ADVERTISEMENT

PATERNO on HBO. Tonight at 8:00 pm ET (official thread)

Why do you ascribe to Mike's version of events?

It's great to take Joe at his word, but if you're going to do that, get the words right.

"With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

Do you realize that when Joe said that, the grand jury presentment had just been leaked and Joe had read for the first time that Mike had supposedly witnessed anal intercourse? Do you also realize that Mike denied ever seeing or telling anyone that? Do you realize that Jonelle Eshbach, of the OAG, made that up?

Because he's a troll.

Let's just hope he doesn't get uber obsessive about it, constantly letting everyone know his/her opinion on the topic, shouting down anyone with a questioning attitude. Throwing around childish insults, or simply calling anyone with even a slightly different point of view a pedophile protector. Take comfort that most of them are not college educated, and no matter how many thousands of worthless posts they have on this site, they will NEVER be Penn State grads.... and it kills them that they will never accomplish something many of us accomplished multiple times, decades ago.

He's ripe for ignore... when I'm done toying with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaJolla Lion
Why do you simply make things up like they are fact? Honest question as you have no clue what would have happened any more so than any other soul walking this planet.

I know that the boy in the shower strongly supported Sandusky until meeting Andrew Shubin. Maybe now, he really does believe that Sandusky was grooming him, but no chance in hell did he believe he was being assaulted at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
No. 1 fan.

243groh.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
I played grade school and high school sports, play racquetball still and work out daily at the gym. I've used "community showers" for 40 years and have NEVER seen two men hugging while showering, much less an adult and a child. How much rationalization takes place for anyone to wonder if there was sexual intent?

I guess I'd ask all of you one question; what would you do if your son told you one of his coaches had showered with him and hugged him?


I’d confront the coach aggressively. With no mercy. And hope I didn’t make a life changing mistake.
It seems the only people who made life changing mistakes were those who chose to look the other way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nit16
But, do you know there's info from '98 that they weren't alone?

I do not. What is that info?

Still, he chose to be alone in a shower (at the least, in very close proximity) three years later after agreeing to never do so again.
 
I do not. What is that info?

Still, he chose to be alone in a shower (at the least, in very close proximity) three years later after agreeing to never do so again.

Seasock's report from '98 mentions, "Through previous interviews it was apparent that there had been another coach present within the locker room/shower facility."

The whole mess is much more complex than the media narrative that's out there.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160601...ns/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: royboy
I agree with the couple of posters who said this movie gets more facts and details right than one might expect (but they also omit a lot of important info). That said, a few more notable scenes:
  • Scott Paterno: "Steve Garban is pretending he's not home again." Made me laugh out loud.
  • Didn't notice the Bernie McCue statue scene until the second time over. Movie moves fast with nuanced dialogue and scenes. I'm sure most of this movie went right over the head of your average viewer.
  • Karen Probst called out hardcore, if only for a splitting second. Casual viewers won't realize they were talking about the principal at Central Mountain High School who discouraged AF and his mother from reporting; they will probably assume Probst was an admin at PSU.
  • Sue Paterno reminds Joe that they both allowed their own children to play with Jerry in the pool in the 1970s and 1980s. Proof-positive that Joe didn't see Jerry as any kind of a threat to children.

Other notables:
  • Real footage of Joe's win over Illinois for No. 409 features footage of Derek Moye, Matt McGloin, Robert Bolden and Silas Redd. Makes Joe look like a "winning at all costs" coach when he puts Moye in the game to get the win.
  • They did a pretty decent job with casting, but they really threw Jay under the bus. Made him out to be a total meatball. Or, "doorknob," as Ganim says. Think of how @michnittlion would portray Jay.
  • Mike McQueary barely in the movie.
  • The Second Mile was mentioned maybe once by Scott who loudly wonders why nobody's asking about them.
  • Crafting the statement for, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."
  • Curley and Schultz discussing 1998 incident and Joe's supposed awareness (they said Joe knew all about it).
  • Curley and Schultz discussing 2001 plan. Levinson goes out of his way to suggest Joe Paterno endorsed the change of plans.
 
Why do you ascribe to Mike's version of events?

It's great to take Joe at his word, but if you're going to do that, get the words right.

"With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

Do you realize that when Joe said that, the grand jury presentment had just been leaked and Joe had read for the first time that Mike had supposedly witnessed anal intercourse? Do you also realize that Mike denied ever seeing or telling anyone that? Do you realize that Jonelle Eshbach, of the OAG, made that up?


Because I believe Joe meant want he said. I also know Joe was 80+. Nothing more nothing less.
 
I still can’t believe people don’t understand what Joe actually said...in his statement, “with the benefit of hindsight” was equally as important as he should have done more. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I would have done more...knowing what I know now I wish I would have shot Sandusky while I was a student, but I wouldn’t have thought to do it then. Do you follow that?


Problem is Joe was much closer to the situation than you were. You just took a leap over the Grand Canyon of interpretation. Plus you don’t shoot people sir. In all seriousness your post is silly.
 
You can say stuff like "personal attack" and "emotional" all you want... that doesn't make it true. We both know it's just more distraction. You will do anything to avoid responding to my last paragraph:

"Joe did not make a "horible" mistake, Joe did not witness anything. Since Joe followed the law, and you think he made a "horible" mistake.... you must think that the law is inadequate as written, and puts children at risk. What are you doing to fix this situation? Or are you an enabler who is comfortable knowing children are at risk?"

Joe did not say "He should have done more". Why don't you take him at his exact words? "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Your agenda is showing.

You don't irritate me any more than a fly. I don't care about your opinions, or your misinterpretations of my words. I just like to push you into late night emotional rants. I can't wait to check back for tomorrow's meltdown. Dance Puppet!


No we both don’t know. We disagree on some things and you go low and toxic. I’ve clearly respond throughout the thread. I have no interest in Q&A with an emotional idiot that acts like they’re 18. No thanks.

We good?
 
And if Mike had tried to do that, I am certain the boy would have yelled something like "Get your ****ing hands off me, Jerry is like a father to me"


Or maybe the boy would have yelled “get this maniac off my junk and out of my ........... I thought Jerry was like a father to me”.
 
Because he's a troll.

Let's just hope he doesn't get uber obsessive about it, constantly letting everyone know his/her opinion on the topic, shouting down anyone with a questioning attitude. Throwing around childish insults, or simply calling anyone with even a slightly different point of view a pedophile protector. Take comfort that most of them are not college educated, and no matter how many thousands of worthless posts they have on this site, they will NEVER be Penn State grads.... and it kills them that they will never accomplish something many of us accomplished multiple times, decades ago.

He's ripe for ignore... when I'm done toying with him.


Do it fool
 
It seems the only people who made life changing mistakes were those who chose to look the other way.

And those people would be...?
From what I have read, the list is rather long and would include local law enforcement, the Second Mile, Penn State officials and JP. Decisions seemed to be made over fear of loss of prestige and hopes the problem would “go away.” Pedophilia never gets better, and attempts to cover up this type of behavior are far worse for loss of prestige than the crime itself.

None of the events exist in a vacuum; there was a continuity of behavior that should have been, (and I think in some cases was), recognized. What ever MM saw and then told people he saw, (don’t the multiple narratives seem an indication many people were trying to, excuse the pun, cover their asses), JS behavior was out of the norm - 60 year old men don’t shower and “horse around” with young boys in the shower during after hours.

What is obvious to me is that JP and the officials at Penn State could have ended this behavior by simply reporting it to the police. The biggest mistake made by all was the thought they could handle whatever was going on in house.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nit16
From what I have read, the list is rather long and would include local law enforcement, the Second Mile, Penn State officials and JP. Decisions seemed to be made over fear of loss of prestige and hopes the problem would “go away.” Pedophilia never gets better, and attempts to cover up this type of behavior are far worse for loss of prestige than the crime itself.

None of the events exist in a vacuum; there was a continuity of behavior that should have been, (and I think in some cases was), recognized. What ever MM saw and then told people he saw, (don’t the multiple narratives seem an indication many people were trying to, excuse the pun, cover their asses), JS behavior was out of the norm - 60 year old men don’t shower and “horse around” with young boys in the shower during after hours.

What is obvious to me is that JP and the officials at Penn State could have ended this behavior by simply reporting it to the police. The biggest mistake made by all was the thought they could handle whatever was going on in house.

They did end the behavior. Jerry Sandusky never showered with a boy again after the McQueary episode
 
Seasock's report from '98 mentions, "Through previous interviews it was apparent that there had been another coach present within the locker room/shower facility."

The whole mess is much more complex than the media narrative that's out there.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160601...ns/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf

V6 in his interview on May 4, 1998 and also in trial in 2012 stated categorically that there was no one there. So what "previous interviews" is Seasock talking about?

It's interesting to note that Matt Sandusky's book says Seasock interviewed the boy and then interviewed Jerry. If that's true, did Jerry tell him that someone else was there? Did Seasock base his report off what Jerry told him versus what the boy said?

With Church cases sometimes a counselor would be brought in that interviewed the alleged abusing priest and then would exonerate him based on his own account. Did that happen here?
 
V6 in his interview on May 4, 1998 and also in trial in 2012 stated categorically that there was no one there. So what "previous interviews" is Seasock talking about?

It's interesting to note that Matt Sandusky's book says Seasock interviewed the boy and then interviewed Jerry. If that's true, did Jerry tell him that someone else was there? Did Seasock base his report off what Jerry told him versus what the boy said?

With Church cases sometimes a counselor would be brought in that interviewed the alleged abusing priest and then would exonerate him based on his own account. Did that happen here?
I think there's just as many questions on '98 as there are answers. It's still hard to believe Seasock never testified at trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78 and didier
I refuse to watch the movie...can someone answer for me...was Alicia Chamber's name and report ever brought up? To this day I amazed at how that report was squashed...never to be heard from again...
 
I think there's just as many questions on '98 as there are answers. It's still hard to believe Seasock never testified at trial.

He could have screwed up the narrative....it pisses me off more and more that JVP died....I sooooooo wish the man up stairs could have given him 2 more years....
 
Problem is Joe was much closer to the situation than you were. You just took a leap over the Grand Canyon of interpretation. Plus you don’t shoot people sir. In all seriousness your post is silly.
Almost as silly as posting that Joe said he wished he had done more and leaving out the with the benefit of hindsight part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pandaczar12
V6 in his interview on May 4, 1998 and also in trial in 2012 stated categorically that there was no one there. So what "previous interviews" is Seasock talking about?

It's interesting to note that Matt Sandusky's book says Seasock interviewed the boy and then interviewed Jerry. If that's true, did Jerry tell him that someone else was there? Did Seasock base his report off what Jerry told him versus what the boy said?

With Church cases sometimes a counselor would be brought in that interviewed the alleged abusing priest and then would exonerate him based on his own account. Did that happen here?

In his first interview with John Ziegler, Sandusky confirmed that no one else was there. Ziegler had mistakenly believed there was another boy in there with ZK.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: didier
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT