Yes. He told the truth before the Grand Jury but when he reported the incident to Paterno he used different language. "Sodomy" and "inappropriate touching" invoke different reactions. What about McQueary's father?

 

On Mike and Mike today they said Paterno or his son tried to clarify this and he said he told McQueary to stop when he was getting into the details of the story. He said it was enough and he needed to call his boss. His testimony to the grand jury by the way is he told the AD and Pres that it was anal rape.

 

I agree with UKMF though. Whatever these jokers try to say it's going to end up bad. He should have been barred from campus for life if the only thing they thought happened was he horsed around with a naked boy while he was naked in their shower and they should have contacted Police. At least one of them admitted it was a crime and it was similar to an investigation in the 98 incident. There is no defense for looking the other way and allowing this alleged child rapist on the property ever again. There is almost no way this isn't a cover up even if it hasn't been proven legally yet.

In what world do those invoke different reactions when talking about a 10 year old boy? They are both "immediate call to the police" acts. Paterno did the absolute bare minimum and then turned his head and tried to forget the incident was ever brought to his attention. Despicable IMO.

 

Yes, you've said that several times now. It may not be credible to you, but I can tell you that the police, social services, prosecutors, and people in many positions react differently when told "I saw a man showering with a boy and there was inappropriate contact," and "I saw a man anally sodomizing a 10 year-old."

McQuery is out for Sat. game........

 

Apparently for his safety as he has received death threats. Don't know if they are threatening because he didn't do more to stop the abuse or that he did report what he saw. I'll bet it's both.

On Mike and Mike today they said Paterno or his son tried to clarify this and he said he told McQueary to stop when he was getting into the details of the story. He said it was enough and he needed to call his boss. His testimony to the grand jury by the way is he told the AD and Pres that it was anal rape.

 

I agree with UKMF though. Whatever these jokers try to say it's going to end up bad. He should have been barred from campus for life if the only thing they thought happened was he horsed around with a naked boy while he was naked in their shower and they should have contacted Police. At least one of them admitted it was a crime and it was similar to an investigation in the 98 incident. There is no defense for looking the other way and allowing this alleged child rapist on the property ever again. There is almost no way this isn't a cover up even if it hasn't been proven legally yet.

 

Again, my position is (and has been) that I want to wait until all of the story unfolds. This thread has been rampant with speculation about what might've been said, what probably was said, etc. For there to have been a "cover up," some POSITIVE act of malfeasance must have taken place, such as someone saying "don't call the police," "you'll get promoted if you stay quiet," etc. Nonfeasance, merely reporting to your superiors, and then not following up and hoping it went away, is not a "cover up." If it is proven that Paterno told someone not to report it, promoted someone in exchange for non-reporting, etc., I will be the first one there holding the rope. But all you have at this point is officials disgusted by what was alleged and whom made their bare minimum report and went on.

 

I also want to address the rampant implication going around that "they had to know" that he was continuing to molest children. That flies directly in the face of known tendencies of child abusers. If that was the case, all of the players, the coaching staffs, their wives, the trainers, all of the students who work and serve at the facilities, everyone, the Cabinet workers in the 1998 incident, police in the 1998 incident, should be indicted for their complicity in not "knowing" this. If you believe innuendo, Tom Bradley was given the DC job when Sandusky resigned, and had been their for several years. Why are police and prosecutors not railing about his promotion to interim head coach. I'm sorry, it doesn't fly. There are some instances that are in the report about on-situ acts, but I'll bet the evidence ends up pointing almost entirely to off-site, out-of-the-range-of-spectator acts. If Joe Paterno had a moral obligation to "follow-up" on his report even though it had died in the hands of higher-ups, why do the police officials who investigated the 1998 incidents get a pass? Gricar says he 's not going to prosecute, and those pol,ice officers don't say anything, nothing to the media, nothing back to the school about kids coming on site? Why do they get a pass? You know the answer, because JoePa is a more prolific scapegoat.

Again, my position is (and has been) that I want to wait until all of the story unfolds. This thread has been rampant with speculation about what might've been said, what probably was said, etc. For there to have been a "cover up," some POSITIVE act of malfeasance must have taken place, such as someone saying "don't call the police," "you'll get promoted if you stay quiet," etc. Nonfeasance, merely reporting to your superiors, and then not following up and hoping it went away, is not a "cover up." If it is proven that Paterno told someone not to report it, promoted someone in exchange for non-reporting, etc., I will be the first one there holding the rope. But all you have at this point is officials disgusted by what was alleged and whom made their bare minimum report and went on.

 

I also want to address the rampant implication going around that "they had to know" that he was continuing to molest children. That flies directly in the face of known tendencies of child abusers. If that was the case, all of the players, the coaching staffs, their wives, the trainers, all of the students who work and serve at the facilities, everyone, the Cabinet workers in the 1998 incident, police in the 1998 incident, should be indicted for their complicity in not "knowing" this. If you believe innuendo, Tom Bradley was given the DC job when Sandusky resigned, and had been their for several years. Why are police and prosecutors not railing about his promotion to interim head coach. I'm sorry, it doesn't fly. There are some instances that are in the report about on-situ acts, but I'll bet the evidence ends up pointing almost entirely to off-site, out-of-the-range-of-spectator acts. If Joe Paterno had a moral obligation to "follow-up" on his report even though it had died in the hands of higher-ups, why do the police officials who investigated the 1998 incidents get a pass? Gricar says he 's not going to prosecute, and those pol,ice officers don't say anything, nothing to the media, nothing back to the school about kids coming on site? Why do they get a pass? You know the answer, because JoePa is a more prolific scapegoat.

 

When I say cover up I'm not actually talking about legally. I have failed to make that clear though. Make no mistake this is a cover up even if it doesn't meet the legal criteria of that.

 

He was caught or admitted on 3 separate occasions to being in a shower with 10 and 11 year old boys on campus. I'm sure there were more incidents in hidden locations, but I would bet a billion dollars there were more than 3 occasions it happened on campus.

Apparently a lawmaker in PA is moving forward to change the law. Not sure how you would be able to include those who only hear of a child being abused. That would cast a wide net and lead to it being a real weapon for someone wanting to stick it to an enemy. I don't know what the answer is.

 

"Pennsylvania's attorney general said it appeared Paterno had met his obligations under state law, but critics have said the coach should have reported the suspected abuse to police.

 

That perceived lapse led to the coach's downfall.

 

State Rep. Kevin Boyle, a Philadelphia Democrat, told CNN's Anderson Cooper he plans to introduce a measure aimed at ensuring that people who witness or learn of the abuse of a child report it to the proper authorities.

 

"In light of the alleged child sex abuse scandal at Pennsylvania State University, it is clear that a loophole exists in our law," Boyle said in an earlier news release. "My legislation would close that loophole by requiring those who are aware of the abuse to report it to law enforcement authorities, rather than simply following an in-house chain of command."

Here is a good article that describes what I'm talking about; even those close to him had no idea he was like this.

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7219828/no-one-seems-really-know-former-penn-state-assistant-coach-jerry-sandusky

Those who have to keep Virtus and Youth Protection trainings updated for the Diocese or Boy Scouts read monthly how these predators operate. Sick.

Watching the ESPN presser now, McQueary has been put on administrative leave by the President and AD.

He told the team "I'm done coaching, I'm gone."

He told the team "I'm done coaching, I'm gone."

 

That doesn't or wouldn't surprise me.

After the abuse victims, I feel sorry for this team, particularly the seniors.

If this is true though isn't it worse that they still haven't fired him?

 

General question here. When an investigation goes on for over 3 years and there are many people including alleged victims and alleged witnesses that all pretty much describe a pattern of illegal behavior where some or most of the people don't know each other at all is the person usually guilty? Or I guess a better question do you know of any person that was investigated for over 3 years for child molestation where there are multiple alleged victims and at least two different eye witnesses of two separate attacks and they all made up the allegations? I can see where a guys life gets ruined because one kid falsely accuses him of doing something he didn't do. I just can't see multiple witnesses making up evidence against someone and that evidence matching up to what other victims are alleging happened.

General question here. When an investigation goes on for over 3 years and there are many people including alleged victims and alleged witnesses that all pretty much describe a pattern of illegal behavior where some or most of the people don't know each other at all is the person usually guilty? Or I guess a better question do you know of any person that was investigated for over 3 years for child molestation where there are multiple alleged victims and at least two different eye witnesses of two separate attacks and they all made up the allegations? I can see where a guys life gets ruined because one kid falsely accuses him of doing something he didn't do. I just can't see multiple witnesses making up evidence against someone and that evidence matching up to what other victims are alleging happened.

 

Not saying that is the case here, but I can see where someone might see a chance for a big payday down the road and say "Oh yes, he did that to me too!" even though he didn't. It will be interesting to see how much of this is he said/he said, versus that which is corroborated (McQuerey?) by someone other than the victim or perpetrator.

Not saying that is the case here, but I can see where someone might see a chance for a big payday down the road and say "Oh yes, he did that to me too!" even though he didn't. It will be interesting to see how much of this is he said/he said, versus that which is corroborated (McQuerey?) by someone other than the victim or perpetrator.

 

People who went to Second Mile will come out of the woodwork saying they were victims. They're going to have to work long and hard finding the true victims. There will also be quite a few that don't admit to it because of embarassment IMO.