Penn State Goings-On

[The Brain]

And was someone drunk recently? Yi is known for three things:

1. Half-Korean
2. Dial-up
3. Tiny cock

Not all of them are necessarily still true.

[Malthus]

The grand jury report just mentioned that when seeing the incident "he left immediately"--it could be that he was spotted or said something and Sandusky somehow retreated. There is some wiggle room there.

I dont know.  "He left immediately" doesnt leave much wiggle room in my mind. It is curious that there is no mention in the GJ report of him stopping the rape.  That would seem to be a fairly significant fact.  It is also curious that if he did mention it to the police that the police did absolutely nothing about it.

Maybe. There were also people in this thread implying that Paterno was less than truthful based the GJ report saying the GA told him "what he saw" and Paterno said the report was just "fondling or something of a sexual nature." Then the AG's office came out and said Paterno gave truthful testimony.

Regardless, it seems likely there is some combination of two possibiliites: 1) McQuery is telling the truth now, and the police were notified, in which case firing everyone seems completely wrong as they may have actually done the right thing, or 2) McQuery is now making stuff up about the incident, which calls into question the testimony he gave which is so much of the background of the grand jury testimony that led to everyone being fired.

No. Paterno testified, apparently truthfully, that he told others McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".

This does *not* indicate that Paterno was told by McQ that McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".

The Indictment does not say exactly what McQ told P other that "what he saw". The argument is over whether McQ told P exactly "what he saw" and McQ chose to water it down when telling the others who in turn, watered it down still further into "horseplay" even after McQ told them explicitly what he saw - or not.

I'd say the natural read is that McQ, who has been explicit all along, was explicit with P. when he "told him what he saw". I know that Minsky disagrees, because in his view McQ respected P. like a grandfather and would never say anything so uncouth as mention anal sex to him - but one thing is sure: the fact that P said McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature" does not of necessity mean that this is all McQ told P.

The "left immediately" is being subjected to the same counterintuitive wriggling that "told what he saw" was.

[Rasputin]

And was someone drunk recently? Yi is known for three things:

1. Half-Korean
2. Dial-up
3. Tiny cock

Not all of them are necessarily still true.

yi has cock implants?

[alfred russel]

No. Paterno testified, apparently truthfully, that he told others McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".

This does *not* indicate that Paterno was told by McQ that McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".

The Indictment does not say exactly what McQ told P other that "what he saw". The argument is over whether McQ told P exactly "what he saw" and McQ chose to water it down when telling the others who in turn, watered it down still further into "horseplay" even after McQ told them explicitly what he saw - or not.

I'd say the natural read is that McQ, who has been explicit all along, was explicit with P. when he "told him what he saw". I know that Minsky disagrees, because in his view McQ respected P. like a grandfather and would never say anything so uncouth as mention anal sex to him - but one thing is sure: the fact that P said McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature" does not of necessity mean that this is all McQ told P.

The "left immediately" is being subjected to the same counterintuitive wriggling that "told what he saw" was.

Fair enough on what the GJ report explicitly said. However, Paterno has since commented that:

"Paterno has defended his decision to take the news to Curley and Schultz. Paterno said it was obvious that the graduate student, since identified as McQueary, was "distraught," but said he was not told about the "very specific actions" of the sexual assault in the grand jury report."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57321343/paterno-retiring-amid-child-abuse-tragedy/

That is outside the GJ testimony, but was a statement made prior to the AG expressing concern over Paterno's firing.

[Malthus]

No. Paterno testified, apparently truthfully, that he told others McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".

This does *not* indicate that Paterno was told by McQ that McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature".

The Indictment does not say exactly what McQ told P other that "what he saw". The argument is over whether McQ told P exactly "what he saw" and McQ chose to water it down when telling the others who in turn, watered it down still further into "horseplay" even after McQ told them explicitly what he saw - or not.

I'd say the natural read is that McQ, who has been explicit all along, was explicit with P. when he "told him what he saw". I know that Minsky disagrees, because in his view McQ respected P. like a grandfather and would never say anything so uncouth as mention anal sex to him - but one thing is sure: the fact that P said McQ saw just "fondling or something of a sexual nature" does not of necessity mean that this is all McQ told P.

The "left immediately" is being subjected to the same counterintuitive wriggling that "told what he saw" was.

Fair enough on what the GJ report explicitly said. However, Paterno has since commented that:

"Paterno has defended his decision to take the news to Curley and Schultz. Paterno said it was obvious that the graduate student, since identified as McQueary, was "distraught," but said he was not told about the "very specific actions" of the sexual assault in the grand jury report."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57321343/paterno-retiring-amid-child-abuse-tragedy/

That is outside the GJ testimony, but was a statement made prior to the AG expressing concern over Paterno's firing.

Well, of course he's going to say that. He has to, because otherwise it looks like he's watering down what he was told and doing nothing (or very little) about it - that is, committing the same fault as the two accused of perjury. Though this doesn't save him really, since the difference between doing nothing when explicitly told S. was caught with his dick up a boy's ass and doing nothing when vaguely told S. was "doing something of a sexual nature" with a boy isn't much. 

What he didn't do, at least so far, is say it under oath before the GJ. Hence, he cannot be accused of perjury, even if it happens not to be true.

Clearly, exactly what McD told P. is going to feature prominently in the numerous lawsuits to come.

[alfred russel]

Well, of course he's going to say that. He has to, because otherwise it looks like he's watering down what he was told and doing nothing (or very little) about it - that is, committing the same fault as the two accused of perjury. Though this doesn't save him really, since the difference between doing nothing when explicitly told S. was caught with his dick up a boy's ass and doing nothing when vaguely told S. was "doing something of a sexual nature" with a boy isn't much. 

What he didn't do, at least so far, is say it under oath before the GJ. Hence, he cannot be accused of perjury, even if it happens not to be true.

Clearly, exactly what McD told P. is going to feature prominently in the numerous lawsuits to come.

But we don't know for certain what he said to the grand jury, and we don't know what McQuery said either. We have an ambiguous one paragraph summary that paraphrases and can be interpreted many different ways. We also know that the Grand Jury explicitly says they found McQuery's testimony to be truthful, and the AG said the same regarding Paterno.

[Malthus]

Well, of course he's going to say that. He has to, because otherwise it looks like he's watering down what he was told and doing nothing (or very little) about it - that is, committing the same fault as the two accused of perjury. Though this doesn't save him really, since the difference between doing nothing when explicitly told S. was caught with his dick up a boy's ass and doing nothing when vaguely told S. was "doing something of a sexual nature" with a boy isn't much. 

What he didn't do, at least so far, is say it under oath before the GJ. Hence, he cannot be accused of perjury, even if it happens not to be true.

Clearly, exactly what McD told P. is going to feature prominently in the numerous lawsuits to come.

But we don't know for certain what he said to the grand jury, and we don't know what McQuery said either. We have an ambiguous one paragraph summary that paraphrases and can be interpreted many different ways. We also know that the Grand Jury explicitly says they found McQuery's testimony to be truthful, and the AG said the same regarding Paterno.

There is nothing "untruthful" about P testifying that McQ told him he saw S anally-raping a boy  - and then that P told others that S was caught doing "something of a sexual nature".

Perfectly truthful testimony.

[jimmy olsen]

Seems like Penn state makes a habbit of sweeping things under the rug. 

http://loop21.com/content/other-penn-state-cover-death-threats-against-black-students

The Other Penn State Cover-Up: Death Threats Against Black Students

Hate mail to black students and a death, all swept away by PSU

As news unravels around the grand jury report revealing charges against former Penn State football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky for raping and sexually molesting underage boys, some former black Penn State students are now painfully reliving a scandal that occurred at their university ten years ago. In 2000, the year a janitor witnessed a boy younger than 13 ("Victim 8" in a grand jury report) "pinned against a wall" while Sandusky performed oral sex on him, black students and football players on Penn State's campus began receiving hate mail.

The hate mail sent to black students had nothing to do with Sandusky's proclivities, but the two incidences shared something in common: both were ultimately covered up by the university, even as both chain of events grew worse. Sandusky went on to molest and possibly rape more boys, according to a grand jury report (Sandusky denies foul play), and hate mail against black students became death threats.

Ultimately, a black man's dead body was found by police near Penn State as one of the death threats said it would. And some black students had to attend their graduation the following May with bulletproof vests on in fear of their life.

But few know about the death threats because Penn State and Joe Paterno were not willing to allow bad publicity to ruin the university's image, say some of the black students at the center of the tragic events.

LaKeisha Wolf was president of Penn State's Black Caucus ten years ago, and she received the lion's share of life-threatening letters. Today, she watches the news about Sandusky's rape charges, the firing of Joe Paterno and Penn State president Graham Spanier, and the student riots that ensued, and it takes her right back to her days dealing with the university.

In fact, Wolf and other concerned black students met with Paterno back in 2001 because of information circulating that black football players, like then-quarterback Rashard Casey, had been receiving death threats. Wolf recalls Paterno as almost emotionless.

"He didn't necessarily blatantly show concern," says Wolf. "He was just really composed -- kinda non-emotional I would say. It was like he would have had the same amount of energy and response whether we were talking about death threats or what was for lunch. It was just a non-descript kind of demeanor."

Images of the letters received by Wolf & Lang

Paterno is known for his deadpan deliveries during press conferences after Penn State games, win or lose. But this wasn't a game. Students were fearful for their lives. That year, Penn State was experiencing an unusual losing season – a big deal in the college franchise that spawned multiple national championships and undefeated seasons under Paterno's 45-year reign. Much vitriol was aimed at Penn State's black quarterback  – also unusual in Penn State's mostly white quarterbacked history – Casey, who along with losing games was arrested in the off-season for fighting a white cop, allegedly over the cop's African American date. Casey was cleared of those charges, but even Paterno admitted that the quarterback remained the target of hate mail.

But Paterno wasn't so moved to have Penn State confront the hostile climate.

Assata Richards, who was a leader of the Village student movement to increase diversity initiatives at Penn State, was at the 2001 meeting with Wolf and Paterno and today still remembers the cold response he gave them about the death threats.

"We asked him to talk to the players because we were concerned about their safety," says Richards, "and he said in that meeting that he would never do anything to put the university in a bad light. So we said, 'Then you are choosing the university over students lives.'"

Wolf was chilled by Paterno's response also. She says Paterno told them, "I'm only a football coach."

Says Wolf, "To me that said that even if he had specific knowledge of football players' or students' lives in danger that he wouldn't allow that to risk Penn State's image being tainted and that is something that has stuck in my mind for the last ten years."

Today, in the Sandusky case, too many details have been revealed that show Penn State officials acted more to cover up crimes than to report them. Whether that was to protect the university's image or not will eventually come out in court. But the grand jury report shows that when a grad assistant, who we now know is assistant football coach Mike McQueary, reported in 2002 seeing Sandusky raping a ten-year-old boy ("Victim 2") in a locker room shower, that officials never reported anything to the police.

McQueary, who's now on leave from the team, reported the rape to Joe Paterno who then reported it to senior vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz and now resigned president Graham Spanier. But no one reported to law authorities. Schultz testified that the allegations as heard from McQueary were "not that serious" and that he "had no indication that a crime had occurred."

These same people – Paterno, Spanier and Schultz – were the same officials involved in the case ten years ago when Wolf was the target of death threats. But Wolf said none of them nor the police ever questioned her about the letters she was receiving.  Then one week in April, Daryl Lang, a reporter for Penn State's Daily Collegian, received a death threat letter aimed at Wolf. It read:

"daryl nigger lover lang, since you love niggers so much, ... maybe you can do president wolf, a favor by delivering the enclosed letter to her."

Not long before that, Wolf received a letter from an anonymous source that said "we are determined to rid this place of this black blight on our community. Those like you have been run off or killed." The letter told Wolf to "have the authorities search mt nittany near the summit, north slope" for the body of a dead "young black buck."

A few days later, a the body of a black man was in fact found in the area.

Because Penn State officials wouldn't do anything to alert the student body, and Paterno seemed careless about threats to his players, Wolf, Richards and other black students took matters into their own hands. On April 21, the day of Penn State's famous "Blue-White" game, Wolf and 40 other students stormed onto Penn State's football field just before kickoff to draw attention to the racial hate problems – call it an early "Occupy Penn State" move.

Cops apprehended 14 of them, but 26 made it to the center of the field, locked arms and sat down until police broke them up and carted them away. They were all arrested.

Compare that to last week, where hundreds of students occupied downtown State College (where Penn State is located) and held a riot after Paterno was fired, taking down lamp posts, setting cars on fire and overturning a local news van. When Loop 21 contacted State College police to ask how many were arrested in that melee we were told that they "couldn't tell us because an investigation was ongoing."

When Assata Richards looks at the Sandusky news, the university's cover ups, and the students' rioting protests she says she's "not surprised at all."

News outlets, says Richards, "are reporting and saying things today that they said back then: 'This sounds like a cover up,' 'Why weren't more people notified?' 'Why weren't parents notified?' It's scary for me because all of these institutional leaders are the same ones we remember so well and interacted with."

As for the riots, says Richards: "It's so interesting because when I heard about Paterno being fired and how students responded, I'm thinking about when we were rallying around our issues and how we were arrested. We were not slapped on the wrist, but we were in no way doing anything harmful. We never destroyed property, but we were arrested for saying, 'Hey something is happening, people are being harassed and threatened, and a person was killed.' For that, we were treated as criminals."

[The Brain]

Habbit? The hobbit/rabbit hybrid is a work of fiction I'm afraid. Or at least not fertile.

[crazy canuck]

Habbit? The hobbit/rabbit hybrid is a work of fiction I'm afraid. Or at least not fertile.

Is there anything about animal sexuality you dont know?

[The Brain]

Habbit? The hobbit/rabbit hybrid is a work of fiction I'm afraid. Or at least not fertile.

Is there anything about animal sexuality you dont know?

God I hope not.

[alfred russel]

There is nothing "untruthful" about P testifying that McQ told him he saw S anally-raping a boy  - and then that P told others that S was caught doing "something of a sexual nature".

Perfectly truthful testimony.

That is true, but also not the only possible explanation.

[The Minsky Moment]

The practical reality is that the AG made the decision early on that he needed Paterno to get to Curley and Schultz (C & S).

Without Paterno, the failure to report charge vs. C&S comes down to what McQ actually told them and that just his word against theirs.  Standing alone, that is a weak criminal case on a what was in 2002 a very minor ("summary") offense.

But with Paterno saying that he said the magic words "something of a sexual nature" to Curley, the case is transformed.  Because those words, while imprecise, are arguably sufficient to put Curley on notice that his reporting obligation was triggered.  And Paterno's account bolsters McQ's account that he told C&S the contact was sexual (which Curely apparently denied).

From the prosecutor's POV, the beauty is that the only way S&C can challenge the report charges pre-indictment is to appear before the GJ (and not take the 5th) but once they do so, they expose themselves to the more serious pejury charge (a summary offense carries a max setence of 90 days, but pejury is a 3d degree felony with a max jail term of 7 years).

But the key to both charges is getting Paterno sufficiently aligned.

[jimmy olsen]

Yi, I definitely went over the line earlier in this thread. While what you wrote still disturbs me, I shouldn't have been so rude and I should have given you a chance to explain yourself rather than jump all over you. The piece of shit line was especially gratuitous and uncalled for. I sincerely apologize.

[katmai]

By the way, if you don't want to be called out on being a horrible person maybe you shouldn't post horrible things. Being a pedophile apologist has its downsides.

I'm willing to live with being called a horrible person and a useless piece of shit.  I was merely commenting on the predicament you've put yourself in and the artificiality of chatting with each other.

Jemon Lello: my ethnicity is no secret.  Katmai tried to push the nickname "dogmuncher" for while, ultimately gave up.

Muttonchops is better anyways!