Penn State Goings-On

[dps]

Sandusky, on the other hand, should be anally raped daily for the rest of his life. Period.

Why?

Meri likes to use a strap-on, but Max is hesitant to let her use it on him.

[alfred russel]

Well I would hope that, at the time Paterno and company thought Jerry had just made a mistake, after all he was not actually charged with anything, but felt he could not be head coach and it just snowballed from there.

I'm arguing a rather unlikely point of view, but it is one based on the fact that the Board stated that it was relying on publicly available information and the grand jury testimony, and was qualifying remarks with "alleged." So if you take that at face value, the Board didn't conclusively know that Paterno knew about the 1998 incident.

An impromptu nighttime press conference where the Board states that the allegations are serious, their thoughts go out to the "alleged" victims (can't determine conclusively if there were in fact victims), that they are not rushing to judgment on anything that may or may not have occured, but oh yeah by the way we are firing a 61 year employee based soley on information in the media--it causes you to question whether they just want to fire the guy because the CNN trucks parked out front 24 hours a day have people saying that is what the Board needs to do rather than as a result of a deliberative process. Which in turn causes the people who love that employee to be a very upset.

I realize taking a couple of days to get more info might cause some agnst in the media, but that is probably better than a riot. If they had more info, giving it out might have legal ramifications, but at this point they are going to be sued anyway. When you ask the state to bailout your school for massive lawsuits, what is the difference if you are asking for $50 mill or $55 mill?

[dps]

When you ask the state to bailout your school for massive lawsuits, what is the difference if you are asking for $50 mill or $55 mill?

Uh! Uh!  I know that one!  It's $5 million.

[Razgovory]

Has Martinus posted about the injustice of this thread?  He's posted several times in previous threads that important people shouldn't be held to the same standard as normal folks.

[Malthus]

Not that I can see. First paragraph, page 7 has the GJ saying McQ went to Joe Pa's house and "reported what he had seen".

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

No mention of being cut off.

It isn't explicit that he told him the full details. It is explicit he told the full details at a later meeting, but also explicit that Paterno was not there.

The Board of Trustees said at their conference that they were only relying on the grand jury report and other publicly available information. Taking them at their word, they did not have conclusive evidence that Joe Paterno knew of any other incident or that the incident he knew about involved something as serious as is alleged.

If they had a more convincing case to terminate (and really, it shouldn't take too much investigation to come up with one), they should have presented it. What do you think would have caused greater harm to the image of the school:

a) Making a statement that they are gravely concerned about the reports and will thoroughly investigate them, but before the investigation results are in they can not terminate employees and thus Paterno can continue coaching with his status being evaluated day to day basis, or
b) Firing Paterno and having the students riot.

Well, yeah, I'm not saying that investigating further would have hurt, but there was clearly enough in the indictment for a reasonable person to conclude firing P was justified. Even according to what he alleged to have told others, he'd been told enough to trigger a duty to inquire.

[Malthus]

Has Martinus posted about the injustice of this thread?  He's posted several times in previous threads that important people shouldn't be held to the same standard as normal folks.

In Europe, it is Directors of Arty movies who can do no wrong. In America, it is football heros. 

[Caliga]

McQueary has been put on administrative leave.

[Valmy]

McQueary has been put on administrative leave.

And he supposedly left State College.  That is good he needs to be protected and lay low for awhile.

http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2011/11/mcqueary_tells_psu_wideouts_he.html

Penn State's deposed receivers coach Mike McQueary, today placed on what the school called "administrative leave," moments ago told his receivers on a brief conference call that he was in "protective custody" at a secluded location not in State College.

McQueary, witness to the alleged sexual assault of a 10-year-old boy in 2002 by Jerry Sandusky, has been the subject of physical threats. He is the key subject in further investigation into the scandal and potentially could be the single most important trial witness.

On Friday afternoon, according to two team sources, new receivers coach Kermit Buggs gathered his players in a room at the PSU football complex and allowed them to talk with McQueary on a speaker phone.

During a brief and emotional conversation, McQueary told them, "I wanted to let you guys know I'm not your coach anymore. I'm done."

When players asked, "Coach, where are you? Can we see you?" McQueary responded, "No, I'm actually in protective custody. I'm not in State College."

However, several hours later, Sports Information Director Jeff Nelson said that McQueary was not in protective custody - that his characterization was not true.

It was decided by school officials yesterday that McQueary would not coach in Saturday's game against Nebraska after he received threats.

McQueary, 37, has been a full-time coach at PSU since 2004, specializing as the receivers coach and recruiting coordinator. He was the Nittany Lions' starting quarterback in 1997. He is married with a 2-year-old daughter.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is not really any "speculation" involved. The GJ states that McQ told P "what he had seen" - the very words used on p. 7. I can't imagine this being any less than what he testified to the GJ as having seen.

I think that says more about your imagination than the actual facts here.  The GJ report is quite explicit and specific about most of the witness statements, reporting the words that actually said.  Except here.  When it comes to the point of exactly what McQ told P, the report doesn't report the words said -- ie M told P he saw Sandusky anally raping a boy.  Instead it suddenly becomes indirect -- it doesn't say anything at all other than the indirect M told P "what he had seen". Your imagination is filling in the rest.

If someone came to me and told me he was an eyewitness to my friend of many years "engaged in something of a sexual nature" with a young boy (and assuming I was not being a lawyer  ), what's the natural human response? "ARE YOU SURE it wasn't something innocent? ARE YOU SURE you were not mistaken?" to which the obvious answer is "yes, because I saw

This scenario makes sense under the condition stated -- someone coming to you.
But that's not what happened.  Instead, it was a young GA coming to 75 year old man he looked to as a grandfather figure.  Personally it is hard to imagine any circumstance where I would use words like "anal rape" in a conversation with my grandfather, much less "assfuck".  There is good reason to think the conversation didn't play out exactly how you think it might have had you been the other party.

But a bigger problem for your account is that you still don't have a perjury case unless the prosecutor asks your leading question.  And it is very unlikely it would happen. The reason the prosecutor needs Paterno as a witness is to bolster McQ's testimony. The last thing they would want to do is pose a question that might suggest a difference in recollection between the two about what was said.

In both cases, even if you believe their testimony, they were "on notice" to investigate - obviously, P more than the other two, which simply strengthens the case for P. being fired

Agreed.   No question he should have been fired.  But criminal charges are another thing entirely.

[alfred russel]

It sounds like the Attorney General has a different take on the firing, and also a take on Paterno's testimony that seems at odds with Malthus' interpretation:

Joe Paterno Fired, Others Not: Attorney General's Office Has 'Concern'

Pennsylvania's attorney general has voiced "concern" over Penn State University's firing of legendary football coach Joe Paterno and the treatment of other witnesses and officials involved in a child sexual abuse case.

Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general's office, noted that the two officials charged with perjury and failure to report the abuse are being defended by the university, while Paterno was fired.

"We have a cooperating witness [Paterno], an individual who testified, provided truthful testimony," Hagen-Frederiksen told ABCNews.com, "but two others who were found by a grand jury to commit perjury whose legal expenses are being paid for university. One is on administrative leave. Very interesting development."

"It's certainly curious and [has] not been explained yet," he said. "Speaking as a prosecuting agency, we have a cooperating witness who has not been charged, while two individuals accused of committing crimes continue to be affiliated."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/joe-paternos-firing-penn-state-attorney-general-concern/story?id=14925158

If this guy is pressuring the school to drop their support of the two guys that were charged, isn't that a legal landmine for the AG?

[Admiral Yi]

If this guy is pressuring the school to drop their support of the two guys that were charged, isn't that a legal landmine for the AG?

Don't guys like that usually have it written into their contract that the employer will pay their legal fees?

[alfred russel]

If this guy is pressuring the school to drop their support of the two guys that were charged, isn't that a legal landmine for the AG?

Don't guys like that usually have it written into their contract that the employer will pay their legal fees?

Probably, but I would hope that Penn State would pick up the legal bills for everyone anyway since this came up in the scope of their employment. I know in some cases, such as the KPMG tax evasion case in particular, judges have tossed them out because of pressure by the prosecutors to get the former employer to stop footing the legal bill.

[frunk]

Yeah, it bugs me that focus is all on Paterno and McQueary, and very little attention is given to those further up the chain who kept it buried.  Paterno and McQueary could and should have done more, those above them actively suppressed it and protected Sandusky.  That's orders of magnitude worse.

[Malthus]

I think that says more about your imagination than the actual facts here.  The GJ report is quite explicit and specific about most of the witness statements, reporting the words that actually said.  Except here.  When it comes to the point of exactly what McQ told P, the report doesn't report the words said -- ie M told P he saw Sandusky anally raping a boy.  Instead it suddenly becomes indirect -- it doesn't say anything at all other than the indirect M told P "what he had seen". Your imagination is filling in the rest.

I'm afraid the "imagination" is on your end. Your account relies on the words "reporting what he had seen" to mean something other than, you know, what he had seen.

If it was something less than what he had seen, that would be a key fact in the case - surely worthy of mention. The most obvious meaning is that he reported, truthfully, what he had seen.

Throughout the indictment, McQ is consistent - he tells everyone, his dad, the other two, and McQ, the whole truth. It is the others who pass on increasingly watered-down versions.   

In any event, I have no doubt that in the numerous court cases that follow, exactly who said what to whom will be discovered.

This scenario makes sense under the condition stated -- someone coming to you.
But that's not what happened.  Instead, it was a young GA coming to 75 year old man he looked to as a grandfather figure.  Personally it is hard to imagine any circumstance where I would use words like "anal rape" in a conversation with my grandfather, much less "assfuck".  There is good reason to think the conversation didn't play out exactly how you think it might have had you been the other party.

And here your imagination really runs riot. 

Do you really think that delicacy would have prevented this guy from telling the truth about what he had seen?

You are overlooking that he seemingly had no trouble telling his own father. 

But a bigger problem for your account is that you still don't have a perjury case unless the prosecutor asks your leading question.  And it is very unlikely it would happen. The reason the prosecutor needs Paterno as a witness is to bolster McQ's testimony. The last thing they would want to do is pose a question that might suggest a difference in recollection between the two about what was said.

I already said that, on the account in the Indictment, there is no perjury charge.

The prosecutor does not need McQ to bolster McQ's testimony - he already has on record P. saying McQ told him something of a sexual nature went down. What more does he need?

[Malthus]

It sounds like the Attorney General has a different take on the firing, and also a take on Paterno's testimony that seems at odds with Malthus' interpretation:

Joe Paterno Fired, Others Not: Attorney General's Office Has 'Concern'

Pennsylvania's attorney general has voiced "concern" over Penn State University's firing of legendary football coach Joe Paterno and the treatment of other witnesses and officials involved in a child sexual abuse case.

Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general's office, noted that the two officials charged with perjury and failure to report the abuse are being defended by the university, while Paterno was fired.

"We have a cooperating witness [Paterno], an individual who testified, provided truthful testimony," Hagen-Frederiksen told ABCNews.com, "but two others who were found by a grand jury to commit perjury whose legal expenses are being paid for university. One is on administrative leave. Very interesting development."

"It's certainly curious and [has] not been explained yet," he said. "Speaking as a prosecuting agency, we have a cooperating witness who has not been charged, while two individuals accused of committing crimes continue to be affiliated."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/joe-paternos-firing-penn-state-attorney-general-concern/story?id=14925158

If this guy is pressuring the school to drop their support of the two guys that were charged, isn't that a legal landmine for the AG?

How is this at odds with anything I've said?

If the school fired P and kept on the other two, that is indeed bizzare.