In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1057
Online now 491 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.
Exactly.... At best he looks like an old man time passed by (my feelings!) OR someone who ignored JS for personal gain. He dug himself the hole.... He needed to retire never did and saw his life fall apart. Very sad
PENN STATE FOREVER
The question of "why didn't Joe do more" is really summarized by one word: hindsight. In hindsight, knowing that Sandusky really is a child abuser, yeah, it's obvious that anyone who knew about this should have gone further to put this crook behind bars. But nobody KNEW. So you put it through the proper channels and trust that it gets taken care of.
An analogous situation happened at the Michigan hospital not that long ago. A woman saw a co-worker viewing child pornography. She put it through the proper channels and didn't hear anything. After the Penn State stuff came out, she realized she might get blamed for "not doing enough" and went to the police about it.
The fact is that six men heard McQueary's side of the incident at the time and NONE of them went beyond the basic procedure. Shouldn't that tell people something about how definitive (or lack thereof) McQueary's testimony at the time was? And a couple of those people had nothing to do with Penn State's reputation (Dranov, Mr. McQueary), so it can't be blamed on saving that.
There was also a PA detective who talked on a radio show about how he's never once had anyone follow up with him about these kinds of cases. I believe he even said they weren't supposed to follow up and that it wouldn't help if they did, especially when they're not experts on child abuse.
The benefit of hindsight is powerful, because it gives you a measure of certainty that is rarely, if ever present when the situation actually occurs.
Ugh. No. He did not. No wonder you're all upside down on this. You're clueless of the facts. The "sexual nature" refers to what Joe thought it was on that day (the day of his testimony). He never says that MM told him it was "something of a sexual nature."
Read the testimony for yourself, and stop getting your information from Steven A Smith.
FYI, here is the transcript during that portion of the testimony. As you can see, when he gets to the point where he says "sexual nature," he's using *his own words* to describe what he TODAY knows/believes MM was trying to tell him that day. He never says that MM said "sexual nature." Never. If you can find that somewhere else in the testimony, please cite it and I'll have some crow.
Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.
Q: Did he identify who that older person was?
Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.
Q: You’re saying that at the time this incident was reported to you, Sandusky was no longer a coach?
Mr. Paterno: No, he had retired voluntarily. I’m not sure exactly the year, but I think it was either ‘98 or ‘99.
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
Paterno says MM tells him it was fondling and he then describes it as a sexual nature....
You can dice his words all you want.... He made a mistake and was fired for it appropriately. I see no malice in Paterno just a scared and lost old man... he froze. The cost was very high.... He stayed too long... The way we fired him was wrong. Firing him was the right call. An innocent mistake is still a mistake and in his job and the nature of it... sorry he was terminated correctly.
So, you're just going to continue on with the ignorance, even though I put the facts right in front of your face?
My God, kid, no wonder this country is going to hell. Today, apparently admitting you're wrong is worse than being wrong.
Why do you even bother and put yourself through the frustration?
"I like your head, it's a good look." - James Franklin, to a bald reporter asking a question.
I honestly have no idea what your point is.....
When I hear the word "fondle" or "fondling"... I think of someone touching someone else's penis, breasts, vagina, testicles, and butt in a sexual manor....
In my eye's you made my case for me.
Well, I have two points.
1) That you're factually wrong about Paterno saying that MM told him "sexual nature."
2) It is clear from that testimony that Paterno is distracted by, and answering with the knowledge that he has that day. He's not even trying to convey what MM told him back in 2001. He's conveying what he *now* knows/believes MM saw and was trying to tell him that day. People don't answer, "What did [whomever] tell you he saw that day?" with "He saw X, Y, and Z." Especially someone who is as careful with his words as Paterno. When someone asks you, "philafan, what did BoulderFish tell you he saw yesterday?" ... You respond with either, "He told me he saw X, Y, and Z.;" or simply, "X, Y, and Z." You don't say, "BolderFish saw X, Y, and Z."
Now, you can call that "dicing words" if you want, but the fact is it's truth.
You don't know for a second what MM told Joe 10+ years ago as MM didn't know what he told Joe. Nobody remembers a conversation word for word a decade later. Then you have Dr. D pleading with Mike saying what did you see and MM not answering. MM didn't tell anyone there he saw a kid being fondled or raped. If he did for sure, he would have called the cops. Paterno himself after reading the GJ statement said he would have called the cops if MM had actually stated it like it was in the summary GJ presentment. Again, in your little black and white world, it's 200% set in stone. No gray area. MM told 5 different people including his father he saw anal rape and they were all confused by it. 5 people who are/were in good standing in this society. They all heard it and just laughed it off as Jerry being Jerry.
"One man didn't build this program and one man sure as hell cannot tear it down."
Agree to disagree on Joe's words. I was wrong to say Joe said MM said it was sexual.... He inferred that from the transcript. I still maintain and firing was just.
I am going off of Joe's take. The fondle comments and how he describes it as a sexual nature is enough for me to let Joe go. I do not think he covered it up. Simply he mad a mistake that rightfully cost him his job.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports