Jump to content

Say it ain't so, Joe


Viper
 Share

Recommended Posts

Donating with money that he may or may not have earned had the program come under scrutiny when the rapes first occurred. I think they would've gotten through it had they done the right thing, but they clearly felt otherwise, and decided that their rep and the money that went along with it was more important than protecting children from a rapist. There's blood on every dollar donated since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a great line from Pirates of the Caribbean that fits this scenario perfectly. This is after Jack Sparrow jumps into the ocean to save a drowning Elizabeth Swan. Soon thereafter, he is doing one of his patent escapes but end up getting caught. At gun point, he grabs Elizabeth Swan as a buffer between guns drawn and himself:

Elizabeth Swann: Commodore, I really must protest! Pirate or not, this man saved my life.

James Norrington: One good deed is not enough to save a man from a lifetime of wickedness.

Jack Sparrow: Though it seems enough to condemn him.

You decide.

That makes no sense. So Sparrow is saying his one good deed condemned him? Not sure what you're going for there.

At any rate, here's my "decision." The "deed" in question here is a little bit bigger than just being "the one bad thing out 1000 good things" that Paterno did. It's not like Paterno preached the virtue of a clean program only to get caught having knowledge of a booster giving players money. If that were the case, then all the "don't let one slip ruin his legacy" arguments might hold some water. The problem is Paterno's "one bad deed" was turning a blind eye to a football coach who was :censored:-ing children. Doing so allowed that football coach to continue to :censored: children unabated for another 9 years. That's a pretty significant "one bad deed." There's just no way to look past it.

It was a commentary about our current society. One bad deed is enough to condemn a man who otherwise lived a good life. But the opposite is not true. One good deed is not enough to salvage a man who otherwise lived a bad life.

I don't know how you're not grasping this. It wasn't just one bad thing. It was over a decade of letting a pedophile rape children to save the university. And how do you know he lived a good life? Remember when we thought Jim Tressel was a great man? How do we know JoePa didn't cheat? Just because he didn't get caught, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

There are lots of people supporting Paterno, there are lots of people crying foul with renaming the trophy, with firing Paterno, etc. From what we know, the only bad decision he really made was not reporting this allegation to police. Otherwise, from what we know as fans, JoePa lived a very good life, donating to the library, helping people make good decisions, etc.

Except that he made that decision every day for nearly a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a great line from Pirates of the Caribbean that fits this scenario perfectly. This is after Jack Sparrow jumps into the ocean to save a drowning Elizabeth Swan. Soon thereafter, he is doing one of his patent escapes but end up getting caught. At gun point, he grabs Elizabeth Swan as a buffer between guns drawn and himself:

Elizabeth Swann: Commodore, I really must protest! Pirate or not, this man saved my life.

James Norrington: One good deed is not enough to save a man from a lifetime of wickedness.

Jack Sparrow: Though it seems enough to condemn him.

You decide.

That makes no sense. So Sparrow is saying his one good deed condemned him? Not sure what you're going for there.

At any rate, here's my "decision." The "deed" in question here is a little bit bigger than just being "the one bad thing out 1000 good things" that Paterno did. It's not like Paterno preached the virtue of a clean program only to get caught having knowledge of a booster giving players money. If that were the case, then all the "don't let one slip ruin his legacy" arguments might hold some water. The problem is Paterno's "one bad deed" was turning a blind eye to a football coach who was :censored:-ing children. Doing so allowed that football coach to continue to :censored: children unabated for another 9 years. That's a pretty significant "one bad deed." There's just no way to look past it.

It was a commentary about our current society. One bad deed is enough to condemn a man who otherwise lived a good life. But the opposite is not true. One good deed is not enough to salvage a man who otherwise lived a bad life.

I don't know how you're not grasping this. It wasn't just one bad thing. It was over a decade of letting a pedophile rape children to save the university. And how do you know he lived a good life? Remember when we thought Jim Tressel was a great man? How do we know JoePa didn't cheat? Just because he didn't get caught, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

There are lots of people supporting Paterno, there are lots of people crying foul with renaming the trophy, with firing Paterno, etc. From what we know, the only bad decision he really made was not reporting this allegation to police. Otherwise, from what we know as fans, JoePa lived a very good life, donating to the library, helping people make good decisions, etc.

And that decision allowed a rapist to rape children for nine years. Think about that for a moment.

EDIT- Beaten by OnWis97. Oh well, I'll leave it, as it warrants repeating (especially since people don't seem to get it).

Edited by Ice_Cap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of people supporting Paterno, there are lots of people crying foul with renaming the trophy, with firing Paterno, etc. From what we know, the only bad decision he really made was not reporting this allegation to police. Otherwise, from what we know as fans, JoePa lived a very good life, donating to the library, helping people make good decisions, etc.

Paterno's "only bad decision" allowed Sandusky to continue to molest children for nine years. Does that even register with you? Think about it for a minute, an hour, a day, as long as it takes to finally sink in.

EDIT: OnWis97 and Ice_Cap beat me to it but I'll leave it, as it warrants repeating (especially since people don't seem to get it.)

Edited by infrared41
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while we're at it, let's keep in mind that Sandusky met at least one known victim ("Victim 1" in the grand jury presentment) after Paterno and the other Penn State administrators knew what he was up to.

At the very least, even if there were no other as-yet-unidentifed victims (which I don't think anybody believes to be the case) Paterno's silence led directly to the abuse of that boy. How anyone could still defend that scumbag is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if anybody's mentioned it but there's been reports of 10 more alleged victims that have come forward or are ready to come forward, which would bring the total to 18.

This kind of stuff I know very little about, so... Did McQueary testify that he just ran out of the locker room to the Grand Jury or was that just an assumption? And if he did, does him now saying that he intervened, which would mean he lied to the Grand Jury, make his testimony unreliable? And lastly, if that is the case, does that affect the case against Sandusky at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if anybody's mentioned it but there's been reports of 10 more alleged victims that have come forward or are ready to come forward, which would bring the total to 18.

This kind of stuff I know very little about, so... Did McQueary testify that he just ran out of the locker room to the Grand Jury or was that just an assumption? And if he did, does him now saying that he intervened, which would mean he lied to the Grand Jury, make his testimony unreliable? And lastly, if that is the case, does that affect the case against Sandusky at all?

The Grand Jury report says once spotted by the boy and Sandusky, who were "in the act", that he left immediately, fled to his office where he called his father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the presentment, it says

The graduate student was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate student left immediately, distraught.

Doesn't get any more specific than that. He might have told the grand jury that he intervened, or he might not. I don't think we can draw any reliable inferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that "left immediately" can be interpreted any other way. Unless the fact that they both saw him lead to the act stopping, I'm not sure how he can claim that he broke it up without perjuring himself.

And if Sandusky seeing him didn't lead to the act stopping... then wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now more possible victims have come forward. Exact number not revealed, but "close to 10."

Yeah, See Red pointed that out a few posts ago.

A lot of speculation is that the FBI is queitly waiting in the wings watching this unfold and will step in at the proper junction. The judge that set Sandusky's non-existent bail conditions should face criminal charges for not recusing herself from sentencing bail since she was a Second Mile donor. I don't see why that hasn't occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no legal background, so this is only a conspiracy theory. But I imagine the Costas interview was Sandusky's legal team trying to say, "SEE? He can't get a fair trial anywhere!" I just can't imagine any other reason for Amendola to let his client be interviewed by Bob Costas other than he's a complete moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kind of stuff I know very little about, so... Did McQueary testify that he just ran out of the locker room to the Grand Jury or was that just an assumption? And if he did, does him now saying that he intervened, which would mean he lied to the Grand Jury, make his testimony unreliable? And lastly, if that is the case, does that affect the case against Sandusky at all?

If in fact McQueary lied to the grand jury it has a twofold effect. First, he's open to criminal sanction for perjury. Second, his testimony would be unreliable and subject to use to impeach McQueary as a witness on the stand because the argument would be if he lied to the grand jury then why wouldn't he be lying on the stand now in front of the jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no legal background, so this is only a conspiracy theory. But I imagine the Costas interview was Sandusky's legal team trying to say, "SEE? He can't get a fair trial anywhere!" I just can't imagine any other reason for Amendola to let his client be interviewed by Bob Costas other than he's a complete moron.

It would have to be the second reason. If this case goes to trial (and that is a big big if) there is no way that it would be held in Center County. Any competent defense attorney would seek a change of venue to a more "neutral" county, though in this day and age it is difficult to say if such would exist. He probably did it for money.

Also note, unlike Paterno who retained a high powered Washington, DC based defense lawyer, Sandusky retained a country bumpkin who is showing himself to be unable to handle a case with this level of national attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If in fact McQueary lied to the grand jury it has a twofold effect. First, he's open to criminal sanction for perjury. Second, his testimony would be unreliable and subject to use to impeach McQueary as a witness on the stand because the argument would be if he lied to the grand jury then why wouldn't he be lying on the stand now in front of the jury.

Which could be exactly what the Sandusky defense wants, since McQueary's the star witness (second to the kids, obviously)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no legal background, so this is only a conspiracy theory. But I imagine the Costas interview was Sandusky's legal team trying to say, "SEE? He can't get a fair trial anywhere!" I just can't imagine any other reason for Amendola to let his client be interviewed by Bob Costas other than he's a complete moron.

It was a move to taint the jury pool. Now they will have to weed out everyone who has seen media coverage of the incident, which means there is no longer a guarantee for a fair and impartial jury. It was calculated on their part. Next will come motions to first move the trial out of State College, then out of Pennsylvania if that is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McQueary's being interviewed on the CBS evening news in 45 minutes. He attests that he intervened, broke up the rape, and told authorities (reportedly). If he told the campus police, no news - them hiding this wouldn't be at all shocking. But if he told the non campus authorities, and they failed to report...

...the lid may blow off.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/email_mcqueary_did_talk_to_pol.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Mike McQueary will be talking to CBS this evening at 6:30, and could address many questions arising about what appears to be changes to his grand jury testimony about what he saw when he witnessed a boy being assaulted by Jerry Sandusky in 2002.

In an NBC interview Monday night, Sandusky said McQueary got it wrong when he testified that he witnessed a sexual assault. Sandusky told Bob Costas it was only horsing around in the shower.

In an email obtained by The Patriot-News, McQueary writes that he made sure to stop the attack before leaving the locker room, telling his father and going to bed. The next day McQueary told Joe Paterno, according to testimony, and then explained what he'd seen to two Penn State officials.

In the email, McQueary contradicts the grand jury presentment by stating that he did also tell Penn State University police about what he saw that night.

"The graduate assistant was never questioned by University police and no other entity conducted an investigation," according to the presentment.

The PSU officials, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, have been charged with perjury and failure to report a crime because the grand jury found McQueary to be more credible.

They both said McQueary never described a sexual assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, he did not say very much.

STATE COLLEGE, Penn. - The Penn State sex abuse scandal continues to grow. Former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky is charged with attacking eight boys.

But today, CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian got word that the list of possible victims is much larger.

Today he spoke to us for the first time since the scandal broke.

"When do you think you'll be ready to talk," Keteyian asked.

"The whole process has to play out," McQueary replied. "I just don't have anything else to say."

"Describe your emotions right now."

"All over the place, just kind of shaken."

"Crazy?"

"Crazy," McQueary replied.

"You said like what, Mike?"

"Like a snow globe."

"Like a snow globe," Keteyian asked.

"Yes sir."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.