OT: Joe Pa done

[MHSL82]

Where am I saying the boys are making this up? I'm saying I don't think McQueary is a credible enough witness by himself. I mean would you believe a guy that ran out after watching something like that and did not report it? I'd be closer to believing he was a lookout for it than a witness.

This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation you mentioned here. He either didn't see it and therefore is not a guy that ran out after watching something like that (cause he couldn't run out after something he didn't see) and therefore you should believe him, but if you do believe him, then you find that he did see something - which you could only assume that he ran out - which makes him uncredible. OR he DID see it and ran out, but since he ran out after watching something like that, you don't believe him - but since you don't believe him when he said he saw it you determine that it didn't happen and therefore have to assume that he did not run away - but if he didn't run away, you should believe him. You see where you're going with this. It's ridiculous, isn't it? Obviously you would respond by saying that you believe it happened but not the way he said it because how could someone who would run out after seeing something like that tell the truth. But if that testimony is not entirely (but partially) true, then he didn't run out after seeing something like that but rather something less than that. How could you not believe him for something less than that but still believe he ran out of something as bad as that?

It reminds me of this (start around 0:27):

 

[MHSL82]

It timed out so I couldn't add this:

Ultimately as a juror, you're not finding just the character of the witness but also what the truth is; right now in the hypothetical of you being a juror, you are assuming a truth of him running from a truth of it being a r*pe and somehow from that, if it were just this kid and not the other 6-8, you would find Sandusky less likely to do what you had just used as evidence to impeach the credibility of the witness?

 

[MHSL82]

This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation you mentioned here. He either didn't see it and therefore is not a guy that ran out after watching something like that (cause he couldn't run out after something he didn't see) and therefore you should believe him, but if you do believe him, then you find that he did see something - which you could only assume that he ran out - which makes him uncredible. OR he DID see it and ran out, but since he ran out after watching something like that, you don't believe him - but since you don't believe him when he said he saw it you determine that it didn't happen and therefore have to assume that he did not run away - but if he didn't run away, you should believe him. You see where you're going with this. It's ridiculous, isn't it? Obviously you would respond by saying that you believe it happened but not the way he said it because how could someone who would run out after seeing something like that tell the truth. But if that testimony is not entirely (but partially) true, then he didn't run out after seeing something like that but rather something less than that. How could you not believe him for something less than that but still believe he ran out of something as bad as that?

It reminds me of this (start around 0:27):

Darn editing time limit. Sorry, my last sentence should read as: How could you believe him for something less than that but still dock his credibility based on him running out of something as bad as that? If you then say even something less than that ruins his credibility then you still have the same relative belief of what actually happened v. what he said happened. In short, you can't release Sandusky because of the witness running out of something Sandusky is guilty of, unless you think what Sandusky did was not against the law, and therefore you shouldn't criticize the witness for not doing something about (running out after seeing a lawful act makes him unbelievable?) It just doesn't make sense as you stated it.

Regardless of him being a look-out or a witness, Sandusky's on trial not the witness, so regardless of the witness's guilt, wouldn't what he was looking out for make Sandusky guilty. Either that or he was a lookout for something legal.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

Where am I saying the boys are making this up? I'm saying I don't think McQueary is a credible enough witness by himself. I mean would you believe a guy that ran out after watching something like that and did not report it? I'd be closer to believing he was a lookout for it than a witness.

Are you suggesting that people are always on hero-mode and always react to something horrific in a way they think they always should? Because it doesn't always happen, regardless of the crime. I dare you to ask me how that's possible. In McQueary's case, however, I believe he did intervene and reported it... (Most people would do something considering the conditions that he was the only one there. The smaller the group, the more likelihood people will act. The diffusion of responsibility phenomena starts to occur in larger groups or in hierarchical structures, which is probably what happened here...)

McQueary is a vital piece to the investigation and without him it goes nowhere. He's definitely credible. I agree that with the boys testimony, it is a slam dunk. However, if all you're worried about is his dishonesty, he could be liable for loss money (in a civil suit) by the University. Unless he's crazy enough to bring himself, family, and his bank account down the drain, you'd have a hard time explaining why a reasonable individual would make that shit up in the first place. Whether or not he's telling the truth is not in contention. If you had a bunch of kids coming out of the woodwork claiming r*pe after a large amount of time elapsed, then what you're saying is true: With no police report, samples, etc, it would become incredibly difficult to put Sandusky at the scene.

Coupled with the Costas interview, Sandusky has basically admitted he was there in the shower with the boys "touching their leg" but never thinking or doing anything sexually... It didn't register in that old fart's head that going in to the showers with boys was inappropriate. Pedophiles will justify their behavior as unharmful and lovely, which is what we have here.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

Are you suggesting that people are always on hero-mode and always react to something horrific in a way they think they always should? Because it doesn't always happen, regardless of the crime. I dare you to ask me how that's possible. In McQueary's case, however, I believe he did intervene and reported it... (Most people would do something considering the conditions that he was the only one there. The smaller the group, the more likelihood people will act. The diffusion of responsibility phenomena starts to occur in larger groups or in hierarchical structures, which is probably what happened here...)

McQueary is a vital piece to the investigation and without him it goes nowhere. He's definitely credible. I agree that with the boys testimony, it is a slam dunk. However, if all you're worried about is his dishonesty, he could be liable for loss money (in a civil suit) by the University. Unless he's crazy enough to bring himself, family, and his bank account down the drain, you'd have a hard time explaining why a reasonable individual would make that shit up in the first place. Whether or not he's telling the truth is not in contention. If you had a bunch of kids coming out of the woodwork claiming r*pe after a large amount of time elapsed, then what you're saying is true: With no police report, samples, etc, it would become incredibly difficult to put Sandusky at the scene.

Coupled with the Costas interview, Sandusky has basically admitted he was there in the shower with the boys "touching their leg" but never thinking or doing anything sexually... It didn't register in that old fart's head that going in to the showers with boys was inappropriate. Pedophiles will justify their behavior as unharmful and lovely, which is what we have here.

You dare him? LOL! What are you nine years old? Maybe you should try a double dog dare.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

You dare him? LOL! What are you nine years old? Maybe you should try a double dog dare.

Yeah, I dared him. You jealous?

Would you prefer I triple dog dare your posts so you can write something else other than troll shit? Wouldn't that be the Mt. Everest of board achievements!

 

[sayheykid1]

Yeah, I dared him. You jealous?

Would you prefer I triple dog dare your posts so you can write something else other than troll shit? Wouldn't that be the Mt. Everest of board achievements!

 

[NinerSickness]

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/01/14/paterno-speaks-for-1st-time-since-firing-906600526/

Paterno speaks for 1st time since firing

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. – Joe Paterno speaks mostly in a whisper these days. His hand sometimes trembles. His thick black hair is gone; in its place is a wig.

Sitting at his kitchen table in a wheelchair, a blanket rests in his lap. A broken pelvis has taken its toll, so have the constant radiation treatments for lung cancer.




In his first interview since being fired by Penn State two months ago, the winningest coach in Division I football told The Washington Post he's "shocked and saddened" by the scandal that enveloped the place where he spent more than six decades.

Yet the 85-year-old Paterno refused to bash the school or say a bad word about the man at the center of the turmoil.

Instead, Paterno said he "didn't know which way to go" after an assistant coach came to him in 2002 saying he had seen retired defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a boy.

"I think we got to wait and see what happens," Paterno said in an interview posted Saturday on the newspaper's website. "The courts are taking care of it, the legal system is taking care of it."

Post reporter Sally Jenkins paints a portrait of a frail Paterno, hardly the robust character seen walking the sidelines for so many years.

"Speak up," Paterno's wife, Sue, sometimes says.

Paterno told the Post that assistant Mike McQueary "didn't want to get specific" about details in his allegation involving Sandusky, who McQueary said was showering with a boy in the Penn State football facility.

Paterno said he was hesitant to make follow-up calls because he didn't want to be seen as trying to exert influence either for or against Sandusky.

"I didn't know which way to go ... And rather than get in there and make a mistake," he told the Post before trailing off.

A day after he heard McQueary's allegation, Paterno reported it to his superiors. Paterno said he previously had "no inkling" Sandusky might be a child molester.

Sandusky was criminally charged on Nov. 5 and faces dozens of counts. Paterno was ousted four days later after 46 years as head coach.

"Right now I'm trying to figure out what I'm gonna do," Paterno said. "'Cause I don't want to sit around on my backside all day."

Paterno was diagnosed with lung cancer days after his dismissal. He was readmitted to the hospital Friday for observation for what his family called a minor complication from treatments. He has been undergoing chemotherapy and radiation.

His condition improved Saturday morning, and he remained in the hospital, the family said.

Paterno said he was initially reluctant to speak because "I wanted everybody to settle down," but the Post reported he was so eager to defend his record that he insisted on continuing the interview from his bedside Friday morning, though ill.

Paterno, who testified before a grand jury investigating Sandusky, is not a target of the criminal probe.

But his firing came as criticism mounted against Paterno and other Penn State leaders that the 2002 allegation should have been reported to authorities outside of Penn State.

"You would think I ran the show here," Paterno said.

The 67-year-old Sandusky is charged with sexually abusing 10 boys over a 15-year period. He maintains his innocence and remains out on $250,000 bail while awaiting trial.

If Sandusky is guilty, "I'm sick about it," Paterno said.

Paterno said he wished he knew how the charges against Sandusky didn't come to light until years after the alleged assaults occurred. "I don't know the answer to that," he said. "It's hard."

Asked to respond to the Paterno interview, Sandusky lawyer Joe Amendola said in a statement to The Associated Press that the former Penn State assistant was "greatly dismayed by the knee-jerk reaction" of the Penn State Board of Trustees in firing Paterno.

"In the meantime, we'll continue to keep Coach Paterno and (Athletic Director) Tim Curley in our thoughts and prayers for a speedy and full recovery from their illnesses and Jerry and I will continue our work in preparation for this trial."

In court testimony last month, McQueary said his account about the 2002 allegation to Paterno wasn't as detailed as what he relayed to Paterno's superiors out of respect for the older Paterno.

According to the Post, Paterno reiterated that McQueary was unclear with him about the nature of what he saw — and added that even if McQueary had been more graphic, he's not sure he would have understood it.

"You know, he didn't want to get specific," Paterno said. "And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, r*pe and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it."

In recent weeks, Paterno's dismissal has come under question from many former players and alumni wondering about the motivations of trustees.

Others are roiled by a perceived lack of communication by trustees and President Rodney Erickson during a period when the school has promised to be more open and transparent. Many alumni who attended town hall meetings in Pittsburgh, suburban Philadelphia and New York this week questioned why Paterno, after 61 years of service to the school, wasn't afforded due process before his dismissal.

Paterno met his legal requirement to report suspected abuse, according to authorities.

But two days after Sandusky was charged, state police Commissioner Frank Noonan said Paterno and other school leaders had a "moral responsibility" to do more and report allegations to police.

With a media storm descending on the campus, Paterno announced his resignation the morning of Nov. 9. That day, he called the scandal "one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

The trustees fired him about 12 hours later. Paterno recounted that he was passed a note at the door of his home by an assistant athletic director with the name of trustees vice chairman John Surma and a phone number.

According to the Post, Surma told Paterno, "In the best interests of the university, you are terminated." Paterno hung up and repeated the words to his wife, who redialed the number.

"After 61 years he deserved better," Sue Paterno said. "He deserved better."

Paterno could not recall the last time he had seen or spoken to Sandusky. He declined to offer his opinion on the charges other than saying he would wait for the legal process to unfold.

Paterno reminded the Post he is not a victim.

"You know, I'm not as concerned about me," he said. "What's happened to me has been great. I got five great kids. Seventeen great grandchildren. I've had a wonderful experience here at Penn State. I don't want to walk away from this thing bitter. I want to be helpful."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/...st-time-since-firing-906600526/#ixzz1jfjRYcNY

 

[NinerSickness]

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/01/14/paterno-speaks-for-1st-time-since-firing-906600526/

Paterno speaks for 1st time since firing

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. – Joe Paterno speaks mostly in a whisper these days. His hand sometimes trembles. His thick black hair is gone; in its place is a wig.

Sitting at his kitchen table in a wheelchair, a blanket rests in his lap. A broken pelvis has taken its toll, so have the constant radiation treatments for lung cancer.




In his first interview since being fired by Penn State two months ago, the winningest coach in Division I football told The Washington Post he's "shocked and saddened" by the scandal that enveloped the place where he spent more than six decades.

Yet the 85-year-old Paterno refused to bash the school or say a bad word about the man at the center of the turmoil.

Instead, Paterno said he "didn't know which way to go" after an assistant coach came to him in 2002 saying he had seen retired defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a boy.

"I think we got to wait and see what happens," Paterno said in an interview posted Saturday on the newspaper's website. "The courts are taking care of it, the legal system is taking care of it."

Post reporter Sally Jenkins paints a portrait of a frail Paterno, hardly the robust character seen walking the sidelines for so many years.

"Speak up," Paterno's wife, Sue, sometimes says.

Paterno told the Post that assistant Mike McQueary "didn't want to get specific" about details in his allegation involving Sandusky, who McQueary said was showering with a boy in the Penn State football facility.

Paterno said he was hesitant to make follow-up calls because he didn't want to be seen as trying to exert influence either for or against Sandusky.

"I didn't know which way to go ... And rather than get in there and make a mistake," he told the Post before trailing off.

A day after he heard McQueary's allegation, Paterno reported it to his superiors. Paterno said he previously had "no inkling" Sandusky might be a child molester.

Sandusky was criminally charged on Nov. 5 and faces dozens of counts. Paterno was ousted four days later after 46 years as head coach.

"Right now I'm trying to figure out what I'm gonna do," Paterno said. "'Cause I don't want to sit around on my backside all day."

Paterno was diagnosed with lung cancer days after his dismissal. He was readmitted to the hospital Friday for observation for what his family called a minor complication from treatments. He has been undergoing chemotherapy and radiation.

His condition improved Saturday morning, and he remained in the hospital, the family said.

Paterno said he was initially reluctant to speak because "I wanted everybody to settle down," but the Post reported he was so eager to defend his record that he insisted on continuing the interview from his bedside Friday morning, though ill.

Paterno, who testified before a grand jury investigating Sandusky, is not a target of the criminal probe.

But his firing came as criticism mounted against Paterno and other Penn State leaders that the 2002 allegation should have been reported to authorities outside of Penn State.

"You would think I ran the show here," Paterno said.

The 67-year-old Sandusky is charged with sexually abusing 10 boys over a 15-year period. He maintains his innocence and remains out on $250,000 bail while awaiting trial.

If Sandusky is guilty, "I'm sick about it," Paterno said.

Paterno said he wished he knew how the charges against Sandusky didn't come to light until years after the alleged assaults occurred. "I don't know the answer to that," he said. "It's hard."

Asked to respond to the Paterno interview, Sandusky lawyer Joe Amendola said in a statement to The Associated Press that the former Penn State assistant was "greatly dismayed by the knee-jerk reaction" of the Penn State Board of Trustees in firing Paterno.

"In the meantime, we'll continue to keep Coach Paterno and (Athletic Director) Tim Curley in our thoughts and prayers for a speedy and full recovery from their illnesses and Jerry and I will continue our work in preparation for this trial."

In court testimony last month, McQueary said his account about the 2002 allegation to Paterno wasn't as detailed as what he relayed to Paterno's superiors out of respect for the older Paterno.

According to the Post, Paterno reiterated that McQueary was unclear with him about the nature of what he saw — and added that even if McQueary had been more graphic, he's not sure he would have understood it.

"You know, he didn't want to get specific," Paterno said. "And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, r*pe and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it."

In recent weeks, Paterno's dismissal has come under question from many former players and alumni wondering about the motivations of trustees.

Others are roiled by a perceived lack of communication by trustees and President Rodney Erickson during a period when the school has promised to be more open and transparent. Many alumni who attended town hall meetings in Pittsburgh, suburban Philadelphia and New York this week questioned why Paterno, after 61 years of service to the school, wasn't afforded due process before his dismissal.

Paterno met his legal requirement to report suspected abuse, according to authorities.

But two days after Sandusky was charged, state police Commissioner Frank Noonan said Paterno and other school leaders had a "moral responsibility" to do more and report allegations to police.

With a media storm descending on the campus, Paterno announced his resignation the morning of Nov. 9. That day, he called the scandal "one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

The trustees fired him about 12 hours later. Paterno recounted that he was passed a note at the door of his home by an assistant athletic director with the name of trustees vice chairman John Surma and a phone number.

According to the Post, Surma told Paterno, "In the best interests of the university, you are terminated." Paterno hung up and repeated the words to his wife, who redialed the number.

"After 61 years he deserved better," Sue Paterno said. "He deserved better."

Paterno could not recall the last time he had seen or spoken to Sandusky. He declined to offer his opinion on the charges other than saying he would wait for the legal process to unfold.

Paterno reminded the Post he is not a victim.

"You know, I'm not as concerned about me," he said. "What's happened to me has been great. I got five great kids. Seventeen great grandchildren. I've had a wonderful experience here at Penn State. I don't want to walk away from this thing bitter. I want to be helpful."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/...st-time-since-firing-906600526/#ixzz1jfjRYcNY