mcqueary espn mag online now

[ihs82]

interesting read. some new developments not previously known...according to unnamed sources, mcqueary told others he was sexually abused as a child. other unnamed sources stated that mcqueary had a gambling issue and even gambled on psu games while an active player. he is currently broke and living at home w/ his parents looking for employment outside of state college.

what's interesting is that victim 2 (Sandusky shower victim that links psu to the whole mess) went into Sandusky's lawyer office after Sandusky was arrested and claim he was not abused that night. he claimed mcqueary just saw horseplay. of course, the grand jury presentment stated that mcqueary witnessed an anal rape, and that's what the media picked up on. this contradiction is why the shower victim wasn't asked to tesify at Sandusky's trial.



espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10542793/the-whistleblower-last-stand

[oujour76]

Mar 4, 2014 13:41:41 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

interesting read. some new developments not previously known...according to unnamed sources, mcqueary told others he was sexually abused as a child. other unnamed sources stated that mcqueary had a gambling issue and even gambled on psu games while an active player. he is currently broke and living at home w/ his parents looking for employment outside of state college.

what's interesting is that victim 2 (Sandusky shower victim that links psu to the whole mess) went into Sandusky's lawyer office after Sandusky was arrested and claim he was not abused that night. he claimed mcqueary just saw horseplay. of course, the grand jury presentment stated that mcqueary witnessed an anal rape, and that's what the media picked up on. this contradiction is why the shower victim wasn't asked to tesify at Sandusky's trial.



espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10542793/the-whistleblower-last-stand

Also interesting that Victim 2 got millions in a settlement with Penn State. Pretty expensive horseplay.

[ihs82]

Mar 4, 2014 14:05:49 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Mar 4, 2014 13:41:41 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

interesting read. some new developments not previously known...according to unnamed sources, mcqueary told others he was sexually abused as a child. other unnamed sources stated that mcqueary had a gambling issue and even gambled on psu games while an active player. he is currently broke and living at home w/ his parents looking for employment outside of state college.

what's interesting is that victim 2 (Sandusky shower victim that links psu to the whole mess) went into Sandusky's lawyer office after Sandusky was arrested and claim he was not abused that night. he claimed mcqueary just saw horseplay. of course, the grand jury presentment stated that mcqueary witnessed an anal rape, and that's what the media picked up on. this contradiction is why the shower victim wasn't asked to tesify at Sandusky's trial.



espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10542793/the-whistleblower-last-stand

Also interesting that Victim 2 got millions in a settlement with Penn State. Pretty expensive horseplay.

timing. victim 2 visited sandusy's lawyer's office prior to the university being widely accused of being negligent. once he lawyered up, he changed stories.



btw, my favorite line in the story was "By corroborating McQueary's account, Paterno would tarnish his own legacy and help topple the program." think about that for a second. paterno was blamed by freeh for covering up Sandusky's crimes to avoid negative publicity and protect the program at all costs. yet, all paterno had to avoid negative publicity and protect the program at all costs was not corroborate mcqueary. it makes zero f*%$*#n sense.

[mscott59]

Mar 4, 2014 13:41:41 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

interesting read. some new developments not previously known...according to unnamed sources, mcqueary told others he was sexually abused as a child. other unnamed sources stated that mcqueary had a gambling issue and even gambled on psu games while an active player. he is currently broke and living at home w/ his parents looking for employment outside of state college.

what's interesting is that victim 2 (Sandusky shower victim that links psu to the whole mess) went into Sandusky's lawyer office after Sandusky was arrested and claim he was not abused that night. he claimed mcqueary just saw horseplay. of course, the grand jury presentment stated that mcqueary witnessed an anal rape, and that's what the media picked up on. this contradiction is why the shower victim wasn't asked to tesify at Sandusky's trial.



espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10542793/the-whistleblower-last-stand

there are many interesting facets to this story. beginning with my sorrow for where mcqueary is in his life right now. that has to seem like an abyss whose walls keep getting higher and higher out of reach. another is the fact that psu has paid $59.7 million to the victims, but a spokeswoman for psu was quote in the piece that the university has no plans to settle w/mcqueary re: his whistleblower lawsuit.

another was the following article quote below, which imho has always been at the crux of this entire saga: that psu knew the legal quicksand they were in w/sandusky, and that you had to wonder whether they'd confided in, asked, or simply informed paterno of it previously.

This was not the first time that Curley and Schultz were made aware of an allegation that Sandusky had behaved inappropriately with a boy. In 1998 University Police and the Department of Public Welfare conducted an investigation of Sandusky, also related to showering with a young boy on campus. The investigation ended when the local district attorney decided not to file charges. (Spanier told the grand jury he was never informed of this incident, but emails from 1998, brought to light in the Freeh report, prove otherwise.)

as for why mcqueary hasn't found a coaching job since being let go by psu? the same reason that some psu assistants have been hired and others haven't; connections, the feeling that they're not the right fit or not good enough for their program, maybe the gambling stuff if true was known in coaching circles, or maybe he's simply still too white hot to touch.

mark scott
tosu 81

[oujour76]

Mar 4, 2014 14:24:01 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Mar 4, 2014 14:05:49 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Also interesting that Victim 2 got millions in a settlement with Penn State. Pretty expensive horseplay.

timing. victim 2 visited sandusy's lawyer's office prior to the university being widely accused of being negligent. once he lawyered up, he changed stories.



btw, my favorite line in the story was "By corroborating McQueary's account, Paterno would tarnish his own legacy and help topple the program." think about that for a second. paterno was blamed by freeh for covering up Sandusky's crimes to avoid negative publicity and protect the program at all costs. yet, all paterno had to avoid negative publicity and protect the program at all costs was not corroborate mcqueary. it makes zero f*%$*#n sense.

Timing?? Oh Good God....you really are blinded.

[ihs82]

Mar 4, 2014 15:18:07 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Mar 4, 2014 13:41:41 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

interesting read. some new developments not previously known...according to unnamed sources, mcqueary told others he was sexually abused as a child. other unnamed sources stated that mcqueary had a gambling issue and even gambled on psu games while an active player. he is currently broke and living at home w/ his parents looking for employment outside of state college.

what's interesting is that victim 2 (Sandusky shower victim that links psu to the whole mess) went into Sandusky's lawyer office after Sandusky was arrested and claim he was not abused that night. he claimed mcqueary just saw horseplay. of course, the grand jury presentment stated that mcqueary witnessed an anal rape, and that's what the media picked up on. this contradiction is why the shower victim wasn't asked to tesify at Sandusky's trial.



espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10542793/the-whistleblower-last-stand

there are many interesting facets to this story. beginning with my sorrow for where mcqueary is in his life right now. that has to seem like an abyss whose walls keep getting higher and higher out of reach. another is the fact that psu has paid $59.7 million to the victims, but a spokeswoman for psu was quote in the piece that the university has no plans to settle w/mcqueary re: his whistleblower lawsuit.

another was the following article quote below, which imho has always been at the crux of this entire saga: that psu knew the legal quicksand they were in w/sandusky, and that you had to wonder whether they'd confided in, asked, or simply informed paterno of it previously.

This was not the first time that Curley and Schultz were made aware of an allegation that Sandusky had behaved inappropriately with a boy. In 1998 University Police and the Department of Public Welfare conducted an investigation of Sandusky, also related to showering with a young boy on campus. The investigation ended when the local district attorney decided not to file charges. (Spanier told the grand jury he was never informed of this incident, but emails from 1998, brought to light in the Freeh report, prove otherwise.)

as for why mcqueary hasn't found a coaching job since being let go by psu? the same reason that some psu assistants have been hired and others haven't; connections, the feeling that they're not the right fit or not good enough for their program, maybe the gambling stuff if true was known in coaching circles, or maybe he's simply still too white hot to touch.

mark scott
tosu 81

the crux of the entire saga is how informed everyone was (which is still somewhat debatable) and what their motives were for how they responded(which is still highly debatable). I see it as everyone thought sandusky was a weirdo with boundary issues but gave him the benefit of the doubt b/c of his status as a popular ex coach who was still a pillar in the community. of course, i could list a billion examples of high status members of communities deceiving others into ignoring warning signs of being a pedophile. but others, like the ncaa and louis freeh, saw it as they all knew everything but only cared about protecting their large revenue generator at all costs. this combined with the psu bot's cowardly corporate approach to fighting negative publicity allowed the second perception to win.

the obvious question in all this is...if paterno didn't do more b/c he didn't want the negative publicity, as specifically stated by louis freeh and adopted by the NCAA, why the hell would he corroborate mcqueary's testimony?

[ihs82]

Mar 4, 2014 21:18:31 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Mar 4, 2014 14:24:01 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

timing. victim 2 visited sandusy's lawyer's office prior to the university being widely accused of being negligent. once he lawyered up, he changed stories.



btw, my favorite line in the story was "By corroborating McQueary's account, Paterno would tarnish his own legacy and help topple the program." think about that for a second. paterno was blamed by freeh for covering up Sandusky's crimes to avoid negative publicity and protect the program at all costs. yet, all paterno had to avoid negative publicity and protect the program at all costs was not corroborate mcqueary. it makes zero f*%$*#n sense.

Timing?? Oh Good God....you really are blinded.

i simply don't agree. do you not think it's possible that sandusky was horseplaying in the shower as part of the grooming/compliance process pedophiles use to select their victims. and that's what mcqueary heard (remember, he didn't see anything). and after it became obvious that sandusky was a serial pedophile, the victim lawyered up because he realized he was entitled to a significant payout by the univ?

you can't take penn state's willingness to settle with the victims as basis of anyone's guilt. they settled with numerous people w/o asking questions. they wanted to move on at all costs and didn't want to deal with any drama associated with questioning the accuracy of someone's claim.

[mscott59]

Mar 5, 2014 9:07:31 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Mar 4, 2014 15:18:07 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

there are many interesting facets to this story. beginning with my sorrow for where mcqueary is in his life right now. that has to seem like an abyss whose walls keep getting higher and higher out of reach. another is the fact that psu has paid $59.7 million to the victims, but a spokeswoman for psu was quote in the piece that the university has no plans to settle w/mcqueary re: his whistleblower lawsuit.

another was the following article quote below, which imho has always been at the crux of this entire saga: that psu knew the legal quicksand they were in w/sandusky, and that you had to wonder whether they'd confided in, asked, or simply informed paterno of it previously.

This was not the first time that Curley and Schultz were made aware of an allegation that Sandusky had behaved inappropriately with a boy. In 1998 University Police and the Department of Public Welfare conducted an investigation of Sandusky, also related to showering with a young boy on campus. The investigation ended when the local district attorney decided not to file charges. (Spanier told the grand jury he was never informed of this incident, but emails from 1998, brought to light in the Freeh report, prove otherwise.)

as for why mcqueary hasn't found a coaching job since being let go by psu? the same reason that some psu assistants have been hired and others haven't; connections, the feeling that they're not the right fit or not good enough for their program, maybe the gambling stuff if true was known in coaching circles, or maybe he's simply still too white hot to touch.

mark scott
tosu 81

the crux of the entire saga is how informed everyone was (which is still somewhat debatable) and what their motives were for how they responded(which is still highly debatable). I see it as everyone thought sandusky was a weirdo with boundary issues but gave him the benefit of the doubt b/c of his status as a popular ex coach who was still a pillar in the community. of course, i could list a billion examples of high status members of communities deceiving others into ignoring warning signs of being a pedophile. but others, like the ncaa and louis freeh, saw it as they all knew everything but only cared about protecting their large revenue generator at all costs. this combined with the psu bot's cowardly corporate approach to fighting negative publicity allowed the second perception to win.

the obvious question in all this is...if paterno didn't do more b/c he didn't want the negative publicity, as specifically stated by louis freeh and adopted by the NCAA, why the hell would he corroborate mcqueary's testimony?

do you think joepa would have claimed he never met w/mcqueary instead??? mcqueary's dad and his dad's boss knew he was going to meet and tell the coach what he saw. paterno's wife answered the phone... even if paterno had been trying to 'cover up', it would have been idiotic to lie about why they got together that morning.

i'm sorry... but your theory imho still fails the common sense test. the freeh report found the emails establishing that psu execs knew that sandusky had been investigated in '98. even though it did not end up in charges, do you think it was just coincidence that sandusky suddenly retired out of the blue the following year? that paterno's relationship w/sandusky noticably changed? that paterno barely stayed at sandusky's retirement for just a few minutes? for such a storied, long-serving assistant?

and, knowing what you knew from '98, if you were a psu executive and you heard of yet another incidence of sandusky naked in the shower with a young boy, after you'd allowed him to keep a presence on campus and offices in the athletic building, would that not raise your antenna in terms of suspicion? especially after hearing what mcqueary says he shared? do you really think the email where the a-d talked about running it by joe has no meaning whatsoever???

sandusky may have 'fooled' lots of people up until '98, at the absolute latest, but the ensuing events make it pretty clear that psu should have taken a much different course of action than what it ended up doing.

mark scott
tosu 81

[oujour76]

[quote author="@ihhe o asking questions. they wanted to move on at all costs and didn't want to deal with any drama associated with questioning the accuracy of someone's claim.

[/quote]

I believe a lot of things are "possible" and I also believe that word is more often used to confuse than it is to clarify. IMO, you're trying to pick apart everything you can into minute bits and pieces while at the same time ignoring the whole. According to the article, the lawyers are "forensically dissecting" things...and that isn't to get to the truth, it is to confuse things as much as possible. The McQueary shower thing is a prime example..you're taking the benefit of hindsight years after the fact and holding this guy to a truth test over a shocking incident he witnessed for 30 seconds or so. And then you ignore, or pay lip service to the story as a whole. As for Victim 2, you want to hang your hat on some guy who according to you isn't really a victim, but an opportunist of the highest order. Because of....timing. And that, to me, is bizarre.

[ihs82]

Mar 5, 2014 9:27:30 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Mar 5, 2014 9:07:31 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

the crux of the entire saga is how informed everyone was (which is still somewhat debatable) and what their motives were for how they responded(which is still highly debatable). I see it as everyone thought sandusky was a weirdo with boundary issues but gave him the benefit of the doubt b/c of his status as a popular ex coach who was still a pillar in the community. of course, i could list a billion examples of high status members of communities deceiving others into ignoring warning signs of being a pedophile. but others, like the ncaa and louis freeh, saw it as they all knew everything but only cared about protecting their large revenue generator at all costs. this combined with the psu bot's cowardly corporate approach to fighting negative publicity allowed the second perception to win.

the obvious question in all this is...if paterno didn't do more b/c he didn't want the negative publicity, as specifically stated by louis freeh and adopted by the NCAA, why the hell would he corroborate mcqueary's testimony?

do you think joepa would have claimed he never met w/mcqueary instead??? mcqueary's dad and his dad's boss knew he was going to meet and tell the coach what he saw. paterno's wife answered the phone... even if paterno had been trying to 'cover up', it would have been idiotic to lie about why they got together that morning.

i'm sorry... but your theory imho still fails the common sense test. the freeh report found the emails establishing that psu execs knew that sandusky had been investigated in '98. even though it did not end up in charges, do you think it was just coincidence that sandusky suddenly retired out of the blue the following year? that paterno's relationship w/sandusky noticably changed? that paterno barely stayed at sandusky's retirement for just a few minutes? for such a storied, long-serving assistant?

and, knowing what you knew from '98, if you were a psu executive and you heard of yet another incidence of sandusky naked in the shower with a young boy, after you'd allowed him to keep a presence on campus and offices in the athletic building, would that not raise your antenna in terms of suspicion? especially after hearing what mcqueary says he shared? do you really think the email where the a-d talked about running it by joe has no meaning whatsoever???

sandusky may have 'fooled' lots of people up until '98, at the absolute latest, but the ensuing events make it pretty clear that psu should have taken a much different course of action than what it ended up doing.

mark scott
tosu 81

mark, i see what you are saying but your facts are incorrect:

1. the corroboration has nothing to do with paternos actual meeting with mcqueary. it has to do with the details relayed to paterno from mcqueary. paterno could have easily testified to the grand jury that only horseplay was relayed to him (which is what he testified initially to police investigators). mcqueary would have been further isolated and it would have been his account vs sandusky's. but instead, paterno gave mcqueary's testimony further credibility and was incredibly vital to the state.

2. freeh didn't found any e-mails. the e-mails were sent to him by the attorney general's office. during the press conference on the slowest day of the sports calendar, an hour after the report was publically released, giving people very little time to actually read the report and formulate questions, freeh claimed his team found all this evidence. that turned out to be b.s. freeh was working closely with the attorney generals office. they wanted to give this perception that the investigation was independent, but it was far from independent.

3. i know I've said this a billion times here, but sandusky didn't retire out of the blue. he decided to retire when he was informed by paterno that he would not be the next coach. even freeh in his report stated that sandusky's retirement was completely unrelated to the shower incident in 1998. in fact, the retirement process had already begun before the shower incident.

4. paternos relationship with sandusky did not noticeably change after 1998. that's another myth. their relationship was already sour. paterno thought sandusky was underachieving b/c he was too distracted with his charitable work. paterno wanted to fire sandusky after numerous occasions but decided against it b/c sandusky was a players coach and it balanced his strict style well. find more than 1 picture of paterno together with sandusky post 1986. there was as many pictures of bill o'brien posing with paterno as a college student than there are of sandusky with paterno. i know you don't believe all these events are coincidences, but i really think this was just a perfect storm situation.

5. you keep judging everything in hindsight. from the administrators perspective...sandusky was cleared in 1998 as doing nothing wrong. in fact, sandusky maintained a relationship with the 1998 victim up until his arrest. secondly, the charity that sandusky founded and worked for saw nothing inappropriate with the 2001 incident. also, a mandated reported heard mcqueary's account immediately after the incident and didn't instruct mcqueary to call the cops. all these experts and trained professionals saw nothing wrong with sandusky, yet we are so quick to blame the ex employer.

6. of course it's clear they should have taken a separate course of action. mcqueary should have called the cops immediately. mcqueary's father and family friend should have instructed mcqueary to call the cops paterno, upon hearing mcqueary's account, should have instructed mcqueary to call the cops. even if the cops were called, the fact that the victim denied being abused that night, i don't even know if anything would have come of it.

[ihs82]

Mar 5, 2014 10:05:32 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

[quote author="@ihhe o asking questions. they wanted to move on at all costs and didn't want to deal with any drama associated with questioning the accuracy of someone's claim.

I believe a lot of things are "possible" and I also believe that word is more often used to confuse than it is to clarify. IMO, you're trying to pick apart everything you can into minute bits and pieces while at the same time ignoring the whole. According to the article, the lawyers are "forensically dissecting" things...and that isn't to get to the truth, it is to confuse things as much as possible. The McQueary shower thing is a prime example..you're taking the benefit of hindsight years after the fact and holding this guy to a truth test over a shocking incident he witnessed for 30 seconds or so. And then you ignore, or pay lip service to the story as a whole. As for Victim 2, you want to hang your hat on some guy who according to you isn't really a victim, but an opportunist of the highest order. Because of....timing. And that, to me, is bizarre.


[/quote]

you see me trying to pick things apart to add confusion. i see people changing facts to fit their reality/narrative. i am trying to change the narrative to fit the facts.

when did i say victim 2 wasn't a victim? i said a billion times that i think mcqueary walked in on an act of grooming, which is criminal. pedophiles don't just molest kids they meet immediately. that is not how they operate. the victim has be groomed for compliance first. they first test to see how far they could go and how the kid would react before they make more inappropriate advancements. it's something skilled investigators are trained to recognize, not football coaches. should psu have been more suspicious? obviously. but it wasn't exactly like others who worked with sandusky were warning them.

[mscott59]

Mar 6, 2014 9:13:37 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Mar 5, 2014 9:27:30 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

do you think joepa would have claimed he never met w/mcqueary instead??? mcqueary's dad and his dad's boss knew he was going to meet and tell the coach what he saw. paterno's wife answered the phone... even if paterno had been trying to 'cover up', it would have been idiotic to lie about why they got together that morning.

i'm sorry... but your theory imho still fails the common sense test. the freeh report found the emails establishing that psu execs knew that sandusky had been investigated in '98. even though it did not end up in charges, do you think it was just coincidence that sandusky suddenly retired out of the blue the following year? that paterno's relationship w/sandusky noticably changed? that paterno barely stayed at sandusky's retirement for just a few minutes? for such a storied, long-serving assistant?

and, knowing what you knew from '98, if you were a psu executive and you heard of yet another incidence of sandusky naked in the shower with a young boy, after you'd allowed him to keep a presence on campus and offices in the athletic building, would that not raise your antenna in terms of suspicion? especially after hearing what mcqueary says he shared? do you really think the email where the a-d talked about running it by joe has no meaning whatsoever???

sandusky may have 'fooled' lots of people up until '98, at the absolute latest, but the ensuing events make it pretty clear that psu should have taken a much different course of action than what it ended up doing.

mark scott
tosu 81

mark, i see what you are saying but your facts are incorrect:

1. the corroboration has nothing to do with paternos actual meeting with mcqueary. it has to do with the details relayed to paterno from mcqueary. paterno could have easily testified to the grand jury that only horseplay was relayed to him (which is what he testified initially to police investigators). mcqueary would have been further isolated and it would have been his account vs sandusky's. but instead, paterno gave mcqueary's testimony further credibility and was incredibly vital to the state.

2. freeh didn't found any e-mails. the e-mails were sent to him by the attorney general's office. during the press conference on the slowest day of the sports calendar, an hour after the report was publically released, giving people very little time to actually read the report and formulate questions, freeh claimed his team found all this evidence. that turned out to be b.s. freeh was working closely with the attorney generals office. they wanted to give this perception that the investigation was independent, but it was far from independent.

3. i know I've said this a billion times here, but sandusky didn't retire out of the blue. he decided to retire when he was informed by paterno that he would not be the next coach. even freeh in his report stated that sandusky's retirement was completely unrelated to the shower incident in 1998. in fact, the retirement process had already begun before the shower incident.

4. paternos relationship with sandusky did not noticeably change after 1998. that's another myth. their relationship was already sour. paterno thought sandusky was underachieving b/c he was too distracted with his charitable work. paterno wanted to fire sandusky after numerous occasions but decided against it b/c sandusky was a players coach and it balanced his strict style well. find more than 1 picture of paterno together with sandusky post 1986. there was as many pictures of bill o'brien posing with paterno as a college student than there are of sandusky with paterno. i know you don't believe all these events are coincidences, but i really think this was just a perfect storm situation.

5. you keep judging everything in hindsight. from the administrators perspective...sandusky was cleared in 1998 as doing nothing wrong. in fact, sandusky maintained a relationship with the 1998 victim up until his arrest. secondly, the charity that sandusky founded and worked for saw nothing inappropriate with the 2001 incident. also, a mandated reported heard mcqueary's account immediately after the incident and didn't instruct mcqueary to call the cops. all these experts and trained professionals saw nothing wrong with sandusky, yet we are so quick to blame the ex employer.

6. of course it's clear they should have taken a separate course of action. mcqueary should have called the cops immediately. mcqueary's father and family friend should have instructed mcqueary to call the cops paterno, upon hearing mcqueary's account, should have instructed mcqueary to call the cops. even if the cops were called, the fact that the victim denied being abused that night, i don't even know if anything would have come of it.

god. re: emails, so your issue is whether freeh or the atty gen found them... instead of focusing on WHAT WAS SAID IN THE EMAILS!!!!! keep your eyes on the big picture, not the minutia.

if i were an exec, and there were not one but multiple situations where potential sexual abuse was accused, or suspected, or in mcqueary's case reported, i don't need a decade of hindsight to tell me that i would consider changes in terms of sandusky's campus privileges.

re #6, so it's mcqueary's fault alone that the cops weren't called? he was a grad assistant, and EVERY adult, EVERY person he held in respect and esteem, from his dad to paterno, not one of them said you should call police. the dad says tell the coach. the coach says i'll tell the a-d. what does that say???

mark scott
tosu 81

[ihs82]

Mar 6, 2014 9:41:41 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Mar 6, 2014 9:13:37 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

mark, i see what you are saying but your facts are incorrect:

1. the corroboration has nothing to do with paternos actual meeting with mcqueary. it has to do with the details relayed to paterno from mcqueary. paterno could have easily testified to the grand jury that only horseplay was relayed to him (which is what he testified initially to police investigators). mcqueary would have been further isolated and it would have been his account vs sandusky's. but instead, paterno gave mcqueary's testimony further credibility and was incredibly vital to the state.

2. freeh didn't found any e-mails. the e-mails were sent to him by the attorney general's office. during the press conference on the slowest day of the sports calendar, an hour after the report was publically released, giving people very little time to actually read the report and formulate questions, freeh claimed his team found all this evidence. that turned out to be b.s. freeh was working closely with the attorney generals office. they wanted to give this perception that the investigation was independent, but it was far from independent.

3. i know I've said this a billion times here, but sandusky didn't retire out of the blue. he decided to retire when he was informed by paterno that he would not be the next coach. even freeh in his report stated that sandusky's retirement was completely unrelated to the shower incident in 1998. in fact, the retirement process had already begun before the shower incident.

4. paternos relationship with sandusky did not noticeably change after 1998. that's another myth. their relationship was already sour. paterno thought sandusky was underachieving b/c he was too distracted with his charitable work. paterno wanted to fire sandusky after numerous occasions but decided against it b/c sandusky was a players coach and it balanced his strict style well. find more than 1 picture of paterno together with sandusky post 1986. there was as many pictures of bill o'brien posing with paterno as a college student than there are of sandusky with paterno. i know you don't believe all these events are coincidences, but i really think this was just a perfect storm situation.

5. you keep judging everything in hindsight. from the administrators perspective...sandusky was cleared in 1998 as doing nothing wrong. in fact, sandusky maintained a relationship with the 1998 victim up until his arrest. secondly, the charity that sandusky founded and worked for saw nothing inappropriate with the 2001 incident. also, a mandated reported heard mcqueary's account immediately after the incident and didn't instruct mcqueary to call the cops. all these experts and trained professionals saw nothing wrong with sandusky, yet we are so quick to blame the ex employer.

6. of course it's clear they should have taken a separate course of action. mcqueary should have called the cops immediately. mcqueary's father and family friend should have instructed mcqueary to call the cops paterno, upon hearing mcqueary's account, should have instructed mcqueary to call the cops. even if the cops were called, the fact that the victim denied being abused that night, i don't even know if anything would have come of it.

god. re: emails, so your issue is whether freeh or the atty gen found them... instead of focusing on WHAT WAS SAID IN THE EMAILS!!!!! keep your eyes on the big picture, not the minutia.

if i were an exec, and there were not one but multiple situations where potential sexual abuse was accused, or suspected, or in mcqueary's case reported, i don't need a decade of hindsight to tell me that i would consider changes in terms of sandusky's campus privileges.

re #6, so it's mcqueary's fault alone that the cops weren't called? he was a grad assistant, and EVERY adult, EVERY person he held in respect and esteem, from his dad to paterno, not one of them said you should call police. the dad says tell the coach. the coach says i'll tell the a-d. what does that say???

mark scott
tosu 81

those e-mails exist in a vacuum without proper context, which was never released. "after talking it over w/ joe" has somehow become this concrete evidence that paterno participated in some sort of coverup. b/c it isn't like there are 500000 other ways to interpret that e-mail. yes, i do think the source of the evidence should be considered as the attorney general has an interest in presenting all the damaging evidence. did freeh talk to curly to ask about that e-mail? of course he didn't. he didn't talk to anyone from the other side of the argument despite telling us his report was independent. it's all b.s.


re #6..if i had to take a best guess...mcqueary didn't call the police b/c he wanted a job on the coaching staff (he was an unpaid grad assistant) as he was 26 and ready to move on with his career. he was afraid that calling the police might jeopardize that opportunity. that doesn't mean he's a bad person, or that paterno is a bad person. just means he is human an flawed like the rest of us.

[mscott59]

Mar 6, 2014 10:15:15 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Mar 6, 2014 9:41:41 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

god. re: emails, so your issue is whether freeh or the atty gen found them... instead of focusing on WHAT WAS SAID IN THE EMAILS!!!!! keep your eyes on the big picture, not the minutia.

if i were an exec, and there were not one but multiple situations where potential sexual abuse was accused, or suspected, or in mcqueary's case reported, i don't need a decade of hindsight to tell me that i would consider changes in terms of sandusky's campus privileges.

re #6, so it's mcqueary's fault alone that the cops weren't called? he was a grad assistant, and EVERY adult, EVERY person he held in respect and esteem, from his dad to paterno, not one of them said you should call police. the dad says tell the coach. the coach says i'll tell the a-d. what does that say???

mark scott
tosu 81

those e-mails exist in a vacuum without proper context, which was never released. "after talking it over w/ joe" has somehow become this concrete evidence that paterno participated in some sort of coverup. b/c it isn't like there are 500000 other ways to interpret that e-mail. yes, i do think the source of the evidence should be considered as the attorney general has an interest in presenting all the damaging evidence. did freeh talk to curly to ask about that e-mail? of course he didn't. he didn't talk to anyone from the other side of the argument despite telling us his report was independent. it's all b.s.


re #6..if i had to take a best guess...mcqueary didn't call the police b/c he wanted a job on the coaching staff (he was an unpaid grad assistant) as he was 26 and ready to move on with his career. he was afraid that calling the police might jeopardize that opportunity. that doesn't mean he's a bad person, or that paterno is a bad person. just means he is human an flawed like the rest of us.

so your conjecture as to mcqueary's motives are fine... as long as they lead toward your narrative. got it. as for freeh? my god man, i love how you position this. did freeh have subpoena power? does the attorney general have subpoena power? you need to give up this 'freeh is the devil who hates psu' mindset and start looking at the stuff in the report that is relevant. and a quote from the a-d, in the context of email responses on sandusky, saying 'after talking it over w/joe'? how else can that be interpreted? how would a normal person w/o any agenda see that comment?

mark scott
tosu 81

[ihs82]

Mar 6, 2014 11:49:22 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Mar 6, 2014 10:15:15 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

those e-mails exist in a vacuum without proper context, which was never released. "after talking it over w/ joe" has somehow become this concrete evidence that paterno participated in some sort of coverup. b/c it isn't like there are 500000 other ways to interpret that e-mail. yes, i do think the source of the evidence should be considered as the attorney general has an interest in presenting all the damaging evidence. did freeh talk to curly to ask about that e-mail? of course he didn't. he didn't talk to anyone from the other side of the argument despite telling us his report was independent. it's all b.s.


re #6..if i had to take a best guess...mcqueary didn't call the police b/c he wanted a job on the coaching staff (he was an unpaid grad assistant) as he was 26 and ready to move on with his career. he was afraid that calling the police might jeopardize that opportunity. that doesn't mean he's a bad person, or that paterno is a bad person. just means he is human an flawed like the rest of us.

so your conjecture as to mcqueary's motives are fine... as long as they lead toward your narrative. got it. as for freeh? my god man, i love how you position this. did freeh have subpoena power? does the attorney general have subpoena power? you need to give up this 'freeh is the devil who hates psu' mindset and start looking at the stuff in the report that is relevant. and a quote from the a-d, in the context of email responses on sandusky, saying 'after talking it over w/joe'? how else can that be interpreted? how would a normal person w/o any agenda see that comment?

mark scott
tosu 81

you keep putting words in my mouth!! i never said freeh hates penn state. he's a hired gun who uses his credentials to say whatever people are hiring want him to say. he makes himself a lot of money doing so. corbett pushed the psu bot to hire him. corbett and the psu bot had every incentive in the world to deflect attention away from them. with what freeh did to richard jewell, is it that surprising the lengths he'd go to make someone complicent?

freeh didn't have subpoena power. ironically, the guy who did have subpoena power...state prosecutor frank fina, said he didn't think paterno was guilty of a cover up!!! everyone always forgets this of course. www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/09/jerry_sandusky_prosecutor_no_e.html

freeh told the public that his report was independent. he didn't tell the public that he was going to just use one side's evidence. freeh didn't talk to any of the major players he accused of being complicit in a cover up of child abuse. and before you come back at me by saying paterno refused to talk to freeh....i will just say you're wrong. paterno wanted to be interviewed but died before he could read page 53 of the freeh report if you do not believe me.

notice curley's e-mail was phrased "this is what joe wants to do." it was phrased "after talking it over with joe." curley could have easily made up that he talked to joe in order to bolster his position. it happens all the time everywhere. as a kid, if i wanted something, i tell my dad "well, mom agrees with me" in an attempt to convince my dad that i should get this item. when we had a break room newly constructed in my office a few years ago, i suggested we put a pac man arcade machine in the break room. i told the project manager that other people were on board with me. no one as actually on board with me. i was just hoping it would help the idea get further traction.