Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FreeReign
In addition to the AD, I would have reported the guy to the police.

I'm sure you would have reported it if you witnessed it first hand.
But, Paterno didn't.
And, the grad assistant wasn't specific as to what took place.
Would you really involve the police on hearsay?
Paterno reported what he knew in a timely manor to his superiors.

21 posted on 11/08/2011 12:03:32 PM PST by Ramcat (Thank You American Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: Ramcat

“I’m sure you would have reported it if you witnessed it first hand.
But, Paterno didn’t.
And, the grad assistant wasn’t specific as to what took place.”

####

The grad assistant that was an eyewitness to the rape?

Why exactly wasn’t he specific regarding aomething that abominably heinous?

Why then too, didn’t Paterno press him on the details and instead accept a nebulous, non-specific account?


27 posted on 11/08/2011 12:09:06 PM PST by EyeGuy (2012: When the Levee Breaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Ramcat

My wife is a teacher.

They are required by law to notify authorities in situations like this. Not school officials, but Child protective services at the very least.

Even on hearsay.


101 posted on 11/08/2011 1:41:54 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Ramcat; All
If you took any time to read the accounts of the story the grad assistant didn't tell Paterno the details of what he witnessed.

Ramcat, I'm over 50, so I don't have many heroes left. Joe Paterno was one of them until yesterday.

I took the time to read the Grand Jury Presentment.

First, there is one thing that is missing from the Presentment. After you notice that it's missing, you get this empty feeling in your gut. The Presentment follows the four men - McQuery, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz. It specifically goes over what Party A tells Party B, and what Party B tells Party C, and so forth. If Party B disagrees with Party A about what was told, then the Presentment sets forth both sides of the story.

Everywhere except once.

The Presentment is very, very careful not to mention what McQuery told the investigators that he told Paterno. All other conversations between all parties - even if they met multiple times - are detailed. McQuery told his father it was anal rape. McQuery told Curley it was anal rape. McQuery told Curley and Schultz it was anal rape. McQuery meets again and says it was anal rape. Schultz says he only heard "wrestling" and Sandusky may have accidentally grabbed a boy's genitals. Curley says he heard x. And so forth.

But the Presentment is careful never to state what McQuery says he told Paterno. It only says what Paterno says he was told.

Maybe Paterno wasn't told. But you have to wonder why McQuery would put himself in the position of incurring the wrath of his former coach, the man he still works for today, the man who WAS Penn State. Why would McQuery tell his father, 'anal rape,' then tell Joe Paterno something different, and then tell everyone after that 'anal rape'?

Second, Paterno didn't witness it first-hand. But neither did Curley or Schultz. So they were supposed to involve the police on hearsay, but Paterno wasn't? The Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner publicly stated yesterday that Paterno failed his moral obligation to report this to the police.

Third, it appears the first charges against Sandusky surfaced in 1994, when he was an active coach, Paterno's good friend and defensive coordinator, and the heir apparent to the PSU coaching job. Then, in 1998, the University Police investigated Sandusky for multiple incidents involving boys and the football showers. In 1998, a Penn State player couldn't drink an extra beer without JoePa knowing about it. You don't think he knew that his defensive coordinator was being investigated for molesting boys in the football showers? And now - does it make sense why Sandusky unexpectedly announced his 'early retirement' in 1999?

But instead of being kicked to the curb, which Joe Paterno could have done, Sandusky was given emeritus status, with an office in the athletic building, a parking spot, keys to the athletic facilities, tuition discounts for his kids, an internet accounts, and perquisites . . . such as bringing boys with him to football practices, and pre-game football banquets, and to tour the football locker room whenever he wanted.

And so, when McQueary reported to JoePa on a Saturday morning that Sandusky was in the shower with a young (ten year-old) boy the night before, you don't think JoePa would be curious? Or remorseful?

And why did JoePa wait to repot the incident until the next day? And when the police were never called, and Sandusky still had his office, and was still showing up at football events, and was being allowed to host SLEEPOVER camps for boys using the football facilities, you don't think Paterno should have asked a few questions?

In 2002, the AD, Curley, was Paterno's superior only on a organizational chart. If Paterno wanted Curley to call the University Police, he would have told him to do it, and Curley would have done it. Paterno could have called the President directly, or told Curley to do it. Paterno could have told the Trustees to meet at his house and told them to yank Sandusky's emeritus status, if that's what it took.

But he turned a blind eye to the fact that the guy that was booted from the program in 1999 for molesting boys in the football showers still had access to the football showers. And was still bringing boys there. And he was letting the guy bring boys to pre-game banquets. And use the football facilities for sleepover camps.

Is any of this beginning to give you a sick feeling about Paterno? Because he was my one and only hero among NCAA football coaches. And now I know that, to avoid bringing shame on Penn State by disclosing that a pedophile was associated with it, he let the pedophile continue to use the Penn State football program as the 'candy' to continue luring young boys into those showers.

102 posted on 11/08/2011 1:47:10 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I stand for something; therefore, I can't stand Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Ramcat

“And, the grad assistant wasn’t specific as to what took place.”

Oh really? Well that’s what JoePa said anyway. Is that what McQueary said? Can’t tell....they aren’t telling us.

Paterno claims it was a vague description of something inappropriate of a sexual nature in the shower.
He says McQueary was clearly upset.
So....if JoePa didn’t ask the obvious...”well, what EXACTLY did you see Mike?”.....is that a problem?

This is on top of Paterno claiming he didn’t know about 1998.
That is very difficult to believe.

It appears that JoePa didn’t know a heluva lot doesn’t it?

And yet, Sandusky kept showing up at games with boys. He kept coaching youth camps at PSU satellite campuses.

Sandusky kept his office.
Heck...he worked out on campus just last week.


146 posted on 11/08/2011 3:20:19 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson