In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1101
Online now 178 Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
There's an enormous issue if V2 says he wasn't abused in the showers. Why would McQueary make up something beyond what he actually saw? Unless, of course, he's now trying to save his own skin.
10+ year old testimony, IMO, has always been the farthest down the totem pole of reliability. Why should I trust detailed explanations that people are giving 10+ years after the fact? Eyewitness testimony is barely reliable a day after it happened, much less more than a decade. McQueary's entire testimony comes under fire. If V2 says nothing happened that night, then McQueary looks more and more like someone who is trying to pass the buck now and put blame on all the people he told, when he wouldn't have actually told them anything (which, based on all the evidence I've seen, is still the most reasonable scenario).
Considering the people on this board can't get their facts straight, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the general public, who's interest in PSU is much much less, subscribe to the overally general narrative portrayed by the media.
Dominate The State
The problem with that argument is the fact that what McQueary actually told people is very much in doubt. And what he told people is STRONGLY dependent on what he actually saw.
So knowing what he saw determines mostly what he might have told people. If there was no abuse, then the chance McQueary actually told people about abuse occurring back then is significantly smaller, especially given that he has no motive to embellish.
Agreed, I think the argument is that perhaps what McQueary saw was much more vague than what has been reported and that he either changed his story as the shit hit the fan or that he was encouraged/pressured by prosecutors to paint a much more detailed picture than what he actually saw. Either would validate the Spanier/Curley/Schultz story and the fact that there was no cover-up.
This case has never been about whether the situation was handled competently. It is without question not handled competently. What I and others have fought is the notion that there was a coverup. That people knowing Sandusky was a pedophile purposely covered it up to protect the football program is what has been asserted. So what happened with V2 does matter. There is no question Curley and Schultz were negligent and perhaps grossly negligent for not involving people that were actually trained to evaluate a situation like this irrespective of how incriminating what McQuerry told them was.
Again, I agree. I don't think you can argue that with the benefit of hindsight, the PSU administrators were not negligent, perhaps as you said even grossly negligent with the information they were given. However that's a far cry from an actual cover-up. That's much easier to prove if you can show the information that they were given was much more vague than what is being reported.
This post was edited by PSUJT0409 13 months ago
Maybe the difference between us is that I believe MM could easily be lying. If we have a victim saying he is the boy from that night, then MM did not see him abused. Do you not see how this is enormous for PSU and Curley/Schultz? If there as no abuse, how do you convict people for saying they weren't told of abuse? And if they weren't told of abuse, how is there a PSU cover up? You say MM reported something up the chain, but if what he reported isn't a crime, people would be behave in the manner that they behaved in.
We know Sandusky is a pedophile and should be in jail forever. Not the issue here.
Does not matter what V2 says now. It comes down to what MM said or what was alledgedly said. IMO that will define process of sanction reduction or not. NCAA will drag case out until it is moot point. There will be mo compromise. I hope I am wrong.
but "what if" V2 was contacted by curley or shultz for clarification on what had happened? Or Raykowitz?
Wait, what am i missing here?
- MM says V2 was sodomized by Sandusky.
- V2 come out and says, albiet a little late, but says none the less, that he was not victimized by Sandusky.
I dont know if i am missing anything here, but how does this not help curley/shultz? (Serious question)
I think we all need to read Jim Clemente's report again. Even before that report came out I felt the administrators didn't see the "red" flags because of 2 things...
1) They knew Sandusky, knew what he's done in the community, and who everyone thought he was
2) They (Schultz at least) were told he has "boundary" issues. That's what the result of the 1998 investigation was to them. They didn't know about Patricia Chamber assessment, only the one that said Jerry has boundary issues.
If they truly believed Jerry had a problem but that problem was boundary issues then being told a vague description of JS showering with a child. They reasonably thought of the boundary issues resurfacing. They said they would tell him no more showering with kids, get help, and tell 2nd mile. These actions seem reasonable under their belief system and no crime being reported.
The problem I have is everyone looks back with the information we have now and makes judgements. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Not quite on topic here, but this thread is a solid, nearly model example, of how the mods would prefer members to conduct themselves in a thread, especially on such a sensitive topic. An easy read where people are expressing differing viewpoints in a very civil manner. Kudos all.
Suck It Emmert!! and "Sorry for not being sorry for being a Penn Stater" - Philafan
"I like your head, it's a good look." - James Franklin, to a bald reporter asking a question.
Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.
The perjury charges were brought to knock out the best witnesses for Sandusky's defense and to cut out any evidence contrary to what McQueary offered. No other reasons.
This post was edited by psume06 13 months ago
C&S were charged with perjury and failure to report (I think). That is purely a function of what MM said, rather than saw. From his testimony we know that he was vague with Paterno, but made sure Joe knew it was of a sexual nature (this is corroborated by joes own testimony right?), and claimed to tell C&S much more explicit details. The 2 claim otherwise. Someone is lying. Considering what Sandusky was convicted of, I think the odds are that MM saw something that he thought might have been sexual abuse but wasn't sure of - hence going to everybody but the cops.
Basically this is my long winded way of saying what happened isn't as important as what he thought he saw and reported.
This post was edited by md154 13 months ago
I agree with you. Someone is lying and it does matter what MM told to TC/GS. But to me, if this is indeed victim 2 and he is saying he never was molested it makes me think even more that MM is the one lying.
MM telling his dad and Dranov there was nothing sexual in nature
Being ambiguous to Paterno
TC/GS saying they were told there was nothing illegal
and now (supposedly) victim 2 saying he was never molested that night
MM saying he told them he saw molestation
The only thing that makes sense to me is that MM is the one lying. And if this is indeed victim 2 and he continues to claim what he is, it cements it more that MM is probably the one lying.
(caveat - this is what is known right now. If there is a "smoking gun" for the prosecution and it without a doubt points to these guys lying, then they need to go to jail forever)
What's even better are those that sit there and claim to know all of the "facts" including conversations that were a decade old where the parties involoved themselves can't recite them word for word. There is still a bit more gray to this still than there is black and white "facts". We have testimony based on decade old conversations. You have police interviews with Joe that don't match is testimony as the words sexual in nature don't exist in the police report. Yet some people tote around these "facts" as if they were in the room with these people when all the conversations occurred.
Bottom line with me is this wasn't some coverup orchestrated by Joe as far as I can tell. Freeh lumping him in was a big stretch and extremely irresponsible. That is just my educated guess, nothing more than that. We'll have to see what the others have to say as they have never had their chance to tell their version of the story. If they really did turn a blind eye, I hope they go to prison. If that isn't the case, I would hope the fullest version of the truth possible 12 years later come out. I just wish the few that act like the know it all would either go on the record with it or stop acting like the "fact" police nitpicking each little post.
This post was edited by LaJollaLion 13 months ago
"One man didn't build this program and one man sure as hell cannot tear it down."
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports