major cfb program that's going to lean toward defending everything associated with the team? well they sort of have a point. imagine if schiano is fired b/c ohio state doesn't want to be attached to this. wouldn't that be wrongful termination? mcqueary's testimony was hearsay of hearsay that contained no specifics or even any allegation of any wrongdoing. he just said he was told by tom bradley that schiano looked stunned at something he saw. and if you pay attention to the reputation schiano has made for himself as head coach of rutgers and tampa bay, does he seem like the type of person that would idly sit by and ignore the sexual assault of a child? Same discussion point you once used for someone else. And yet he couldn't be bother by that stuff 'cause he had a football program to run. The defense I have read is sort of in concert w making a case for ancient aliens. "Is it possible", with a frame that makes it very possible. Is it then probable that they looked the other way, not really knowing but suspecting, not willing to take the extra step, because of the inevitable backlash on the football program.
Re Shiano if you cut him free, That's why you hire attorneys. Make a decision and move on.
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021 Bowl Season Champion - 2023
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by snap infraction on Jul 13, 2016 15:33:18 GMT -5
well they sort of have a point. imagine if schiano is fired b/c ohio state doesn't want to be attached to this. wouldn't that be wrongful termination? mcqueary's testimony was hearsay of hearsay that contained no specifics or even any allegation of any wrongdoing. he just said he was told by tom bradley that schiano looked stunned at something he saw. and if you pay attention to the reputation schiano has made for himself as head coach of rutgers and tampa bay, does he seem like the type of person that would idly sit by and ignore the sexual assault of a child? Same discussion point you once used for someone else. And yet he couldn't be bother by that stuff 'cause he had a football program to run. The defense I have read is sort of in concert w making a case for ancient aliens. "Is it possible", with a frame that makes it very possible. Is it then probable that they looked the other way, not really knowing but suspecting, not willing to take the extra step, because of the inevitable backlash on the football program.
Re Shiano if you cut him free, That's why you hire attorneys. Make a decision and move on. the line i put in bold is what i have always disagreed with. it is fact that paterno was told something and did not do enough with the information given to him. but you, freeh, emmert and others always assign this motive that paternos decision making was based on his desire to protect the image of his football program. and emmert got a giant erection and he realized he could pile on for positive pr which resulted in him ignoring his own rules and coercing embarrassed and weakened psu into accepting a ridiculous punishment. but the narrative is horseshit. paterno never told mcqueary to be quiet. mcqueary even testified that paterno followed up with him and told paterno he was ok with how everything was being handled. paterno immediately went to the highest leaders of the university, including someone who oversaw the local police department. and those leaders immediately went to an outside organization that employed sandusky that was full of experts, mandated reporters and social workers. and none of these experts were ever scrutinized by anyone for failing to act. if your concerned about your image, why involve people outside your organization? and the attorney generals office praised paterno after sandusky was arrested. and the states attorney who prosecuted sandusky told the meda who didn't believe paterno was trying to conceal anything.
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Godlike Member
|
Post by daleko on Jul 13, 2016 17:29:47 GMT -5
Same discussion point you once used for someone else. And yet he couldn't be bother by that stuff 'cause he had a football program to run. The defense I have read is sort of in concert w making a case for ancient aliens. "Is it possible", with a frame that makes it very possible. Is it then probable that they looked the other way, not really knowing but suspecting, not willing to take the extra step, because of the inevitable backlash on the football program.
Re Shiano if you cut him free, That's why you hire attorneys. Make a decision and move on. the line i put in bold is what i have always disagreed with. it is fact that paterno was told something and did not do enough with the information given to him. but you, freeh, emmert and others always assign this motive that paternos decision making was based on his desire to protect the image of his football program. and emmert got a giant erection and he realized he could pile on for positive pr which resulted in him ignoring his own rules and coercing embarrassed and weakened psu into accepting a ridiculous punishment. but the narrative is horseshit. paterno never told mcqueary to be quiet. mcqueary even testified that paterno followed up with him and told paterno he was ok with how everything was being handled. paterno immediately went to the highest leaders of the university, including someone who oversaw the local police department. and those leaders immediately went to an outside organization that employed sandusky that was full of experts, mandated reporters and social workers. and none of these experts were ever scrutinized by anyone for failing to act. if your concerned about your image, why involve people outside your organization? and the attorney generals office praised paterno after sandusky was arrested. and the states attorney who prosecuted sandusky told the meda who didn't believe paterno was trying to conceal anything. Any other records left sealed? It seems that many, at least were left w hints for a goodly number of years. 30? We can disagree about the motivation but more than a few were complicit.
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021 Bowl Season Champion - 2023
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by Buckeye Dale on Jul 13, 2016 21:12:59 GMT -5
Same discussion point you once used for someone else. And yet he couldn't be bother by that stuff 'cause he had a football program to run. The defense I have read is sort of in concert w making a case for ancient aliens. "Is it possible", with a frame that makes it very possible. Is it then probable that they looked the other way, not really knowing but suspecting, not willing to take the extra step, because of the inevitable backlash on the football program.
Re Shiano if you cut him free, That's why you hire attorneys. Make a decision and move on. the line i put in bold is what i have always disagreed with. it is fact that paterno was told something and did not do enough with the information given to him. but you, freeh, emmert and others always assign this motive that paternos decision making was based on his desire to protect the image of his football program. and emmert got a giant erection and he realized he could pile on for positive pr which resulted in him ignoring his own rules and coercing embarrassed and weakened psu into accepting a ridiculous punishment. but the narrative is horseshit. paterno never told mcqueary to be quiet. mcqueary even testified that paterno followed up with him and told paterno he was ok with how everything was being handled. paterno immediately went to the highest leaders of the university, including someone who oversaw the local police department. and those leaders immediately went to an outside organization that employed sandusky that was full of experts, mandated reporters and social workers. and none of these experts were ever scrutinized by anyone for failing to act. if your concerned about your image, why involve people outside your organization? and the attorney generals office praised paterno after sandusky was arrested. and the states attorney who prosecuted sandusky told the meda who didn't believe paterno was trying to conceal anything. That's more speculation from you than from any of us in regards to JoePa's knowledge of what was going on... Nothing is going to change peoples' minds...you nit-zombies will go to your graves ranting about JoePa's innocence even if you had pix...the rest of us, who read forever that NOTHING happened in Crappy Valley that JoePa was not aware of will continue to believe he knew, but turned his head. Oh, and you forgot ...AND the university.
|
|
Never grow a wishbone where a backbone ought to be.
We can disagree without being disagreeable.
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Jul 16, 2016 20:16:05 GMT -5
Same discussion point you once used for someone else. And yet he couldn't be bother by that stuff 'cause he had a football program to run. The defense I have read is sort of in concert w making a case for ancient aliens. "Is it possible", with a frame that makes it very possible. Is it then probable that they looked the other way, not really knowing but suspecting, not willing to take the extra step, because of the inevitable backlash on the football program.
Re Shiano if you cut him free, That's why you hire attorneys. Make a decision and move on. the line i put in bold is what i have always disagreed with. it is fact that paterno was told something and did not do enough with the information given to him. but you, freeh, emmert and others always assign this motive that paternos decision making was based on his desire to protect the image of his football program. and emmert got a giant erection and he realized he could pile on for positive pr which resulted in him ignoring his own rules and coercing embarrassed and weakened psu into accepting a ridiculous punishment. but the narrative is horseshit. paterno never told mcqueary to be quiet. mcqueary even testified that paterno followed up with him and told paterno he was ok with how everything was being handled. paterno immediately went to the highest leaders of the university, including someone who oversaw the local police department. and those leaders immediately went to an outside organization that employed sandusky that was full of experts, mandated reporters and social workers. and none of these experts were ever scrutinized by anyone for failing to act. if your concerned about your image, why involve people outside your organization? and the attorney generals office praised paterno after sandusky was arrested. and the states attorney who prosecuted sandusky told the meda who didn't believe paterno was trying to conceal anything. So you accept the fact that Joe knew something but didn't do enough. If his failure to act forcefully was NOT to protect the image of the program, then what do you think it was? Did he simply cover up for a good friend? If so, then that is more despicable than covering up for the school.
|
|
56-43-2* OVER FLORIDA. ALWAYS IN THE LEAD. THE CRYBABY LIZARDS WOULD ACCEPT THIS IF THEY WERE HONEST *2020 Is Negated By Covid-19 15 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR GEORGIA FLORIDA HAS ONLY 8 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS BACK-TO-BACK NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2021! 2022! FOUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS!
AMERICAN BY BIRTH. SOUTHERN BY THE GRACE OF GOD!!!
2017 GRAND DOUCHE AWARD WINNER
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by snap infraction on Jul 18, 2016 8:29:36 GMT -5
the line i put in bold is what i have always disagreed with. it is fact that paterno was told something and did not do enough with the information given to him. but you, freeh, emmert and others always assign this motive that paternos decision making was based on his desire to protect the image of his football program. and emmert got a giant erection and he realized he could pile on for positive pr which resulted in him ignoring his own rules and coercing embarrassed and weakened psu into accepting a ridiculous punishment. but the narrative is horseshit. paterno never told mcqueary to be quiet. mcqueary even testified that paterno followed up with him and told paterno he was ok with how everything was being handled. paterno immediately went to the highest leaders of the university, including someone who oversaw the local police department. and those leaders immediately went to an outside organization that employed sandusky that was full of experts, mandated reporters and social workers. and none of these experts were ever scrutinized by anyone for failing to act. if your concerned about your image, why involve people outside your organization? and the attorney generals office praised paterno after sandusky was arrested. and the states attorney who prosecuted sandusky told the meda who didn't believe paterno was trying to conceal anything. So you accept the fact that Joe knew something but didn't do enough. If his failure to act forcefully was NOT to protect the image of the program, then what do you think it was? Did he simply cover up for a good friend? If so, then that is more despicable than covering up for the school.i think joe knew sandusky was a creeper with boundary issues but did not understand the full depth of sandusky's evil until we all did in 2011. i think joe was not sure how to handle b/c mcqueary wasn't sure what he saw (as proven by his changing testimony over the years). and i think he knew he wasn't an expert and didn't want to falsely accuse someone if he himself didn't quite understand what happened. but he knew he couldn't just ignore it b/c mcqueary was uncomfortable so he forwarded the issue to the athletic director and univ vice president, who he thought would better handle the situation. the athletic director and vice president then involved the university president and sandusky's employer at the time (his charity, the 2nd mile). sandusky and paterno were never friends. it was well documented before the scandal that joe disliked sandusky. there is literally one photo in existence of paterno and sandusky together outside of a football game. paterno attended sandusky's retirement dinner for just a few minutes. paterno blamed sandusky for some underachieving teams and wanted to fire sandusky numerous times, but he didn't b/c sandusky's laid back, easy going player friendly style balanced paternos no-nonsense, demanding strict style of coaching. think about it...if paterno knew sandusky was a pedophile all the way to 1976...why would he later allow sandusky to start a charity that worked with troubled children? why would paterno promote sandusky though the coaching ranks throughout the years? why would paterno tell others the story mcqueary told him? why would paterno allow outsiders to the program to know about sandusky? why would paterno testify in such a self incriminating manner? none of this makes sense with the current narrative.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Jul 18, 2016 9:51:51 GMT -5
So you accept the fact that Joe knew something but didn't do enough. If his failure to act forcefully was NOT to protect the image of the program, then what do you think it was? Did he simply cover up for a good friend? If so, then that is more despicable than covering up for the school. i think joe knew sandusky was a creeper with boundary issues but did not understand the full depth of sandusky's evil until we all did in 2011. i think joe was not sure how to handle b/c mcqueary wasn't sure what he saw (as proven by his changing testimony over the years). and i think he knew he wasn't an expert and didn't want to falsely accuse someone if he himself didn't quite understand what happened. but he knew he couldn't just ignore it b/c mcqueary was uncomfortable so he forwarded the issue to the athletic director and univ vice president, who he thought would better handle the situation. the athletic director and vice president then involved the university president and sandusky's employer at the time (his charity, the 2nd mile). sandusky and paterno were never friends. it was well documented before the scandal that joe disliked sandusky. there is literally one photo in existence of paterno and sandusky together outside of a football game. paterno attended sandusky's retirement dinner for just a few minutes. paterno blamed sandusky for some underachieving teams and wanted to fire sandusky numerous times, but he didn't b/c sandusky's laid back, easy going player friendly style balanced paternos no-nonsense, demanding strict style of coaching. think about it...if paterno knew sandusky was a pedophile all the way to 1976...why would he later allow sandusky to start a charity that worked with troubled children? why would paterno promote sandusky though the coaching ranks throughout the years? why would paterno tell others the story mcqueary told him? why would paterno allow outsiders to the program to know about sandusky? why would paterno testify in such a self incriminating manner? none of this makes sense with the current narrative. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense. Paterno obviously was an intelligent man. We don't know what exactly Joe knew, but if he was suspicious enough to go to his bosses, then he should have been intelligent enough to ask, during meetings with the AD or prez, "What's up with that issue I brought to you?" To claim he simply dropped it after informing his bosses is making Joe out to be a clueless dolt that knew nothing but football. I think the average person would be concerned enough about what he was told to watch Sandusky more carefully, and maybe ask his staff to always be around when anyone outside the program is in the facilities. Surely there are qualified psychology or psychiatry professors at Penn State he could have asked about "something that worries him" about an unnamed person. Seriously, if Joe merely told the AD about this and did nothing else, then he failed miserably as a human being.
|
|
56-43-2* OVER FLORIDA. ALWAYS IN THE LEAD. THE CRYBABY LIZARDS WOULD ACCEPT THIS IF THEY WERE HONEST *2020 Is Negated By Covid-19 15 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR GEORGIA FLORIDA HAS ONLY 8 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS BACK-TO-BACK NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2021! 2022! FOUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS!
AMERICAN BY BIRTH. SOUTHERN BY THE GRACE OF GOD!!!
2017 GRAND DOUCHE AWARD WINNER
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by snap infraction on Jul 18, 2016 15:01:22 GMT -5
i think joe knew sandusky was a creeper with boundary issues but did not understand the full depth of sandusky's evil until we all did in 2011. i think joe was not sure how to handle b/c mcqueary wasn't sure what he saw (as proven by his changing testimony over the years). and i think he knew he wasn't an expert and didn't want to falsely accuse someone if he himself didn't quite understand what happened. but he knew he couldn't just ignore it b/c mcqueary was uncomfortable so he forwarded the issue to the athletic director and univ vice president, who he thought would better handle the situation. the athletic director and vice president then involved the university president and sandusky's employer at the time (his charity, the 2nd mile). sandusky and paterno were never friends. it was well documented before the scandal that joe disliked sandusky. there is literally one photo in existence of paterno and sandusky together outside of a football game. paterno attended sandusky's retirement dinner for just a few minutes. paterno blamed sandusky for some underachieving teams and wanted to fire sandusky numerous times, but he didn't b/c sandusky's laid back, easy going player friendly style balanced paternos no-nonsense, demanding strict style of coaching. think about it...if paterno knew sandusky was a pedophile all the way to 1976...why would he later allow sandusky to start a charity that worked with troubled children? why would paterno promote sandusky though the coaching ranks throughout the years? why would paterno tell others the story mcqueary told him? why would paterno allow outsiders to the program to know about sandusky? why would paterno testify in such a self incriminating manner? none of this makes sense with the current narrative. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense. Paterno obviously was an intelligent man. We don't know what exactly Joe knew, but if he was suspicious enough to go to his bosses, then he should have been intelligent enough to ask, during meetings with the AD or prez, "What's up with that issue I brought to you?" To claim he simply dropped it after informing his bosses is making Joe out to be a clueless dolt that knew nothing but football. I think the average person would be concerned enough about what he was told to watch Sandusky more carefully, and maybe ask his staff to always be around when anyone outside the program is in the facilities. Surely there are qualified psychology or psychiatry professors at Penn State he could have asked about "something that worries him" about an unnamed person. Seriously, if Joe merely told the AD about this and did nothing else, then he failed miserably as a human being.mcqueary spoke with psu administrators and later testified that joe followed up with him to ask if he was ok with how the situation was being handled, and said he was. so it's not like paterno just dropped it. and when paterno had to testify in front of a grand jury....it was his testimony, spefically his usage of the word "sexual nature" that was vital in sandusky being indicted. if paterno had wanted to cover it up, all he had to do was say mcqueary didn't relay that what he saw was sexual in anyway. w/o paternos testimony, sandusky is probably free today. if paterno were so callous that protecting the football program was greater than the protection of children...why the hell would he testify in a way that both placed sandusky under arrest while giving everyone ammo to accuse him of being an enabler?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Jul 18, 2016 19:46:15 GMT -5
I agree with you that it doesn't make sense. Paterno obviously was an intelligent man. We don't know what exactly Joe knew, but if he was suspicious enough to go to his bosses, then he should have been intelligent enough to ask, during meetings with the AD or prez, "What's up with that issue I brought to you?" To claim he simply dropped it after informing his bosses is making Joe out to be a clueless dolt that knew nothing but football. I think the average person would be concerned enough about what he was told to watch Sandusky more carefully, and maybe ask his staff to always be around when anyone outside the program is in the facilities. Surely there are qualified psychology or psychiatry professors at Penn State he could have asked about "something that worries him" about an unnamed person. Seriously, if Joe merely told the AD about this and did nothing else, then he failed miserably as a human being. mcqueary spoke with psu administrators and later testified that joe followed up with him to ask if he was ok with how the situation was being handled, and said he was. so it's not like paterno just dropped it. and when paterno had to testify in front of a grand jury....it was his testimony, spefically his usage of the word "sexual nature" that was vital in sandusky being indicted. if paterno had wanted to cover it up, all he had to do was say mcqueary didn't relay that what he saw was sexual in anyway. w/o paternos testimony, sandusky is probably free today. if paterno were so callous that protecting the football program was greater than the protection of children...why the hell would he testify in a way that both placed sandusky under arrest while giving everyone ammo to accuse him of being an enabler? So Paterno dumped it on a lowly position coach to "handle" the situation with PSU officials? Unbelievable.
|
|
56-43-2* OVER FLORIDA. ALWAYS IN THE LEAD. THE CRYBABY LIZARDS WOULD ACCEPT THIS IF THEY WERE HONEST *2020 Is Negated By Covid-19 15 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR GEORGIA FLORIDA HAS ONLY 8 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS BACK-TO-BACK NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2021! 2022! FOUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS!
AMERICAN BY BIRTH. SOUTHERN BY THE GRACE OF GOD!!!
2017 GRAND DOUCHE AWARD WINNER
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jul 18, 2016 20:21:54 GMT -5
I agree with you that it doesn't make sense. Paterno obviously was an intelligent man. We don't know what exactly Joe knew, but if he was suspicious enough to go to his bosses, then he should have been intelligent enough to ask, during meetings with the AD or prez, "What's up with that issue I brought to you?" To claim he simply dropped it after informing his bosses is making Joe out to be a clueless dolt that knew nothing but football. I think the average person would be concerned enough about what he was told to watch Sandusky more carefully, and maybe ask his staff to always be around when anyone outside the program is in the facilities. Surely there are qualified psychology or psychiatry professors at Penn State he could have asked about "something that worries him" about an unnamed person. Seriously, if Joe merely told the AD about this and did nothing else, then he failed miserably as a human being. mcqueary spoke with psu administrators and later testified that joe followed up with him to ask if he was ok with how the situation was being handled, and said he was. so it's not like paterno just dropped it. and when paterno had to testify in front of a grand jury....it was his testimony, spefically his usage of the word "sexual nature" that was vital in sandusky being indicted. if paterno had wanted to cover it up, all he had to do was say mcqueary didn't relay that what he saw was sexual in anyway. w/o paternos testimony, sandusky is probably free today. if paterno were so callous that protecting the football program was greater than the protection of children...why the hell would he testify in a way that both placed sandusky under arrest while giving everyone ammo to accuse him of being an enabler? you can't be serious. you really think it was paterno's testimony which put sandusky behind bars? ?
|
|
mark scott tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by snap infraction on Jul 19, 2016 6:53:37 GMT -5
mcqueary spoke with psu administrators and later testified that joe followed up with him to ask if he was ok with how the situation was being handled, and said he was. so it's not like paterno just dropped it. and when paterno had to testify in front of a grand jury....it was his testimony, spefically his usage of the word "sexual nature" that was vital in sandusky being indicted. if paterno had wanted to cover it up, all he had to do was say mcqueary didn't relay that what he saw was sexual in anyway. w/o paternos testimony, sandusky is probably free today. if paterno were so callous that protecting the football program was greater than the protection of children...why the hell would he testify in a way that both placed sandusky under arrest while giving everyone ammo to accuse him of being an enabler? So Paterno dumped it on a lowly position coach to "handle" the situation with PSU officials? Unbelievable. ?? he wasn't a position coach at the time, he was only a graduate assistant. but that's besides the point. mcqueary was the eyewitness. so yes, he was the person to speak to.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by snap infraction on Jul 19, 2016 7:36:18 GMT -5
mcqueary spoke with psu administrators and later testified that joe followed up with him to ask if he was ok with how the situation was being handled, and said he was. so it's not like paterno just dropped it. and when paterno had to testify in front of a grand jury....it was his testimony, spefically his usage of the word "sexual nature" that was vital in sandusky being indicted. if paterno had wanted to cover it up, all he had to do was say mcqueary didn't relay that what he saw was sexual in anyway. w/o paternos testimony, sandusky is probably free today. if paterno were so callous that protecting the football program was greater than the protection of children...why the hell would he testify in a way that both placed sandusky under arrest while giving everyone ammo to accuse him of being an enabler? you can't be serious. you really think it was paterno's testimony which put sandusky behind bars? ? paterno validated mcqueary's testimony. otherwise, it's mcqueary's word vs everyone else's. if paterno testifies that he was told of nothing sexual, then mcqueary's eyewitness account is not nearly as clear. it is my understanding of the timeline of events that other victims did not come forward until after the mcqueary incident was investigated.
|
|