I think we can all agree on one thing. It's 3PM on 9/12/17 and Pitt still sucks.
CNN Headline on Paterno
- Thread starter Lion8286
- Start date
In regards to your first point, the other ultimate inanity is that MM testified that those sounds stopped while he was walking down the corridor to the locker-room such that when he arrived at the locker-room and walked inside they were no longer being made. When he saw the couple second glimpse in the mirror, the noises were not being made and the parties were nor really moving as far as he could tell. When he then walked over to the shower.....again, none of the noises that originally cued him into what was definitively was going on despite the fact that he was not in the locker-room at the time, had no idea what was making the noises, etc...were being made. IOW, when MM was hearing the noises when he first walked in the door for a few seconds only, he knew precisely without question what was going on.....then later in the locker-room despite not having heard those suspicious sounds in the locker-room or since he first walked in the building doors, he still precisely what was going on.... - go figure!
Last edited:
1) I didn't always know he brought a girl home. Sometimes I would wake up and hear "rythmic slapping" in the other room. It's not hard to tell someone was having sex.
2) you really need to give this up. No cross examination is going to change the sexual nature line. Accept it as fact because that is what it is.
3) Jack is not the police. Curley was not aware of TSM's duties. His notifying Jack was not to get the incident investigated.
Re your first question, to the best of my recollection McQueary only testified to hearing a "slapping" sound. That could be sexual. It could also be the sound of water from a faulty showerhead hitting a tile floor.
No screaming or moaning?!? How does a prepubescent boy getting swodomized not scream his lungs out?
The most amusing part of this is that Schultz/Curley did consult with PSU's General Counsel regarding this topic before Curley spoke with TSM - so GMJ11 is full of $hit yet again, Schultz/Curley absolutely would have a basis for knowing TSM's status under CPSL unless GetMyInanity is really attempting to claim that the General Counsel of the University (a party whose wife was a PSU Employee at the time as well as a TSM Board Member and a Party who was doing pro-bono work for TSM and was infinitely familiar with PA Laws that applied to both TSM and PSU) would have no basis for interpreting PA Laws for PSU's most Sr. Executives, which both Schultz and Curley were??? This guy is comical in his spin and inanity - beyond comical honestly and why he is permitted to troll this site with his counter-factual bull$hit is a complete mystery.
On the third issue, it is natural to contact TSM to see if Jerry had signed a kid out that day....an effort to ID the kid. TSM, by some really crazy reason, did not maintain a log (or so we are told). At the same time, due to secrecy of these kinds of accusations, it makes sense to notify Jack because he would be the central point of information if there were other claims that TSM may have gotten from other kids/parents.
]1) In college, I knew when my roommate was having sex because of sexual sounds. I could not tell you exactly what he was doing with whatever girl he had that night, but I knew it was sexual. Understand?
MM testified that the boy was NOT in distress. Are you really telling me that JS committed anal rape on the boy and he wasn't distressed? After all, sounds are sounds.
2) The Paterno testimony, MM's testimony, the police report and the documents from councel all point to suspected CSA. The only ones referring to "horseplay" where those that had something to lose.
EVERY single person MM talked to tells a similar story. NONE of them say that MM told them about sexual abuse.
1. Admit it. You cannot describe what is a sexual sound. And, you surely cannot describe what a sexual sound is between a grown man and a 12-year old boy. I'd like to hear exactly what you think is a sexual sound in that exact, specific instance. Further, how could that determination be made in three seconds without visual evidence above the noise of a running shower?
2. You also need to concede that Paterno also said "I don't know what you'd call it". That is a fact and you can never change that. Also, what exactly do you think is "sexual nature". Is a woman wearing a tight fitting skirt walking across old main sexual in nature? You betcha. The point is, nobody ever asked Paterno what that phrase meant. He was 80+ years old when he made that statement. Rest assured an 80 year old sees dress habits, hair styles, and sex much, much differently than a 27 year old or a 40 year old, and even a 60 year old. Paterno's statement is easily discounted by two people who were under oath and testified that what they were told of the situation did not warrant a call to anyone except a casual HR follow-up. The fact that the state did not prosecute them must mean that they were telling the truth.
3. Correct. Jack is not the police. BUt, Jack had a LEGAL (more than a moral duty) to ensure the allegation was investigated. Others may correct me if this statement is inaccurate, but i think the proper first call may be CYS/DPW rather than the police. The FACT is, TSM and Dr Jack are legally responsible for ensuring the investigation of the allegation was pursued. Your head in the sand will not change that fact either.
There's another interesting idea. What interest could Curly possibly have in identifying the child, @getmyjive11?
Pointing the spotlight at those who truly failed the victims, and preventing future abuse. Unless you don't care about the children, and just want to move on.
1) I certainly can. Most people can. You are being intellectually dishonest.
2) I have explained his "I don't know what you would call it" in #1.
3) Jack failed. So what's your point? Police were never contacted. TC was not contacting Jack so he would contact police.
I never said there was anal sex. You understand that anal sex is not the only way a boy could have been sexually abused, right?
Are you sure? What if Penn State's policy in 2001 forbid alerting the authorities without the consent of the alleged victim?
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Huh? TSM was the causitive factor -
According to the Post-Gazette, Heim acknowledged that “he advised former Second Mile director Jack Raykovitz not to alert fellow board members when he was informed by former Penn State athletic director Tim Curley that Sandusky was seen in a shower with a child.” Why? Apparently because Heim said Raykovitz told him that Penn State had already investigated on its own and concluded that Sandusky had done nothing wrong in the showers with the kids.
It didn't, but let's pretend it did. What is going to happen to Joe Paterno if he goes to police without consent from the victim? Would he get fired? LOL.
Stop with the nonsense.
Great. Produce it, and settle the issue.
What a fargging moron you are - the OAG said there was "anal sex" and not only said that there was anal-sex rape in their Indictment's Probable Cause Documents, but ALSO STATED that they had the DIRECT EVIDENCE to prove it in the form of an EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT who would TESTIFY to seeing same AT-TRIAL you fargging dunce! Guess what @sshole, the OAG's self-proclaimed "Star State Eye Witness", Mike McQueary, not only did not support The State's Indictment Claims, but provided EXCULPATORY TESTIMONY AT-TRIAL (i.e., I never saw that AND NEVER TOLD ANYONE I DID!) to The State's claims which blew up 100% of the PROBABLE CAUSE CLAIMED EVIDENCE of The State - utterly decimated it such that The State NEVER produced any of the EVIDENCE that they said they would in their Indictment as the ONLY EVIDENCE they claimed in their Indictments related to the 2001 Incident was an EYEWITNESS that would testify in support of their claims - the sole piece of "Probable Cause Evidence" in their Indictment that The State NEVER produced you fargging @sshat!
I can't become victim to "gotcha" questions because I'm confident in my point of view and I don't really care what anyone else thinks.
I attended Graham's trial because I wanted to hear for myself testimony from all of those who were silenced for more than 5 years. It's why I get so annoyed with people like GMJ11 who put people's words under a microscope and profess to know what they were thinking. Words, voice, context, body language all matters and I wanted to get all of that for myself.
What I observed was an abomination of the justice system. Prosecutors who I am quite certain suborned perjury (or attempted to) from several individuals and were plenty pissed off when they didn't get what they wanted, that played on emotion using some twisted version of "common sense" in place of the rule of law, a jury who eventually traded down to a misdemeanor charge in order to get out of court on a Friday instead of having to stay the weekend with a hung jury result. Tim and Gary pleaded guilty to things they don't believe they are guilty of to avoid a biased jury and they had good reason to do so. I do not believe they are guilty of any crime.
And all of that without even mentioning the way that Frank Fina and company played fast and loose with the law all throughout this case. We've seen the same thing in Centre County with Stacey Parks Miller. So while I'm thrilled the team is doing well, as a citizen, I think it's irresponsible just to throw my hands up and so "oh well". Quite frankly, I feel pretty certain that our rights to justice are a little more important than winning some games.
There is nothing to settle because it would have zero effect on any of the PSU people involved. Additionally, how is a minor supposed to give consent for anything?
This whole line of thinking is a joke. A desperate joke.
Ok, to be more specific, how do you know about your following quote? Don't just guess. You stated it. @getmyjive11
Last edited:
Guys, let me lay it on the line for you about Joe and the scandal.
I say this as a person who cheered hard for Joe and the team since I was a kid in the mid-60's -- every game, either on television (limited in those days) or radio (fortunately available in the Scranton area where I grew up).
Years before the scandal broke, I had come to the conclusion that Joe had gotten too old but would not let go. The program desperately needed a fresh start, in my view. I felt this way for, like, ten solid years.
Then came 2011 and the unthinkable. As I saw it and still see it, based on almost incontrovertible documented evidence, Joe was made aware of the 1998 investigation of an encounter between Sandusky and a minor in a shower.
Yes, the authorities decided not to pursue it. They were tragically wrong, it turns out. But Joe knew about it, and anyone who says he did not is willfully delusional.
Then came 2001, and an agitated MM came to Joe one day with a story of an incident he personally witnessed -- Sandusky and a boy in a shower.
I'm sorry, right then and there it was incumbent on Joe, in light of his knowledge of 1998, to take MM by the hand and say, Mike, we're going to take a drive to the police station, and you're going to tell them exactly what you just told me.
But that didn't happen. Instead what happened was bullshit and rationalizations -- and, yes, a cover-up. On the part of Joe and a few key figures in the university's administration.
And after that, ten freakin' years of Sandusky roaming free. More pain. More horror. More victims.
Yes, as I commented earlier, this is the exact pattern of the Catholic Church scandals. Everyone did the minimum that they were legally required to do. And the damned-to-hell predators remained at large. While the list of victims grew.
I'm sorry, guys. Many of you have a huge emotional and psychological stake in the myth of Joe. I get that. He was a good man. But in the end: a man.
Regardless, as I said in my first post, this saga is the stuff of tragedy. Joe was a great coach. But things, nevertheless, went off the rails.
Whatever, my first loyalty is to the truth -- as my conscience says it is.
Well down the list after that: to the Penn State football program.
I have no hostility or animosity to anyone here, but some of you are deluding yourselves.
If you need a God to worship (and all of us do), then choose the real one -- not a flawed human being, as all of us are.
I say this as a person who cheered hard for Joe and the team since I was a kid in the mid-60's -- every game, either on television (limited in those days) or radio (fortunately available in the Scranton area where I grew up).
Years before the scandal broke, I had come to the conclusion that Joe had gotten too old but would not let go. The program desperately needed a fresh start, in my view. I felt this way for, like, ten solid years.
Then came 2011 and the unthinkable. As I saw it and still see it, based on almost incontrovertible documented evidence, Joe was made aware of the 1998 investigation of an encounter between Sandusky and a minor in a shower.
Yes, the authorities decided not to pursue it. They were tragically wrong, it turns out. But Joe knew about it, and anyone who says he did not is willfully delusional.
Then came 2001, and an agitated MM came to Joe one day with a story of an incident he personally witnessed -- Sandusky and a boy in a shower.
I'm sorry, right then and there it was incumbent on Joe, in light of his knowledge of 1998, to take MM by the hand and say, Mike, we're going to take a drive to the police station, and you're going to tell them exactly what you just told me.
But that didn't happen. Instead what happened was bullshit and rationalizations -- and, yes, a cover-up. On the part of Joe and a few key figures in the university's administration.
And after that, ten freakin' years of Sandusky roaming free. More pain. More horror. More victims.
Yes, as I commented earlier, this is the exact pattern of the Catholic Church scandals. Everyone did the minimum that they were legally required to do. And the damned-to-hell predators remained at large. While the list of victims grew.
I'm sorry, guys. Many of you have a huge emotional and psychological stake in the myth of Joe. I get that. He was a good man. But in the end: a man.
Regardless, as I said in my first post, this saga is the stuff of tragedy. Joe was a great coach. But things, nevertheless, went off the rails.
Whatever, my first loyalty is to the truth -- as my conscience says it is.
Well down the list after that: to the Penn State football program.
I have no hostility or animosity to anyone here, but some of you are deluding yourselves.
If you need a God to worship (and all of us do), then choose the real one -- not a flawed human being, as all of us are.
So then that would have been an absolute defense for the inaction of Curley, Schultz and Spanier?
Obviously a policy of which the President of the University and general counsel was unaware.
Perhaps there was no such policy; unless you can produce it.
