Penn State Goings-On

[Rasputin]

I still think Paterno should be charged.  The only reason the grand jury weaseled out of charging him is that they considered him an employee of Penn State, and not to have sufficient authority to report it to protective services.  That's at the top of page 12 of the report.

That's a whitewash, any way you slice it.  If Curley and Schultz deserve to be indicted, so does Paterno.

at least as it relates to the perjury i completely agree

paternos version of the mcreary coversation is the same as curley's but curley is charged with perjuring this testimony and joe pa gets a bone from the jury saying something to the effect of "but his memory of the details was hazy"

[crazy canuck]

This is a Grumbler post at its very worst.  We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did.  From those facts reasonable people can make judgments.  The key words there are "reasonable people".

This is a CrankyCanuck post at its very worst.  When I note that all we have are summaries, he claims that he knows exactly what McQueary saw and exactly what he says he did.  We know nothing of the sort.  We have summaries, not transcripts.  Unless CC has actual transcripts, and just repeats his claims that summaries are exact in order to avoid admitting he has transcripts, because CrankyCanuck is also ContraryCanuck.

This thread doesnt deserve to be waylaid by such idiocy.  we know what he says he saw and what he says he did because well that is what he said to the Grand Jury.  Of course you can go off into some fantasy land that maybe the transmission of what he said is somehow inaccurate.  Do we know whether what he says he saw and what he says he did are true and accurate. No. But what we can do is judge the man based on what he says he did and what he says he say.  That is called an admission.  And based on his known admissions reasonable people can make judgments about what he did and did not do.

Reasonable people Grumbler...

[Rasputin]

This is a Grumbler post at its very worst.  We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did.  From those facts reasonable people can make judgments.  The key words there are "reasonable people".

This is a CrankyCanuck post at its very worst.  When I note that all we have are summaries, he claims that he knows exactly what McQueary saw and exactly what he says he did.  We know nothing of the sort.  We have summaries, not transcripts.  Unless CC has actual transcripts, and just repeats his claims that summaries are exact in order to avoid admitting he has transcripts, because CrankyCanuck is also ContraryCanuck.

This thread doesnt deserve to be waylaid by such idiocy.  we know what he says he saw and what he says he did because well that is what he said to the Grand Jury.  Of course you can go off into some fantasy land that maybe the transmission of what he said is somehow inaccurate.  Do we know whether what he says he saw and what he says he did are true and accurate. No. But what we can do is judge the man based on what he says he did and what he says he say.  That is called an admission.  And based on his known admissions reasonable people can make judgments about what he did and did not do.

Reasonable people Grumbler...

i think grumbler's point is one of semantics but technically accurate; none of us have seen the transcript of mcreary's testimony; what we have seen is the grand jury report summarizing his testimony

i.e., we dont know what mcreary testified to; we know what the grand jury tells us he testified to

[crazy canuck]

This is a Grumbler post at its very worst.  We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did.  From those facts reasonable people can make judgments.  The key words there are "reasonable people".

This is a CrankyCanuck post at its very worst.  When I note that all we have are summaries, he claims that he knows exactly what McQueary saw and exactly what he says he did.  We know nothing of the sort.  We have summaries, not transcripts.  Unless CC has actual transcripts, and just repeats his claims that summaries are exact in order to avoid admitting he has transcripts, because CrankyCanuck is also ContraryCanuck.

This thread doesnt deserve to be waylaid by such idiocy.  we know what he says he saw and what he says he did because well that is what he said to the Grand Jury.  Of course you can go off into some fantasy land that maybe the transmission of what he said is somehow inaccurate.  Do we know whether what he says he saw and what he says he did are true and accurate. No. But what we can do is judge the man based on what he says he did and what he says he say.  That is called an admission.  And based on his known admissions reasonable people can make judgments about what he did and did not do.

Reasonable people Grumbler...

i think grumbler's point is one of semantics but technically accurate; none of us have seen the transcript of mcreary's testimony; what we have seen is the grand jury report summarizing his testimony

Of course Grumbler is going on semantics.  Which is why I said all he is really relying on is that the transmission of what was said is somehow inaccurate.  Not only a semantic argument but a very long bow indeed.

[Rasputin]

i am skeptical on a case guranteed to garner this kind of media attention that either the grand jury or the prosecutor woud have played fast and loose with the facts given that the transcripts of the testimony will eventually come out

[Berkut]

This is a Grumbler post at its very worst.  We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did.  From those facts reasonable people can make judgments.  The key words there are "reasonable people".

This is a CrankyCanuck post at its very worst.  When I note that all we have are summaries, he claims that he knows exactly what McQueary saw and exactly what he says he did.  We know nothing of the sort.  We have summaries, not transcripts.  Unless CC has actual transcripts, and just repeats his claims that summaries are exact in order to avoid admitting he has transcripts, because CrankyCanuck is also ContraryCanuck.

This thread doesnt deserve to be waylaid by such idiocy.  we know what he says he saw and what he says he did because well that is what he said to the Grand Jury.  Of course you can go off into some fantasy land that maybe the transmission of what he said is somehow inaccurate.  Do we know whether what he says he saw and what he says he did are true and accurate. No. But what we can do is judge the man based on what he says he did and what he says he say.  That is called an admission.  And based on his known admissions reasonable people can make judgments about what he did and did not do.

Reasonable people Grumbler...

i think grumbler's point is one of semantics but technically accurate; none of us have seen the transcript of mcreary's testimony; what we have seen is the grand jury report summarizing his testimony

I think the better point is that the grand jury was not investigating McQueary, hence their questions and his answers are not going to be examining his culpability, and hence not going to fully explore what HE did, but rather what he said and to whom.

We still don't know, for example, what his immediate reaction was on seeing the scene in the shower. Did he yell at them, stop it, walk away quietly? Who knows?

CC seems to be saying that since his testimony does not say he did any of those things, then it is reasonable to assume he did not do those things. I don't agree with that - we don't know what he did either way. And it is entirely possible that he did in fact say or do something to stop the immediate rape, but that it is not included in the summary, and maybe not even in the testimony.

We simply do not know. CC wants to assume that since we know what he said he did, we know *everything* that he actually did. That is logically fallacious. The testimony does not include him stating that he drove his car to Paternos house the next day, does that mean we can assume he walked, or took a bus? No - it means that if the issue of how he got to Paterno's hous comes up in a related discussion, the answer is simply "I don't know".

[Berkut]

i.e., we dont know what mcreary testified to; we know what the grand jury tells us he testified to

Exactly.

And that could be incomplete because

1. The grand jury may not have found all his testimony relevant,
2. The grand jury may not have asked him a single question about what he did the moment he saw Sandusky in the shower, and/or
3. The grand jury simply neglected to mention it as an oversight.

I bet there is likely hundreds of pages of transcripts and such for a case like this. It is silly to assume that the summary includes every single pertinent fact, especially to a tangential discussion to the facts that the grand jury was attempting to ascertain.

[jimmy olsen]

I can't imagine any of these people walking away feeling very good about themselves, but most especially McQueary. Besides Sandusky and the victim, McQueary is the only other person in this entire story who really knew what happened in that shower and he took a job over protecting that kid.

One would hope that we hear of his suicide soon.

Are you and the rest of the folks condemning McQueary assuming that the kid was screaming for help while being ass fucked?  I'm assuming he wasn't, and I sure don't know what I would do in that situation.  Unless it's clear that the kid is resisting I think the natural tendency is to walk away.

Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.

This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.

[Rasputin]

i think the grand jury report does answer some of those things

iirc the report says mcreary immediately left and called his dad upon seeing the scene

the report goes to great lengths to point out the strength and credibility of his testimony

nonetheless it is compley devoid of any suggestion that mcreary tried to intervene and indeed suggests just the opposite (without stating a negative)

[Berkut]

But I don't find him NOT doing that anything worthy of comparing him to Sandusky for, or even particularly terrible compared to almost everyone else involved. Lots of people did not go to the police who clearly should have - calling the one guy who actually did SOMETHING the villain is bizarre, to me.

First, no one has suggested anyone is comparable to what Sandusky did.

Uhh, people in this thread have stated that they hope McQueary kills himself. That suggests a pretty serious level of "bad".

Second, the fact that lots (5 that we know) of people, all known to eachother, did not go to the police is one of the facts that leads one to think there might have been a consipiracy of silence.

There might have been - assuming there was (and that one of those people in particular, and the one who actually started the entire investigation to boot) was a party to that conspiracy wihtout some actual evidence in order to support the idea that we should all hope he dies, is a bit of a stretch.

Calling this guy a villain for something he did not do - step in and stop the rape

You have no idea what happened in this regard.

or at the very least inform the police rather than call his father is not bizarre at all.

He certainly should have informed the police. But you guys act like he did nothing at all, which is simply not true. He informed his superiors, and when he was contacted by the police testified to what he saw.

He did not do enough, certainly.

[Rasputin]

I can't imagine any of these people walking away feeling very good about themselves, but most especially McQueary. Besides Sandusky and the victim, McQueary is the only other person in this entire story who really knew what happened in that shower and he took a job over protecting that kid.

One would hope that we hear of his suicide soon.

Are you and the rest of the folks condemning McQueary assuming that the kid was screaming for help while being ass fucked?  I'm assuming he wasn't, and I sure don't know what I would do in that situation.  Unless it's clear that the kid is resisting I think the natural tendency is to walk away.

....This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.

...

now that's hyperbole

have you already forgotten lettow and dorsey and mishka and jaron? 

[Berkut]

i think the grand jury report does answer some of those things

iirc the report says mcreary immediately left and called his dad upon seeing the scene

the report goes to great lengths to point out the strength and credibility of his testimony

nonetheless it is compley devoid of any suggestion that mcreary tried to intervene and indeed suggests just the opposite (without stating a negative)

This is all reason to wonder what he did do. But it is not reason to even know what he SHOULD have done.

The one thing we know is that he said both Sandusky and the victim saw him, and knew he was there. That suggests that something happened, unless we assume that they just kept at it after seeing him, then the rape ended. Now, that hardly clears McQueary - after all, for all he knows Sandusky continued raping the kid somewhere else.

But we don't know. That is my only point - we do not know.

[jimmy olsen]

I can't imagine any of these people walking away feeling very good about themselves, but most especially McQueary. Besides Sandusky and the victim, McQueary is the only other person in this entire story who really knew what happened in that shower and he took a job over protecting that kid.

One would hope that we hear of his suicide soon.

Are you and the rest of the folks condemning McQueary assuming that the kid was screaming for help while being ass fucked?  I'm assuming he wasn't, and I sure don't know what I would do in that situation.  Unless it's clear that the kid is resisting I think the natural tendency is to walk away.

....This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.

...

now that's hyperbole

have you already forgotten lettow and dorsey and mishka and jaron?

A few racists and a fraudster. None of their statements were any where near as monstrous as what I quoted.

[Admiral Yi]

Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.

This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.

I hope I can find a way to live with it.

[grumbler]

It isn't his reaction on the spur of the moment that people find puzzling - it is his continued non-action when he's told that, basically, all that will happen is that the fellow won't be allowed to use the shower anymore.

Is that what he was told?  When was he told that?

The argument that he should have pressed the matter at some point when he wasn't interviewed by police has some merit, but it isn't clear to me that anyone reported to him that there would be no investigation, and we are left with that whole frog in cold but heating water issue; at what point does the frog, or McQueary, find the stimulus to act?  Investigations often take a long time and often do not report progress to witnesses.  A McQueary assumption that events are proceeding according to the law isn't an unreasonable one; why would he assume the university higher-ups are in fact engaged in a cover-up of what he witnessed?