T1B

BSmack wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:McQueary broke up a knife fight between two players in the cafeteria.

Wait, I thought PSU only recruited altar boys?

Did you buy into that noise? I sure didn't.

Python wrote:

88 wrote:

Python wrote:What if you are having beers in a bar, and McQueary leans over to you and says he saw Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a child in the Penn State showers.

That's not what happened and that's not what we're discussing. Stick to the facts. You said there is a scenario where you wouldn't find fault with Paterno for how he handled it. I'm telling you there is absolutely no excuse for what he did/didn't do. None. End of story for me.

Unless I am wrong, most of us feel that way. The problem is - none of us know enough to make that judgment now. Again, the presentment, while shocking and unacceptable, is not the whole story. Here's the scenario - for me - that wouldn't find fault with McQueary or Paterno: that more information comes to light about what they knew and when, and that information shows they did more than is currently thought they did.

Paterno's firing is a separate matter in my mind...it has to be at this point, because all of the accounts are incomplete and mostly at odds with each other. Paterno was fired for entirely different reasons.

Some of you guys have lost it. Nevermind. I'm done.

We can't hang anyone yet. Need more facts.

PSUFAN wrote:We can't hang anyone yet. Need more facts.

Agreed. In fact, that's what I said many, many pages ago.

It's all nonsense...simple as that.

Felix wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:anyone who thought this was over was really wrong...

the only person it's absolutely over for is Sandusky....why Sandusky's attorney would allow him to do an interview with Bob Costas is beyond me....

that is weapons grade stupidity...

It is. Unless that is, Sandusky's attorney has already heard Sandusky confess to his heinous deeds under the protection of the attorney-client privilege. Said ambulance chaser would LOVE to rat this clown out having heard the dirt but can't without kissing his law license goodbye. Just then, Sandusky comes to him with the idea of going on NBC during prime time. Lawyer puts up the pretense of advising Sandusky not to talk, then finally "gives in" to his client. Sandusky then goes out and digs his hole even deeper.

Or maybe the guy really is a weapons grade tard.

BSmack wrote: Wait, I thought PSU only recruited altar boys?

deliberate or accidental joke? either way, pure genius.

Van wrote:
Far too many attempts at minimizing blatant despicable acts of cowardice going on here, within the PSU community, and within the media-at-large.

"Psychologists say people are often shocked into paralysis after happening upon such extreme images."

Great. Pyschologists also say that most people in their right mind would be excused for failing to depart the relative safety of their landing craft at Omaha Beach, or for choosing not to attempt to pull a stranded baby from a burning building, but thankfully a fuck of a lot of people overcame such pschyoanalytically-approved dithering and did the right thing.

of course someone from the rear of the torch and pitchfork mob is an armchair cowboy. how about:

1. i'm assuming d-day soldiers made it through bootcamp. you know, the whole break you down to build you up thing? you don't just run laps there, you know. and even if you're the sort of pussy who doesn't want to get off that boat, you're also the sort of pussy who's definitely not going to tell the rest of your infantry good luck out there, i'm staying behind.

2. i don't know, freud, but for every one guy who runs into a burning building to save a crying baby, how many others are standing around outside kissing their rosaries? cue roger's wheelchair and a jesus loves you.

M Club wrote:

BSmack wrote: Wait, I thought PSU only recruited altar boys?

deliberate or accidental joke? either way, pure genius.

It was both. I realized before I submitted, but I was not consciously attempting it when I was typing it.

M Club, we're talking about a mid-twenties, 6'5", 200+ lb former BTPCF athlete here—a GA on the Penn St coaching staff, for god's sake—not some Joe Blow walking in off the street. McQueary was presumably no stranger to physical challenges and/or the need to make quick decisions under duress. Same as those D-Day boys, he was well indoctrinated with all the Right Stuff to make the correct decision there.

On top of that, what he was presented with wasn't a situation where his own life would've been endangered by acting. This wasn't a situation whereby he risked his own peril by rushing into a burning building. No, all this physically gifted young man was tasked with doing was pulling a middle-aged man off of a ten-year-old boy. Even allowing for a moment of "Wtf?!" genuflection, his subsequenct synaptical reactions should've fired him into movement. Failing that, I'm sure he at least maintained good standing with his cell phone company. Within minutes he should've been flipping that bad boy out and calling 911, regardless of the physical acts he did or did not undertake on the boy's behalf.

