Penn State Goings-On

[Valmy]

That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.

Again I ask why did Paterno inform Sadusky he was no longer DC in 1999 then?  For no reason at all?  It certainly was not because he was not one of the top DCs in football because he was.

[Malthus]

Are there allegations that Paterno covered up for a child rapist?  The Board of Regents said they fired him because they wanted the university to begin to move forward from the charges alleged against other officials, and Paterno was part of the situation they wanted to leave behind (because he clearly had the power and duty to report what he knew to the police).  If they were lying, and really fired him because someone was alleging that he engaged in a coverup, how do you know, when no one else seems to?

Mind you, I don't get the rioting myself, but I certainly don't think the rioters were aware (any more than I am) that there were actual allegations that Paterno covered up for a rapist.  Their anger appeared to be directed at the board that fired him and the reasons the board claims motivated them to do so.  Paterno was retiring after this season, the protestors argued, and to fire him three games from retirement seemed unjust to them (and motivated by some weird media conspiracy thingy, but that's another issue).

It is the reversal of the normal order of priorities here that is so very unpleasant. You can create all the semantic weasling you want, but fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much. Neither did anyone else. In this situation, heads rolling is to be expected. 

I have no idea what this means.  Are you saying that you don't know who has alleged that JoPa "covered up for a child rapist", or that you do?  So far, this sounds like a weasel to get out of a fabrication on your part.

You can say he's not "alleged" to have "covered up for a child rapist" (whatever you may mean by that) but surely the thing speaks for itself.

You say that he is alleged to have "covered up for a child rapist."  That has a specific meaning.  If you are going to weasel out ofthe accusation by claiming that you didn't mean "alleged' and didn't mean "covered up" but rather meant something else that doesn't have to be articulated because "it speaks for itself," then the weasel is noted and accepted.  You are obviously over-wrought for some reason when it comes to this topic, and seem to have lost all capacity for objective comment on the case, so I will ignore all you say from this point forward, for your sake.

He *knew* his friend was raping kids and for *years* he did *nothing*.  Sure, he wasn't charged. But surely to Christ the reasons for his firing are no mystery, and if he was pretty well anyone else in this situation, there wouldn't be any controversy.

Yeah.  Sure.  Whatever, Jesus.  As far as I know, the only controversy here regards the extent of Paterno's actually knowledge.  Your dogmatic insistence that you know the answer to this controversy is most extremely unpersuasive.

Yes, accusing me repeatedly of lying and lacking self-respect is a great demonstration of objectivity on your part.

Know what? It isn't worth it. Please feel free to ignore me, and I will return the favour.

[alfred russel]

fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much.

That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.

McQ testified to the Grand Jury that he told P. that he saw S. anally raping a boy.

Either he's lying, or P. is ... and the Grand Jury has stated it found McQ's testimony "credible".

And apparently there was also credibility in paternos testimony. And paternos version is corroborated by 2 others.

[alfred russel]

That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.

Again I ask why did Paterno inform Sadusky he was no longer DC in 1999 then?  For no reason at all?  It certainly was not because he was not one of the top DCs in football because he was.

The grand jury found he resigned to take advantage of a state retirement package and that he was told he wouldn't be hc. Not saying there isn't more to it, but if you take the board of trustees at face value they don't either.

[Malthus]

fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much.

That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.

McQ testified to the Grand Jury that he told P. that he saw S. anally raping a boy.

Either he's lying, or P. is ... and the Grand Jury has stated it found McQ's testimony "credible".

And apparently there was also credibility in paternos testimony. And paternos version is corroborated by 2 others.

The Grand Jury was silent on P., and as for the two others (I assume you mean Curley and Schultz), it has found their testimony not credible (see bottom of page 11) and, in fact, has alleged they committed perjury on this very point - i.e., whether they knew S. was buggering boys because McQ told them (see p. 12).

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

Having your version "corroborated" by two guys who are credibly charged with perjury on the point is not "corroboration" in the sense of 'makes his version more credible'. It tends to have the opposite effect, because if Curley and Schultz were lying, then clearly so is P.

In any event, even if you assume P. told the truth, he's still in the shit. P.'s own testimony to the grand jury was that McQ. "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy" (p. 7). At night. In the Penn State locker room.

Even if you assume that P. knew nothing about any other incident, including the 1998 police investigation, how is that not enough to warrant a call to the police under any reasonable standard?

Remember that even after this incident, S. had an office in the Lasch Building ...

[alfred russel]

The Grand Jury was silent on P., and as for the two others (I assume you mean Curley and Schultz), it has found their testimony not credible (see bottom of page 11) and, in fact, has alleged they committed perjury on this very point - i.e., whether they knew S. was buggering boys because McQ told them (see p. 12).

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

Having your version "corroborated" by two guys who are credibly charged with perjury on the point is not "corroboration" in the sense of 'makes his version more credible'. It tends to have the opposite effect, because if Curley and Schultz were lying, then clearly so is P.

I was stretching a bit to say that there was credibility in Paterno's testimony, but he wasn't charged with perjury, which sense they were passing out perjury charges to others does find some credibility. And having 3 guys give one version of the story on this point vs. 1 guy with another version--even if the grand jury says that guy is credible, does raise doubts.

It is a bit shaky to terminate someone just on that, imo, especially after 60+ years of employment.

[Malthus]

The Grand Jury was silent on P., and as for the two others (I assume you mean Curley and Schultz), it has found their testimony not credible (see bottom of page 11) and, in fact, has alleged they committed perjury on this very point - i.e., whether they knew S. was buggering boys because McQ told them (see p. 12).

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

Having your version "corroborated" by two guys who are credibly charged with perjury on the point is not "corroboration" in the sense of 'makes his version more credible'. It tends to have the opposite effect, because if Curley and Schultz were lying, then clearly so is P.

I was stretching a bit to say that there was credibility in Paterno's testimony, but he wasn't charged with perjury, which sense they were passing out perjury charges to others does find some credibility. And having 3 guys give one version of the story on this point vs. 1 guy with another version--even if the grand jury says that guy is credible, does raise doubts.

It is a bit shaky to terminate someone just on that, imo, especially after 60+ years of employment.

Well, yeah, I think he should have been charged as well. That's a real unfairness.

Though I pointed out in my edit, even if you accept his testimony, his firing was still justified.

If a grad student comes to you and claims your buddy was in a compromising position with a kid, I suppose you could claim in your defense that you disbelieved him, that the accusation wasn't credible enough to go to the cops ... but the evidence tends to show they *did* believe him. They kept McQ on staff (surely someone who lied about something like that would be fired?), they took away S.'s key ti the shower ... but did not call the cops.

[alfred russel]

Well, yeah, I think he should have been charged as well. That's a real unfairness.

Though I pointed out in my edit, even if you accept his testimony, his firing was still justified.

If a grad student comes to you and claims your buddy was in a compromising position with a kid, I suppose you could claim in your defense that you disbelieved him, that the accusation wasn't credible enough to go to the cops ... but the evidence tends to show they *did* believe him. They kept McQ on staff (surely someone who lied about something like that would be fired?), they took away S.'s key ti the shower ... but did not call the cops.

Shockingly we are going over the same ground as has been gone through previously, but though CC disagreed I can imagine a scenario. McQ says he saw Sandusky in the shower with a kid, and felt it was inappropriate, Paterno reports up the chain of command but doesn't have an indication to think that was necessarily outrageous.

CC had the point that a 10 year old should never be in a shower with an adult, depending on the situation I'm not sure how awful that would be (open showers in an athletic facility after presumably working out). Paterno kicks it up the chain because he wants to follow due diligence and takes away Sandusky's shower privledges to be safe, but isn't necessarily concerned.

I'm not saying this happened like this, but I would think the board would look into this before terminating someone. I don't think the grand jury testimony justifies termination without any further work.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well, yeah, I think he should have been charged as well.

Charged with what?

[PDH]

I'm not saying this happened like this, but I would think the board would look into this before terminating someone. I don't think the grand jury testimony justifies termination without any further work.

Tim thinks you are 7 and a half times worse than Hitler, and he will never speak to you again.

[Valmy]

That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.

Again I ask why did Paterno inform Sadusky he was no longer DC in 1999 then?  For no reason at all?  It certainly was not because he was not one of the top DCs in football because he was.

The grand jury found he resigned to take advantage of a state retirement package and that he was told he wouldn't be hc. Not saying there isn't more to it, but if you take the board of trustees at face value they don't either.

Wait what?  One of the victims recalled how upset Sandusky was after the meeting where Joe told him he was being "retired", and Jerry told the victim not to tell anybody about it.  Did Joe tell Jerry he was not eligible for the premium retirement package and Sandusky didn't want the shame of a subpar retirement package to spread?

I mean how gullible is a Board of Trustees supposed to be?  I am not claiming they need to take Paterno out and shoot him but he at least needed to be let go.  Besides it is not like Paterno has to go looking for another job, he is 84 years old and had delegated most of the grunt work of being a HC out years ago.

[jimmy olsen]

I'm not saying this happened like this, but I would think the board would look into this before terminating someone. I don't think the grand jury testimony justifies termination without any further work.

Tim thinks you are 7 and a half times worse than Hitler, and he will never speak to you again.

Nope. Completely different from Yi's pedo apologism.

[Malthus]

Well, yeah, I think he should have been charged as well.

Charged with what?

Heh good point. If the Grand Jury Indictment is all there is, the Grand Jury seemingly never directly asked P. what he remembered McQ had told him - merely what he said to the other two. If that's the case, presumably, P. never lied under oath.

However, it is very difficult to believe that the Grand Jury simply never asked P what McQ had told him, since this was the very heart of the Victim 2 case and goes directly to the guilt of the other 2.

Obviouly, this will come up at their perjury trials and P. will then, presumably, have the choice of either admitting McQ told him that he'd seen S. buggering a boy (as McQ claims), thus strengthening the case that his firing was justified, or claiming McQ did not say that (which is the claim that the other two are alleged to have committed perjury about). 

[The Minsky Moment]

Heh good point. If the Grand Jury Indictment is all there is, the Grand Jury seemingly never directly asked P. what he remembered McQ had told him - merely what he said to the other two. If that's the case, presumably, P. never lied under oath.

However, it is very difficult to believe that the Grand Jury simply never asked P what McQ had told him, since this was the very heart of the Victim 2 case and goes directly to the guilt of the other 2. 

Usually the way it works, the GJ doesn't ask anything; only the prosecutor asks questions.

But let's say for the sake of argument, that Paterno testified that he recalled McQ telling him the same thing he conveyed to Curley: that McQ saw sandusky in the showers "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."  How is that materially inconistent with McQ's grand jury testimony as reported?

[Malthus]

Heh good point. If the Grand Jury Indictment is all there is, the Grand Jury seemingly never directly asked P. what he remembered McQ had told him - merely what he said to the other two. If that's the case, presumably, P. never lied under oath.

However, it is very difficult to believe that the Grand Jury simply never asked P what McQ had told him, since this was the very heart of the Victim 2 case and goes directly to the guilt of the other 2. 

Usually the way it works, the GJ doesn't ask anything; only the prosecutor asks questions.

But let's say for the sake of argument, that Paterno testified that he recalled McQ telling him the same thing he conveyed to Curley: that McQ saw sandusky in the showers "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."  How is that materially inconistent with McQ's grand jury testimony as reported?

Depends. If the prosecutor asked - as he evidendly asked the other two - "did McQ tell you he saw S. committing an act of anal sex on a young boy?" and he answered "no, he just told me he saw fondling or doing something of a sexual nature ", would that not be perjury? The GJ found that downgrading what McQ had told them perjury for the other two, right?