Penn State scandal (merged)

[therealUT]

joe pa allowed a known pedophile to continue raping at least one additional boy.

Did Sandusky have a prior conviction? Was he a registered sex-offender? Alleged is not the same as known.

If someone walked in to your place of work tomorrow and said, "I think I saw Jokerman touching a boy in the bathroom", would you think it prudent or right for your boss to then bar you from work? Would you think it right for your boss to immediately call the police? Or, would you think it prudent for your boss to first initiate a process in which facts could be gathered that might corroborate the story?

 

[LawVol13]

I don't care if it's a bare allegation with no facts to support it given to Paterno. Sandusky absolutely had to be immediately banned from any facilities until a full scale investigation took place. He wasn't, and no investigation occurred. It was a coverup, and Paterno is right in the middle of it.

 

[BeecherVol]

Not at all; if McQueary says, "I think I saw this and I think it needs to be looked into" it is reasonable to look into the matter. It would be perfectly reasonable for Paterno to then report to the AD and for the AD then to sit down and talk with McQueary before instigating an investigation within the department.

Would there be a reason for MM to not want JP to be clear before he went to the AD and accused JS of anything?

 

[ItsDarwinism]

the only one i've heard cast doubt on what mcqueary stated he saw is joe pa. the indictment is pretty clear.

the fact that mcqueary was 'very upset', the fact that he heard 'rhythmic slapping noises", and the fact alone that it was a naked man with a naked boy just makes it incredibly unlikely that joe pa thought it was something minor.

Its never been documented what McQueary told Paterno, and I seriously doubt he told Joe about the 'rhythmic slapping noises." lol And that ain't in the GJ report, at least not that it was reported to Paterno that way and I am lmao at the thought of a young GA using that terminology to Joe Pa.

McQueary DID tell Curley and Shultz that he saw Sandusky engaged in "what he believed to be anal sex." That is in the report, but nobody but Paterno and McQueary and his father know what was told to JP, or how the message was possibly softened, and that possibility definitely exists.

 

[LawVol13]

If someone walked in to your place of work tomorrow and said, "I think I saw Jokerman touching a boy in the bathroom", would you think it prudent or right for your boss to then bar you from work?

Absolutely, man. I have no idea if you have absolutely no experience or have ever talked with anyone in an administrative position, but if you get one of these allegations, the person is immediately put on leave and an investigation immediately goes on. It's not rocket science.

 

[therealUT]

Would there be a reason for MM to not want JP to be clear before he went to the AD and accused JS of anything?

There could be an infinite number of reasons why McQueary would not want to flat out accuse a Penn State legend who held emeritus status at the university of child rape. McQueary could have couched his accusation in uncertain language with an eye to keeping a job; it is obvious that McQueary certainly did not trouble McQueary enough that he ever left Penn State while being on staff and in a position in which he watched Sandusky walking free and hanging around kids.

 

[therealUT]

Absolutely, man. I have no idea if you have absolutely no experience or have ever talked with anyone in an administrative position, but if you get one of these allegations, the person is immediately put on leave and an investigation immediately goes on. It's not rocket science.

I do not believe in taking punitive measures without someone being proved guilty. You do.

 

[BeecherVol]

There could be an infinite number of reasons why McQueary would not want to flat out accuse a Penn State legend who held emeritus status at the university of child rape. McQueary could have couched his accusation in uncertain language with an eye to keeping a job; it is obvious that McQueary certainly did not trouble McQueary enough that he ever left Penn State while being on staff and in a position in which he watched Sandusky walking free and hanging around kids.

Why mention it?

 

[LawVol13]

I do not believe in taking punitive measures without someone being proved guilty. You do.

Then, shockingly, once again, you have absolutely no idea how it works in any administrative setting anywhere in the United States. That's standard procedure everywhere. Hell, they could have put him on paid leave. That is how it's done everywhere, and it wouldn't even be punitive.

You continue to make very clear why no one should take you seriously on this. You have no concept of reality.

 

[therealUT]

Why mention it?

Solid question of which I do not have the answer. I do not presume to have any of the answers regarding this case; there seem to be plenty of questions that need to be answered and hopefully will be answered by an independent Federal Investigation.

 

[rmsmith]

And please change your name, no way are you the real ut. Maybe change it to the real embarrassment.

Why because he wants proof and not what someone said they saw?

 

[therealUT]

Then, shockingly, once again, you have absolutely no idea how it works in any administrative setting anywhere in the United States. That's standard procedure everywhere. Hell, they could have put him on paid leave. That is how it's done everywhere, and it wouldn't even be punitive.

You continue to show make very clear why no one should take you seriously on this. You have no concept of reality.

Standard procedure does not mean that I have to believe it is right.

 

[JokermanVol]

And that response is why I think the protection of children is secondary in your thought process.

You are willing to continue to allow the possibility of children getting raped because not enough factual evidence exist?

You don't think the third time of hearing it is enough probable cause to do something?

there was enough factual evidence though.

 

[LawVol13]

Standard procedure does not mean that I have to believe it is right.

Then let's all pray to God that you're never in an administrative job where child abuse is alleged because your behavior would have the same result that occurred in State College. You would just enable a monster. But, at least you'd be following your philosophical morality construct.

 

[DrunkJohnny]

For the last time guys,

therealUT thinks it's appropriate for preteens to shower with strange grown men.

That should tell you all you need to know about his position.

 

[knucklehead_vol]

Its never been documented what McQueary told Paterno, and I seriously doubt he told Joe about the 'rhythmic slapping noises." lol And that ain't in the GJ report, at least not that it was reported to Paterno that way and I am lmao at the thought of a young GA using that terminology to Joe Pa.

McQueary DID tell Curley and Shultz that he saw Sandusky engaged in "what he believed to be anal sex." That is in the report, but nobody but Paterno and McQueary and his father know what was told to JP, or how the message was possibly softened, and that possibility definitely exists.

This should say all we need to know about this guy.

But the other point, lets say MM didn't say much to the old bastard, Curley and Shultz had to go to the old bastard and let him know of their concerns after MM had stated to them. Wouldn't he know at that point exactly what MM said?

 

[therealUT]

Then let's all pray to God that you're never in an administrative job where child abuse is alleged because your behavior would have the same result that occurred in State College. You would just enable a monster. But, at least you'd be following your philosophical morality construct.

Correct. Back to the topic now or do you feel compelled to continue with your internet offensive?

 

[therealUT]

For the last time guys,

therealUT thinks it's appropriate for preteens to shower with strange grown men.

That should tell you all you need to know about his position.

I do not see anything inherently wrong with a boy showering with men. I see something wrong with a man getting off to that, touching the kid, or f***ing the kid. The act of showering in an open shower, though, is not in itself evil. It may be naive and open one up to allegations; but, in itself it is not evil.

 

[JokermanVol]

Did Sandusky have a prior conviction? Was he a registered sex-offender? Alleged is not the same as known.

If someone walked in to your place of work tomorrow and said, "I think I saw Jokerman touching a boy in the bathroom", would you think it prudent or right for your boss to then bar you from work? Would you think it right for your boss to immediately call the police? Or, would you think it prudent for your boss to first initiate a process in which facts could be gathered that might corroborate the story?

yes.

yes.

my boss shouldn't worry about law enforcement's job.

 

[ItsDarwinism]

Correct. Back to the topic now or do you feel compelled to continue with your internet offensive?

LOL This thread became a lot more palatable since I put about 4 idiots on ignore, my 5 star recommendation for the day.

 

[LawVol13]

Correct. Back to the topic now or do you feel compelled to continue with your internet offensive?

I made my point exactly. Acting in a completely negligent way that enables a child molester like having to have him convicted and imprisoned before you decide he has to leave the facility where he rapes kids is quite possibly the dumbest proposed move I've seen on this board.

You are a really smart guy; I just wish you'd wake up.

 

[knucklehead_vol]

For the last time guys,

therealUT thinks it's appropriate for preteens to shower with strange grown men.

That should tell you all you need to know about his position.

Seriously...I really think he must be a victim here. Just hope he doesn't take showers with young boys, or girls. But, I think he would be OK with it.

 

[orangeslice]

I do not believe in taking punitive measures without someone being proved guilty. You do.

to wait until the perpertrators are PROVEN guilty...if the coach SAW him in the shower with that CHILD, the important thing is to get it stopped!! Adults are supposed to protect the children and not back off until they think it's the right time to bring it out! If that was your child, wouldn't you have barged into that shower and beaten the crap out of that sleaze ball?? All children deserve the same consideration and if it is proven that the administration knew about this, this university will be destroyed. If this was covered up by the higher ups, this is UNFORGIVEABLE! I hope administrators and AD's and Presidents of universities will realize that they had better KNOW what is going on in all areas involving that university. The tragedy here is the children who have been WARPED by this pervert and someone should have done something to stop it!

 

[hog88]

I do not believe in taking punitive measures without someone being proved guilty. You do.

First rule of management is to protect the organization! By not following this simple rule, look at the mess PSU is in now. You have alot to learn Jr.

 

[DrunkJohnny]

Seriously...I really think he must be a victim here.

He is. He admitted it yesterday. I have sympathy. And it's sad that those defending paternos actions were all subjected to in appropriate behavior by grown men as children.

Kind of ironic, but I'm not going to try and understand it.