Your mealymouthed psychiatrist's excuse only works in the very short term, if at all. Once dude's head had a chance to clear, which it most certainly did, the necessity of his subsequent actions should've been crystal clear to him.

And no, calling his fucking dad was not the correct option.

I thought McQuery was in protective custody??? Guess not...

who said anything about psychiatry? talking psychology. and that's fine, the more you wax poetic about "normal" people the more you're the first half of all those experiments where joe tough guy who'd give his life without a second thought gets put in a fairly innocuous situation - say the milgram experiment - and acts completely opposite from how he bragged he would.

and really, a "a mid-twenties, 6'5", 200+ lb former BTPCF athlete" is what you base your understanding of psychology on? pretty sure none of us have ever met an insecure athlete before. and i don't really know if any indoctrination into the psu football program involved hypothetical contact with child rape, but i'm going to guess their ideas of right and wrong had more to do with making the hot read or oh hey, if i'm a backup i'll miss two games for punching my girlfriend but only the first half if i'm a starter.

i've never disagreed with you about the actions he should have taken afterward. if true then he's a true coward. but again, you never know how someone will respond in the heat of the moment until they're in the heat of the moment. a hefty percentage of us don't have THE RIGHT STUFF.

M Club wrote:a hefty percentage of us don't have THE RIGHT STUFF.

I would like to think Donnie Wahlberg would've known what to do.

88 wrote:The attorney will be able to argue that there is evidence of record from the defendant that he did not commit the crimes...

evidence?

good lord man, do you surmise that this thread has reached 10 pages on a lack of contrary grand jury evidence?

go back to whatever it was you wanted to do before becoming a pond scum sucking lawyer because you suck at this, bradhusker exclamations aside.

88 wrote:
There are tactical reasons for allowing that interview. First off, he knows his client is going to deny the charges against him. Second, he knows that just about every person in Centre County, Pennsylvania is going to hear or read about the denial by Sandusky. And that is the jury pool, dog. And third, the defense will anticipate that the Prosecution will introduce that interview into evidence. The attorney knows he cannot put his client on the witness stand because that would turn out a hell of a lot worse than an interview by Bob Costas. So this is the only way he can be assured that there will be some evidence from his client denying that the assaults occurred. The attorney will be able to argue that there is evidence of record from the defendant that he did not commit the crimes, without having to expose his client to the witness stand. Not such a bad tactic, except that his client came off the interview pretty poorly, in my opinion.

you have more expertise than I do at this, but my observations were that Sandusky essentially admitted to everything short of sexual relations with those kids....fast forward to the trial, the prosecution will play the tape then hammer on the fact that sandusky readily admitted to "horsing around" with these kids, and then summarize with something like "we're now supposed to believe that Mr. Sandusky, who's freely admitted to all of these behaviors that virtually every normal human would consider to be deviant stopped short of sexual acts with these boys?"

good luck on that strategy....

M Club, at least we agree on what should've taken place after his initial "Wtf?!" spazz-out moment. I'm fine with your idea that people presented with such an incredible spectacle might initially falter, but only initially. Given a few extra beats to collect themselves and suss out the situation, I'm fairly confident that the vast majority of physically fit twenty-something menfolk would see their way to jumping into that particular fray.

Again, this wasn't a situation where the guy had to weigh the giving of his own life against some noble act. Nope, this was simply breaking up a shower-rape of a defenseless child, and from what PSU mentioned the guy had already taken it upon himself to break up a knife fight among his peers. I don't see anything too extraordinarily beyond the pale in expecting him to do something similar here.

Van wrote:..and from what PSU mentioned the guy had already taken it upon himself to break up a knife fight among his peers. I don't see anything too extraordinarily beyond the pale in expecting him to do something similar here.

Think the knife fight breakup happened a few years later. Just speculating, but maybe he was making up for lost opportunities.

88 wrote:his client came off the interview pretty poorly, in my opinion.

Mine, also.

He was very passive and... creepy.

He lacked proper indignation and OUTRAGE ---> which an innocent man would have a LOT of if faced with charges of this nature, and number.

The delay, and sidetracking, in answering if he's sexually attracted to young boys.
The weird, "I liked to touch their legs, fiddle around in the shower, etc..." stuff.

Didn't come off anywhere close to being innocent, from what I heard there.


I agree with 88 that he's likely to try to off himself pretty soon.

Sounded like a beaten and confused "man" to me.

poptart wrote: The weird, "I liked to touch their legs, fiddle around in the shower, etc..." stuff.

reminds me of larry craig spreading his legs in order to pull down his pants. eh? seems to me that unless you have monkey arms, a 10-year-old's legs are probably out of reach and that you have to physically go out of your way to touch them in a "non-sexual way."

88 wrote:Personally, I think Sandusky wanted to say those things to the public before taking his own life. I think he's going to off himself, and will not allow the justice system to function as it should.

yep, that's the impression I get as well.....after reading the grand jury report, when Sandusky said to one of the mothers that he essentially hates himself, I figured it will just be a matter of time before eats a 9mm bullet....

Python wrote:Then that would mean McQueary also lied to the Grand Jury?

BINGO!!!! YHATZEE!!!! YOU WIN!!!! CORRECT!!!!!!!

ding ding ding ding ding!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

Python wrote:We'll take this nice and slow.

1) Did you read the Grand Jury indictment?

We'll stop there for now.

python, pleeeeeze, a grand jury can and has indicted corned beef and tongue sandwiches before.
There is much more here than meets the eye, stay tuned.

88 wrote:In a case like this one, a defense attorney has to divide and conquer (the charges). With respect to the charge of "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse", Sandusky's attorney has already indicated that his side has identified the victim (the Prosecution has indicated that it does not know who the victim was), and that the victim will testify that it did not occur. So they will tell the jury that McQueary was mistaken or lying, and that Sandusky didn't do it. All that is required to beat that charge is reasonable doubt. Without a victim to testify to that the offense occurred, the video from Sandusky being interviewed by Costas (in which Sandusky says he didn't do it) and the testimony of some person who Sandusky's lawyer will say is the Prosecution's victim might do the trick.

I'd go farther than that, at least potentially. I'm not sure about Pennsylvania, but in New York there is such a thing as a "missing witness" charge, in which the jury may infer, if one side fails to produce a witness who is, or should be, under its control, that the witness, if called, would have testified in a mnner contrary to that side's case. If Pennsylvania has a similar charge, it may not even matter if Sandusky's attorney is bluffing. As long as the prosecution can't identify, and therefore doesn't call, this particular victim, that may be enough for an acquittal of Sandusky, at least on that charge.

The problem facing the defense attorney is that there are so many charges of such a serious magnitude. The defense may very well prevail on some of those charges, but it will be overwhelmingly difficult to prevail on all of them.

That being said, I'm in agreement with those who think Sandusky is planning to off himself. I doubt the criminal case will ever go to trial for that reason.

Van wrote: ...and from what PSU mentioned the guy had already taken it upon himself to break up a knife fight among his peers. I don't see anything too extraordinarily beyond the pale in expecting him to do something similar here.

PSU mentioned this being five years ago, meaning Pedoginger was on the coaching staff. People respond differently relative to their place in the power hierarchy, e.g. most people will smack the shit out of their 10-year-old son for calling someone a mvscal but only roll their eyes when grandpa goes on about the well-behaved negroes back in his day.

poptart wrote: I agree with 88 that he's likely to try to off himself pretty soon.

Sounded like a beaten and confused "man" to me.

And extremely, extremely mentally ill. And not just in the shutyomouth kinda way.

M Club wrote:grandpa goes on about the well-behaved negroes back in his day.

Good times. Good times.

M Club wrote:people will smack the shit out of their 10-year-old son for calling someone a mvscal but only roll their eyes when grandpa goes on about the well-behaved negroes back in his day.

poptart wrote:Mine, also.

He was very passive and... creepy.

He lacked proper indignation and OUTRAGE ---> which an innocent man would have a LOT of if faced with charges of this nature, and number.

The delay, and sidetracking, in answering if he's sexually attracted to young boys.
The weird, "I liked to touch their legs, fiddle around in the shower, etc..." stuff.

Didn't come off anywhere close to being innocent, from what I heard there.


I agree with 88 that he's likely to try to off himself pretty soon.

Sounded like a beaten and confused "man" to me.

How does it take you 20 seconds to get to -----> "No, I am not sexually attracted to young boys."

Costas: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

Sandusky: "Am I sexually attracted to young boys?"

:?

I was waiting for him to go LT on Costas with a "Are YOU?"

Like I typed in Mgo's thread a number of months ago, when charges like these are made, regardless of the actual facts, it soils a reputation quicker than I soil my running shorts.

I have not watched Sandusky's recent interview. If and when I do, I will gain my own take on how he came off. My take will inevitably differ from the take anyone else has. Some people are good character judges based on how a person presents when speaking, others are not so good. Others yet are EXCELLENT at hiding the truth when speaking, other get so nervous that they look like they are lying even when they aren't.

My gut tells me Sandusky is a child abuser, and my gut tells me Joe Paterno knew in some shape or form. However - I understand that more than my gut is involved here. Our founding fathers didn't talk about a presumption of innocence just because they liked the words - they did so because they were interesting in allowing a pursuit of truth to take place. I think that's a really good idea - I'm glad they put that in there, even if sometimes it's inconvenient.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

poptart wrote:Mine, also.

He was very passive and... creepy.

He lacked proper indignation and OUTRAGE ---> which an innocent man would have a LOT of if faced with charges of this nature, and number.

The delay, and sidetracking, in answering if he's sexually attracted to young boys.
The weird, "I liked to touch their legs, fiddle around in the shower, etc..." stuff.

Didn't come off anywhere close to being innocent, from what I heard there.


I agree with 88 that he's likely to try to off himself pretty soon.

Sounded like a beaten and confused "man" to me.

How does it take you 20 seconds to get to -----> "No, I am not sexually attracted to young boys."

Costas: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

Sandusky: "Am I sexually attracted to young boys?"

:?

I was waiting for him to go LT on Costas with a "Are YOU?"

Well, Mgo, are you sexually attracted to young boys?

PSUFAN wrote: presumption of innocence

For the courts, yes. It isn't required in the court of public opinion.

Yes - I agree that sometimes the court of public opinion moves ahead without facts. Sometimes that court is right to do so, others, it is not. Either way, justice is meted out by our court system, not by mob rule - as little as you and I might like that at times.

That's a very noble sentiment. Now let me give you mine.

I hope they burn the entire campus to the ground and start over. Check that... I don't care if they start over or not.

Cool sentiment, bro.

That house is worth $600k? DC housing prices think that's ridiculous.

HOLY SHIT!!! Put on Anderson Cooper 360. Everywhere the cnn investigators go, NO ONE IS TALKING!! There are tight lips all over the campus, and all around town. NO ONE IS TALKING.

Apparently, McQueary DID notify campus police. HOWEVER, the former chief, now works in an architectual firm, and he is not talking either.

This case is gonna be tougher than a son of a bitch to crack, HOWEVER, if Anderson Cooper "keeps em' honest", I think we may eventually learn something.

Screw_Michigan wrote:That house is worth $600k? DC housing prices think that's ridiculous.

no shit....in realty speak that's called a "lovingly maintained dwelling" which in layman's terms means so fucking outdated your only hope of selling it is to some rich 88 year-old widow that remembers growing up in a place just like it...

nice brilliantly white entry walk though.....

probably has a spacious subterranean pedo chamber that can be converted into a few of bedrooms and a sizable living room. that alone is worth $150,000.

Felix wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:That house is worth $600k? DC housing prices think that's ridiculous.

no shit....in realty speak that's called a "lovingly maintained dwelling" which in layman's terms means so fucking outdated your only hope of selling it is to some rich 88 year-old widow that remembers growing up in a place just like it...

nice brilliantly white entry walk though.....

How the fuck can you guys make fun of that house? It is actually a very nice home, in a very nice neighborhood, lots of trees, and close to a great esteemed university.

So, I beg of you, whats not to like here?