-
PSU42Fan said...
Not well, but I did to a very small extent.
I think that Joe was in over his head when it came to Sandusky. Joe was a football coach and a philanthropist. An expert on child sexual abuse, at his age, he was not.
I'm not excusing him, but I also wouldn't expect anyone his age to fully grasp the gravity of this situation in the moment.
Joe failed us and those victims, but I don't believe he did it out of malice.
Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen
sneakypete ●
- 3 stars Rating: 54
6776 votes total - (4103)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
sneakypete said...
Sigh, nobody is mad for the inaction in 1998. They are mad because Joe lied about knowing anything about it and then when MM came to him in 2001 he still did little to nothing. I don't care how weak the case was in 1998, if you knew it happened and then had a second incident it should raise red flags to anyone with a brain. Goole me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
We Are27731 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 83
1517 votes total - (1521)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
sneakypete said...
Sigh, nobody is mad for the inaction in 1998. They are mad because Joe lied about knowing anything about it and then when MM came to him in 2001 he still did little to nothing. I don't care how weak the case was in 1998, if you knew it happened and then had a second incident it should raise red flags to anyone with a brain. Goole me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
This post was edited by helpdesk on 7/15/2012 at 8:54 AM
SPORTSbyBROOKS » Transcript: Joe Paterno’s Grand Jury Testimony
The date is January 12th, 2011, 11:06 a.m. The questions were asked by Ms. Jonelle Eshbach, Witness, Joseph V. Paterno. Q: Would you please introduce yourself to the Grand Jury? Mr. Paterno: My
sportsbybrooks.com -
We Are27731 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 83
1517 votes total - (1521)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
helpdesk said...
The testimony has been available for half a year to anyone that wanted to read it. This is the question some people are inferring Joe perjured himself on. Again people are using the "know about IT" instead of reading the damn questions and answers and understanding we are dealing with a grand jury, not coffee shop talk. (If you make a claim you better be able to back it up)
Question to Paterno: "Other than the [2001] incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?"
Paterno: "I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it. You did mention -- I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor."
The question asks about other "inappropriate sexual conduct", the question was not "did you know about an investigation in 1998" or "did you think Jerry was a perve" or "did you know Jerry was a pedophile." It asks very specifically about sexual conduct.
-
psujmc1992 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 92
2901 votes total - (5131)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
PSUVA92 said...
Have you ever heard LA's radio show? It's embarrassing... This is his "I'm a part of the media schtick". Guess what if Lavar wants to give away all his PSU stuff or burn his diploma (whatever he said a few months ago) and now he jumps on the JVP bandwagon so be it ...we don't need ya LaVar if that's the way you feel. BTW I think PSU botched this entire situation to the high heavans... but I'm still not ready to buy into the cover up theory yet...
This post was edited by psujmc1992 on 7/15/2012 at 9:34 PM
“We need to keep this (expletive) together,” Mauti and Zordich to Hill
psujmc1992 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 92
2901 votes total - (5131)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
psujmc1992 said...
Perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Do you know Joe personally? If so, how well? LaVar literally gave his blood and sweat to Penn State and Joe (I don't know if he's ever cried, LOL). Yet, you know more about Joe than he does?
I'm 43 and have met and known LOTS of people
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by PSUVA92 on 7/15/2012 at 9:34 PM
-
PSUVA92 said...
I didn't say that so stop trying to twist what I said. BTW I have met LaVar on numerous occasions and have met Joe 3 times ... It's not about that. It's about LaVar constantly making comments that once he calms down and thinks about what he's saying more I will gaurantee that he comes out and states at some point that he regrets his comments (like he did with his earlier comments). I feel like sometimes he gets caught up in the radio show and the Post editorial and he get's carried away a bit...But LaVar is a grown up and there are only so many times that he can ask for forgiveness in my eyes at least. I'm happy for you that your 43 ...and that youy know and have met LOTS of people.
“We need to keep this (expletive) together,” Mauti and Zordich to Hill
psujmc1992 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 92
2901 votes total - (5131)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
helpdesk said...
The testimony has been available for half a year to anyone that wanted to read it. This is the question some people are inferring Joe perjured himself on. Again people are using the "know about IT" instead of reading the damn questions and answers and understanding we are dealing with a grand jury, not coffee shop talk. (If you make a claim you better be able to back it up)
Question to Paterno: "Other than the [2001] incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?"
Paterno: "I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it. You did mention -- I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor."
The question asks about other "inappropriate sexual conduct", the question was not "did you know about an investigation in 1998" or "did you think Jerry was a perve" or "did you know Jerry was a pedophile." It asks very specifically about sexual conduct.
Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen
sneakypete ●
- 3 stars Rating: 54
6776 votes total - (4103)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
sneakypete said...
Sigh, nobody is mad for the inaction in 1998. They are mad because Joe lied about knowing anything about it and then when MM came to him in 2001 he still did little to nothing. I don't care how weak the case was in 1998, if you knew it happened and then had a second incident it should raise red flags to anyone with a brain. Goole me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
-
psume06 said...
This, or all those government investigations (which also occur when you adopt) could have led Joe to a false sense of security. The door swings both ways and there's no way to know now which was right then. Your hatred of all things PSU continues to blow my mind, though.
Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen
sneakypete ●
- 3 stars Rating: 54
6776 votes total - (4103)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Seltz said...
Considering the recounting of what he witnessed has changed some from time to time in its telling, not sure its the best way to go.
From sexual acts, to sexual noises only and so on
Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen
sneakypete ●
- 3 stars Rating: 54
6776 votes total - (4103)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Seltz said...
The point is it has changed, causing question to what was told originally. Acting as if there is a voice recording of this while making statements is something I find odd
Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen
sneakypete ●
- 3 stars Rating: 54
6776 votes total - (4103)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Seltz said...
Meaning u missed the point again.
Let's try again. What was told to Joe? It seemed unclear to Joe. MM couldn't get that completely straight yet.
Making conclusive statements off basically vague descriptions remains the point
Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen
sneakypete ●
- 3 stars Rating: 54
6776 votes total - (4103)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
LaVar gets it - smart man