-
appoo said...
There is no technicality, and nothing can exonerate Joe. His actions are partly responsible for Sandusky running free. It's a failure that will be with him forever.
Besides, he also reported that account, which may or may not have been him being told of a crime, to the head of campus police. That's a fact as well. Again, his error is not in a failure to report. It was in not following up, knowing that Sandusky had a history with the police in very recent times.
getmyjive11
- 5 stars Rating: 81
7350 votes total - (10333)
- 34 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
appoo said...
He wasn't TOLD of a crime. McQuery told 3 different stories to 4 different people.
I wish peope would get their facts in order. There's enough fact out there to say that Joe should have been fired for a lack of leadership in executing his position as the head of a major college football program. He used horrendously poor judgement in not following up on a very serious matter, regarding someone he KNEW was investigated for one reason or another just 3 years prior. For him to NOT follow up when he realized nothing would come of that, likely squelching his own instinct, was monumentally bone-headed.
What we do NOT have evidence of is Joe actively covering up pedophile, actively enabling a pedophile, or turning blind eye to a crime. It is ridiculous how much is being made over 2 emails that basically innocuously mention him.
Again, his mistake was worth firing over. But we still don't have any evidence that it wasnt actually a mistake, and actually an active act on him part to do harm to protect himself.
Is it likely that is what happened? Quite possibly. We will find out when Tim Curley has his say. But I don't understand why people are leaping to these conclusions, based very indirect evidence - especally seeing as none of the people involved were interviewed.
-
getmyjive11
- 5 stars Rating: 81
7350 votes total - (10333)
- 34 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MTayl72 said...
That perjury charge never would hav been brought. The Freeh report waas too ambiguous to what he actually knew and if it contradicted his statement.
And to the post before, he did not fail to report. Under current law all he needed to do was report to superiors, he did. Its wh he wasn't chrged in the first place. The same evidence being shown now was there for the original rounds of indictments, and from what he testified on.
Like I said, doesn't excuse him from any judegement you all are puttting forth. But he would have seen no charges.
getmyjive11
- 5 stars Rating: 81
7350 votes total - (10333)
- 34 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
getmyjive11 said...
I agree about the failure to report... he did report it. But in his GJ testimony he said that he gave the information to his superiors and then let them handle it. If he talked to Curley again as the email indicates, then that is a lie. It may be too ambiguous to convict him of perjury, but I think it is enough to charge him.
Column: Of monsters and men