It is currently Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:58 am Advanced search

Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Discuss everything about Penn State and college football here.

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Blue&White » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:04 pm

To be clear: McQ did NOT witness the act. He was clear about this during his trial where he received the $12MM. That was part of his complaint, actually, that PSU pushed this narrative that wasn't rue.

As for your first comment, that's what I was saying all along - why go for the guy the highest up the chain and the furthest removed from events? Especially when your 2 flipped witnesses say they were never told there was sex?

There is a whole lot out of bad Emmert here but I have a feeling that Spanier will walk (not sure if that is a good or bad thing) and Schultz and Curley plead out and who knows if justice is served. The whole situation is just a massive Hillary.
#Cespedespaid!
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby reincarnatedlama » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:49 pm

I believe McQ testified he witnessed what would qualify as molestation but he did not witness sodomy as was reported in GJ presentment - that's why I characterized it as molestation (which would include fondling, not just sexual acts).

McQ has been clear that he characterized what he saw as more than "horseplay".

We can parse words all day long but would any of us typing here not come to the conclusion, after the 98 incident, after the 01 incident and continually seeing this guy with kids around all the time not know something was up. Especially when the 98 and 01 incidents show he clearly took these kids into a situation (shower facilities in gyms after hours when he believed no one else would be present) what thus guy was up to.

Sometimes somebody's fooling you and sometimes you're fooling yourself. And starting 01 these guys were fooling themselves.
Making America Great Again
reincarnatedlama
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:47 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Blue&White » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:19 pm

I saw that McQ testified this time around that he never used the term "horseplay" and that he was clear it was sexual. But, he also testified he did not see it. And, Curley and Schultz both testified that they did not get the impression from McQ it was molestation and never conveyed that to Spanier. Who knows who said what to whom?

We can parse words all day long but would any of us typing here not come to the conclusion, after the 98 incident, after the 01 incident and continually seeing this guy with kids around all the time not know something was up. Especially when the 98 and 01 incidents show he clearly took these kids into a situation (shower facilities in gyms after hours when he believed no one else would be present) what thus guy was up to.

Well, I think if any of us where now in any situation even slightly resembling this one we all know exactly how we would act and react. But, we are all educated about this now. You keep coming to the conclusion that this was absolutely a cover up because there is no other explanation. Maybe that's what happened, but I'm not convinced that there is no other explanation. In fact, I have a really hard time believing this was a cover up.

I'm inclined to think that that the more likely explanation is they didn't want to believe it and convinced themselves it wasn't true. In Sandusky you have a guy who was 50 years old, had been running a charity with children that had been checked out continuously by the state, who had been allowed to foster and adopt kids which also requires a lot of checking and involvement by Child Youth Services and various social workers and other professionals, and who had been a pillar of the community for many years and who they knew personally. How could it possibly have been that they and they alone were aware of him maybe molesting a kid? How had it never come up before? If you these guys back in 2001, not knowing everything you know now, which seems more likely? That McQ was wrong or the guy who had the charity and the foster kids and was the big local hero was a pedophile? Which would you believe? Which would you want to believe? Do you call the cops and risk ruining his reputation with an accusation that you're not sure of? Sure, something was raised in 1998 but the DA said "nothing to see here, no charges filed". So, maybe this is just another misunderstanding? Because, how can it be that PSU officials - who have minimal contact with him and the various kids he's involved with - are concerned about this and no one else seems to be?

I'm not offering that as a defense of their actions, or inactions. I think - and I've always thought - that someone needed to notify the proper authorities and it's baffling to me that they didn't considering they all had children and even grandchildren. The standard of care should have been "what if it was my kid?". But, that aside, I don't need to paint them as evil or involved in some massive conspiracy to hide this to understand how maybe this happened. They screwed up. There should be accountability for that. But, the need to paint the picture that they had to be worried about their reputation is, to me, an attempt to try to prove to ourselves that if it were us in that situation things would have been different. Maybe they would be. Hopefully. But, I don't think any of us are as perfect as we like to believe. These guys made a mistake. A big one. And, much as none of us want to admit it, I think it's possible any of us could have made the same big mistake.
#Cespedespaid!
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby LioninVa » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:43 pm

Your inclination seems logical to me. Partly because that is mostly how I considered it as I read through things. I also think the fact that there were no charges in 98 could be seen as justification that nothing happened in the shower or that something needs to be looked at; depending on your though process and all that. I know that sounds silly, but we interpret what we choose to interpret often times.

I can rationalize the shower incident, all except for the hour and lack of witnesses, because coaches showered in the same area as the team when I was in school. Hell, when I was in middle school we would take a bus to the Y (when it was men only) and we were told to swim nude because the filter was bad. It Seems like a BS reason now, but nobody questioned it in the 70's.

To be clear, I am not saying JS is innocent or there was a cover-up or not. I don't know, but I can see how different people think different things.
LioninVa
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:12 am

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Blue&White » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:02 pm

Spanier guilty of 1 misdemeanor count of child endangerment.

Was justice served? I have no idea. But, Jerry Sandusky will never see the light of day outside of the walls of a prison and that, really, is what's most important. Spanier, Curley, and Schultz posed no threat to society but Sandusky does. They got the guy that really matters.

I'm glad this is over but still lack a feeling of knowing the "right" things were done. I suspect I'm not alone.
#Cespedespaid!
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Carl Spackler » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:23 pm

You are not alone and this is not over. It may be over for us but not for the rest of the world who listened to the drum beat of ESPIN's court of media accusation :twisted: means you are guilty. When they pillory us at the Rose Bowl telecast it has gotten ingrained and low rent as I can imagine. Your featured team is a bad team, bad dog, no no. We must continue to discuss something that no one on this team had anything to do with yada yada yada. It will never end for the innocents who inhabit this team and that is an injustice. :evil:
Carl Spackler
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:39 pm
Location: N40.7243 W-82.1074

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby pennst92 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:21 pm

With current allegations coming out about Team USA Women's Gymnastics (dang, that's a pain to type), it seems the collective 'we' hasn't learned anything.

RE: Spanier - he probably deserved worse, but so did Curley and Schultz. That said, I think we can now put this behind us, even if ESPN can't. To hell with them anyway.
A good team has to have players capable of making plays...oh, wait - we're so there!
pennst92
 
Posts: 1717
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:17 pm
Location: Lexington, South Carolina

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Blue&White » Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:55 am

Penn State trustee who is ‘out of sympathy’ for ‘so-called’ Sandusky victims won’t seek reelection]

You have to love the Washington Post's ability to put out a headline that let's you know where they stand on a story. What Lord said, and the context in which he said it, makes for a very different story than how the Post presents it. So much for being a neutral reporter of the facts.

Btw, I highly recommend you not read the comments following the story.
#Cespedespaid!
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby reincarnatedlama » Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:28 am

Certainly more interesting then the banner headline treatment most outlets gave the story. I would have to say my bottom line take would be - to put forth that Curley, Schultz, Spanier had zero idea of what they were dealing with flies completely in the face of available facts and reasonable analysis of their actions - if you want to give them a benefit of the doubt about there motivations for not going to police you must conclude they exercised incompetence on an epic level. Whether PSU paid unfounded claims doesn't detract from that - it's a separate issue that should be handled internally. If it was not germane in the trial then Spanier's lawyers and the judge should have dealt with it.

More simply - do these people need a baracking course of how to say "I am not authorized to comment legal matters, you can direct any of your inquiries to ....blah, blah, blah" and send them to the University's designated resource for communications.
Making America Great Again
reincarnatedlama
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:47 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Blue&White » Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:48 am

I agree with just about all of that. Whether you agree with Lord's basic premise or not .... he needs to STFU. The issue isn't whether or not that some people may have used the situation to get rich when they were not victims. The issue is that a lot of people actually were victims.

As for who knew what, there has now been a trial and an adjudication and that really needs to trump (no connection mean or implied) individual opinions. Schultz and Curley plead guilty. They knew. Spanier was found guilty. He knew. Hillarying on about how you don't agree and blaming the victims is some serious bull-Emmert.
#Cespedespaid!
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Locker Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests