PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Oh yeah, he lives around here, and he's rubbing it in our faces. He was seen yesterday shopping for a treadmill in Dick's Sporting Goods, wearing a Penn State jacket.
Penn State Child Molestation Scandal...continuing discussion
- Thread starter LemonMelon
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Oh yes, and Speedracer is dead on. That's good Penn State crime knowledge right there.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Oh, I get to use my new favorite line!
Christ, what an asshole.
Is he not even a teensy bit worried for his own safety? Yeah, you've got a bunch of students busy bemoaning Paterno's fate, but I bet the area is also filled with people who hate child rapists.
Christ, what an asshole.
Is he not even a teensy bit worried for his own safety? Yeah, you've got a bunch of students busy bemoaning Paterno's fate, but I bet the area is also filled with people who hate child rapists.
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
Artist paints over Sandusky in State College mural
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
By Michael Sanserino, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lake Fong/Post-Gazette
Michael Pilato, 43, paints over the part of his mural that shows Jerry Sandusky.
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- About 30 people gathered downtown today to watch an artist paint over the face of former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky in a mural.
State College artist Michael Pilato, 43, started the mural, called "inspiration" about 11 years ago and updates it annually by adding people who inspire him. He added Sandusky for his work with The Second Mile and his impact on Penn State football. He has never taken a person off of the mural, which includes hundreds of people and stretches the length of a building.
Sandusky was accused in a grant jury presentment last week of multiple counts of sexually abusing children.
PG VIDEO
"It's really tough," Pilato said.
He wanted to wait for the legal process to run its course before making a decision with the mural but was prompted to remove the mural after he received an email from an alleged victim's mother.
The mural now depicts an empty chair with a blue ribbon on it to remember victims of child abuse.
Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier are also depicted on the mural, but Pilato said he would wait for legal proceedings before deciding their mural fate.
Read more: Artist paints over Sandusky in State College mural
Thought that was an interesting little side story.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
I walk by that every day. I never knew Sandusky was in it.
Joe is in it. He's holding a picture of his brother.
Joe is in it. He's holding a picture of his brother.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Fox News, it's official, now.
McQueary won't be at game
death threats, gone into hiding.
McQueary won't be at game
death threats, gone into hiding.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
Is that a Jerry Sandusky quote?
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Please don't make jokes about raping children.
I've seen a couple articles referring to this as a "sex scandal." I'd like to punch all those fucktards calling it that in the throat.
I think I need to stop reading about this.
I've seen a couple articles referring to this as a "sex scandal." I'd like to punch all those fucktards calling it that in the throat.
I think I need to stop reading about this.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
PSU totally had this missing DA whacked.
Paterno is resembling Michael Corleone with every passing hour.
Paterno is resembling Michael Corleone with every passing hour.
Are you serious? Was this a rumor of sorts, or from a reliable source? If he really was in public yesterday, wearing a PSU jacket, then that tells me something. There are a few possibilities of its significance, but it tells me that he intends to fight his charges, proclaim his innocence, and his continuing loyalty to the university. I can't imagine they will offer him any plea deal, especially at his age, that would make anything but a full trial the only worthwhile option for him. At trial, his defense has to be mostly based on attacking McQueary I imagine. Even darker days ahead for McQueary.
WildHoneyAlways
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Isn't this the reason he's being charged with perjury?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
if people want to have a reasonable discussion about this they should read the grand jury indictment
I made a couple of drive by posts in here yesterday, it's is obvious others are/ were better informed.
http://www.wltx.com/news/pdf/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
this indictment is a quick, easy read, don't let the pages discourage you. It is a large print, double spaced legal document. It is disturbing.
I made a couple of drive by posts in here yesterday, it's is obvious others are/ were better informed.
http://www.wltx.com/news/pdf/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
this indictment is a quick, easy read, don't let the pages discourage you. It is a large print, double spaced legal document. It is disturbing.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
I have it on pretty good authority. It's not surprising; when ABC knocked on his door he had a Penn State jacket on then too.
Paterno is not facing any criminal charges.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Only Curley and Schultz were indicted for perjury. Not Paterno, Spanier or McQueary. That could change I guess, but the grand jury found Paterno's testimony of what he knew credible.
Last edited:
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Spanier is really the only one who could also conceivably see charges, but that's a long shot.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
Though something tells me he's the kind of guy who has almost nothing in his closet that doesn't say Penn State on it.
gvox
Ghost of Love
Why not, though?
The grand jury found McQuery's testimony "very credible". McQuery's testimony was that he told Paterno the same thing he told the rest: that Sandusky was having sex with a minor in the shower.
If McQuery's testimony is credible, then Paterno lied and by extension has perjured himself. Or am I missing something.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
in his mind, he is the same person
wasn't he considered a good asst. coach? his work with the team still stands
wasn't he considered a good asst. coach? his work with the team still stands
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Where in the grand jury report does it say that?
WildHoneyAlways
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
I thought you were referring to the AD.
I got lost with the pronoun and that the AD was the "he" in question.
I've read the grand jury report and Paterno said basically the same thing as Curley and Schultz re: what was reported to them about what happened in the showers. I have no doubt that the former grad assistant is telling the truth when he said he told Paterno et al what he saw. Paterno is walking a fine line here about what he says he knew.
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
The very top of page 8.
WildHoneyAlways
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
The top of page 8.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Eh? No, I mean McQueary explicitly stating that he'd described what he saw as anal sex when talking to to Paterno. The report does cite him as explicitly stating he told Curley and Schultz that, and thus concludes that they were guilty of materially false statements. It doesn't say that about Paterno.
gvox
Ghost of Love
Exactly, and on page 7 it describes how not only did the graduate assistant report to Paterno "what he saw", Paterno also testified (under oath, I would think) that he reported to Curley that "the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."
In other words, he testified that when he informed Curley, he didn't say exactly what the grand jury found McQuery to be "extremely credible" about, he had downgraded it to fondling and later "inappropriate".
The whole thing is that as it went up the chain, it got watered down until they felt it wasn't such a big deal. Paterno is part of that process, and he either lied under oath or admitted under oath to changing the severity of the report.
gvox
Ghost of Love
It says he told Paterno what he saw. There's not much to interpret there.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
If you read page 7 and 8, I think Paterno is ok,
Curley and Schultz are at risk.
"Paterno said that he reported to Curley that "the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."
that is probably enough to save Paterno. he is reporting what he recalls from memory, from an upset person.
when the witness spoke to Curley, it was a first hand report, from an eye witness.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
There's everything to interpret there, and is the whole reason why Paterno is not charged.
gvox
Ghost of Love
I disagree. I think he's getting a free pass because he testified that he at the very least called it "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature" when he reported it and because the others actually outright lied about it being anything sexual in nature at all.
He was told the same thing by McQuery that McQuery also told the others. He started the dilution of the story.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
I understand your logic and agree the lack of specifity in the report on that point is strange, but, my own conclusion from the fact that the report quotes Paterno saying "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature," yet does not deem him guilty of materially false statements--whereas Schultz and Curley were directly charged with that, by virtue of the "extremely credible" McQueary having explicitly told the grand jury that he did cite anal sex when reporting to them (bottom of p. 7)--would be that McQueary himself indicated to the grand jury that Paterno's summary of what McQueary had told him was correct. Otherwise, you're left with the argument that the grand jury was simply too stupid to have it occur to them to explicitly ask McQueary whether he explicitly mentioned anal sex to Paterno.
ETA--There might also be something to deep's point, that because Curley and Schultz were the designated obligated reporters (to the police) under PA law, they might be in a different category in terms of responsibility to record and recall details of the eyewitness account precisely, hence the non-credibility of their supposed recollections compared to McQueary's testimony. I'm in no position to be sure on that though.
Last edited:
gvox
Ghost of Love
I guess from a strictly legal standpoint you are right Yolland. He's still so wrong, what he did and/or didn't do. I tend to agree with deep's idea that when he was testifying, he was summarizing his memory of the events which I suppose keeps him from a direct charge of perjury, but would add to that there's no logical reason to believe, period, that a distraught McQuery would tell his immediate boss a lesser story so close to the event, and then later on tell a more severe version to Curley and Schultz. He told them all the same thing, and Paterno stood by as they all watered it down and finally swept it under the rug.
Re: your last sentence...well, didn't they? It seems almost unthinkable that they didn't!
eta...I just remembered something..somewhere along the way one or more media outlets reported that Paterno testified that McQuery never told him that it was anal sex. It's not directly mentioned in the findings of fact though. I guess there is more to the record than what's listed in that document, right? Isn't that just a summary of what facts they feel are relevant?
Re: your last sentence...well, didn't they? It seems almost unthinkable that they didn't!
eta...I just remembered something..somewhere along the way one or more media outlets reported that Paterno testified that McQuery never told him that it was anal sex. It's not directly mentioned in the findings of fact though. I guess there is more to the record than what's listed in that document, right? Isn't that just a summary of what facts they feel are relevant?
