It is currently 04/11/25 6:37 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3   Page 3 of 3   [ 72 posts ]
Author Message
PostPosted: 01/23/12 3:50 pm • # 51 
Kathy
I'm not questioning the dates but some of the victims listed weren't known at the time of the incidents. Most of the victims didn't come forward until late 2010 after Sandusky
was arrested in the 2002 case.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/12 3:59 pm • # 52 
oskar
If Sandusky had still been working for Paterno I would agree- he wasn't.  If the assault had been witnessed by Paterno I would agree- it wasn't.
Do you know any cops who accept complaints from people giving hearsay evidence?  It was obvious the Administration decided
 not to report it to the prosecutor responsible for that area.  It was the administration (well maybe just the Board of Trustees) that decided to offer up Paterno as a scapegoat.A bunch of old wealthy white men,
mostly Republicans, playing cya.  In my opinion.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/12 4:02 pm • # 53 
bunkerhill14 wrote:
jeannept
"The people around Sanduski knew that this guy has the "charity" which makes young boys easily available to him. They knew he took these boys to different states etc for games, rooms shared, showers shared. They knew he showered with the kids at the university. A guy who also works with Paterno tells Paterno he saw Sanduski raping a boy in the shower. The details vary but, Sanduski was behind and the kid's face was smashed up against the shower wall to stifle his screams, etc. Now, of course a thought should go to it may not be true. However, the what if it is true is way too great to not act and act quickly. It's not just what Sanduski may have done to this boy but the fact that there are all these other little boys that are available to him and vulberable to him. Shouldn't a red flag pop up in your mind if you hear of this possibility? Wouldn't a a caring human want to make sure Sanduski couldn't hurt another kid while it's being investigated. Wouldn't you want to make sure it is being investigated? The charge is horrible so wouldn't you want the one who told you fired if it turned out he lied? None of this happened, Sanduski still there, still with the kids, the guy who told still there. Wouldn't you want to know, so, are the little kids safe or not?

Second Mile "business"? Raping little boys is business? What about Pen State "business"? The rape was there. I am really having trouble believing that the rape of a child means so little, is of so little importance that it can just be tossed away as "business". Didn't Sanduski


That's your post and unless your thinking is solid concrete it says it was common knowledge what
Sandusky was doing.
Yes, it says it was common knowledge that he had little boys easily available to him, he showered with them, took themout of state etc.  It does not sa it was common knowledge he molested them.  It said that knowing about his time with the boys and then hearing someone saw him molesting/raping a kid should have sent up red flags and more should have been done to make sure the kids were safe.  I did not say and did not have the intent to say it was common knowledge that Sandusky was abusing kids.  That's your warped version, not what I said.

  


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/12 4:04 pm • # 54 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Doesn't matter.
I'm not part of my neighbours' families but if I hear about or witness I will report it and I will follow up to ensure that the matter was seriously and thouroughly investigated.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/12 4:08 pm • # 55 
bunkerhill14 wrote:
jeannept

"amateur psychology"

I'm not an expert but I do have a masters. That's a little above amateur
Well, I would say that it didn't take very well because the crap you tried to throw at me was way off the mark.  I'd call that amateur.  Ha.  

  


Last edited by jeannept on 01/23/12 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/12 4:15 pm • # 56 
oskar576 wrote:
IMO, the point is that a moral and ethical individual follows up in matters such as these in order to ensure that there are no further victims and that the predators are dealt with.
Mr. Paterno was content to go by the book. He may not have had any further legal responsibility but he did have a moral and ethical one.
Explain this one to me again.  So this guy doesn't work for Joe any more?  Hasn't for three years. 28 yo tells Joe what he saw and Joe reports the incident to authorities.  Sanduski is barred from the college.  The PSU administration knows and the cops know and Second Mile knows.   What control does Joe actually have of this situation any more?  Why is Joe the scapegoat here? 

One of my functions at the hospital is calling DYFS if I think I should for Mothers and new borns.  If the mother illegal drug screens, I call DYFS.  I have absolutely no control if that mother abuses that child further.  I have to trust DYFS to do their jobs.  And before someone tells me that doesn't correlate, think about it.  To me it does.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/12 4:15 pm • # 57 
oskar576 wrote:
Doesn't matter.
I'm not part of my neighbours' families but if I hear about or witness I will report it and I will follow up to ensure that the matter was seriously and thouroughly investigated.
I think that is the right attitude, oskar.  Even Paterno admitted he should have done more.  Ok, I mispoke when I said Sandusky worked for Paterno.  Well actually he had worked for Paterno but not when the events occurred.  Does that take away responsiility to help a child or to protect other children?  I think not.  Again, it is the legal vs the moral.  Some people feel all he needed to do was the legal and they were satisfied.  Some of us feel he also had a moral obligation.  Anyone who heard the allegations should have done more.

  


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/12 4:18 pm • # 58 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
oskar576 wrote:
IMO, the point is that a moral and ethical individual follows up in matters such as these in order to ensure that there are no further victims and that the predators are dealt with.
Mr. Paterno was content to go by the book. He may not have had any further legal responsibility but he did have a moral and ethical one.

Exactly, oskar ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/12 4:24 pm • # 59 
jeannept
" did not say and did not have the intent to say it was common knowledge that Sandusky was abusing kids. That's your warped version, not what I said."


That's why I said unless you're a concrete thinker you said it WAS common knowledge what Sandusky was doing.  You mentioned that "they" knew that Second Mile gave him access to kids- "they" knew that he was showering with kids.
What grown man showers with kids (other than his own and even that is not common). Given what you said "they" knew I don't think it's warped to say he was known to be abusing kids. Apparently you think you actually have to use the words "abusing kids"
for your statement to mean that. That's called concrete thinking.

         


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/12 4:26 pm • # 60 
So how are you going to insure that Sandusky doesn't abuse any more kids?   I think he's out on bail right now?   Private Detectives following him around or maybe body guarding all kids in Central PA?    Putting out a hit?   How are you doing it?  


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/12 4:34 pm • # 61 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
Did Paterno have any power over who did what in gthagt athletic facility? Or was he just another tenant?


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/12 4:39 pm • # 62 
bunkerhill14 wrote:
jeannept
" did not say and did not have the intent to say it was common knowledge that Sandusky was abusing kids. That's your warped version, not what I said."


That's why I said unless you're a concrete thinker you said it WAS common knowledge what Sandusky was doing.  You mentioned that "they" knew that Second Mile gave him access to kids- "they" knew that he was showering with kids.
What grown man showers with kids (other than his own and even that is not common). Given what you said "they" knew I don't think it's warped to say he was known to be abusing kids. Apparently you think you actually have to use the words "abusing kids"
for your statement to mean that. That's called concrete thinking.

         
People did know he showered with the kids.  Yes, good question, what kind of man does that.  Even the time line kathy showed mentions one of the boys going with him to the Alamo Bowl.  So people knew that.  Those things were common knowledge.  Are you saying it wasn't?  Second mile did give him access to boys.  Duh.  College football players have discussed his showering with them and he at times had one of his charity kids with him.  How funny, you are.  You're going to read whatever you want to read whether its there or not. Ha. 

Are you saying showering with the kids is abuse?  Legally it seems not to be.  Nor is taking them to games out of state.  It would raise a red flag for me.  I'm trying to figure out where you get that I said his abuse of kids was common knowledge.      


Last edited by jeannept on 01/24/12 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/12 4:45 pm • # 63 
grampatom wrote:
Did Paterno have any power over who did what in gthagt athletic facility? Or was he just another tenant?
I think Sandusky was emertus so he had access.  Once the abuse was reported, he was locked out.  

  


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/12 5:03 pm • # 64 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
That's the thing that makes this whole situation stink. You've got people in authority at this school who have enough evidence of criminal behavior to lock the guy out of their facilities, but it's deemed not sufficient evidence to alert the cops or anyone else. Somebody made the decision that raping a boy in the shower was not that big a deal. I think a lot of people concurred with the decision, or Sandusky would have been arrested a long time ago.

And what's the deal with the disappeared asst. DA connected with an investigation of Sandusky, whose car was found in the river, finally declared dead after some years? I have never understood that...if it was never reported to the cops, what was asst. DA doing?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/24/12 4:38 am • # 65 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/20/09
Posts: 8188
You've got people in authority at this school who have enough evidence of criminal behavior to lock the guy out of their facilities, but it's deemed not sufficient evidence to alert the cops or anyone else.

That includes Paterno. As far as I'm concerned, THE DAY he was told about the shower incident, he should have been on the phone to the police, since the idiot who witnessed it didn't bother to do anything but run home and tell his daddy. Instead, Paterno passed the buck, washed his hands of the whole thing, stuck his fingers in his ears and said "lalalalalala".
 

Jerry Sandusky[/b] claims that his former head coach Joe Paterno[/b] never confronted him about child abuse allegations.

In an interview with the New York TimesSandusky, 67, says that after he was accused of raping a 10-year-old boy in the locker room at Penn State in 2002, Paterno did not question him nor broach the subject with him at all.

He further maintains that Paterno did not ask him anything about similar molestation allegations that had been launched four years prior.


 




Top
  
PostPosted: 01/24/12 6:01 am • # 66 
McQuery said he thought he talked to the cops when he and Joe met with Shultz the VP of Business and Finance who oversaw the cops and the Curley, Athletic Director.  If there is one thing I'd fault Joe for directly calling the university cops directly. 

 However the cops were called in 1998 and the DA did not file charges.  

http://deadspin.com/5868787/former-penn-state-police-chief-testifies-that-psu-administrator-never-told-him-about-2002-sandusky-shower-incident

For Bunker - Did you read Gricar disappeared after a trip to Lewisburg in 2005 and his PC was in the Susquehanna?  The timeline didn't tell his  exact involvement (so more research) but I liked the local references. 

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-13/news/30392368_1_grand-jury-jerry-sandusky-young-boy


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/29/12 2:51 pm • # 67 
I never got a response to my question asking why you and others thought Paterno smoked.    I tried to load an article which states that he didn't smoke. I had no luck- will try later.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/29/12 2:54 pm • # 68 

Joe Paterno Didn't Smoke – So What Caused His Lung Cancer?

Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:50 PM

By Charlotte Libov

Print this Page Image

[url=/forward_page/]Forward Page[/url] Image

[url=/contact/editorial/]Email Us[/url] Image

Image

It came as a shock to some that Joe Paterno died of lung cancer even though he never puffed on a cigarette. Lung cancer, which kills more Americans than all other cancers combined, is widely considered a smoker's disease. But experts say it is a major killer even among people who have never used tobacco.

“About 15 to 20 percent of men who get lung cancer are nonsmokers and that can be up to 50 percent for women,â€



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/29/12 2:56 pm • # 69 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
NewsMax health? LOL!


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/29/12 3:20 pm • # 70 
Well, if he didn't smoke then let's all forget he enabled the child raper.   Image


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/29/12 4:18 pm • # 71 
Dana Reeves (Christopher's wife) who died of lung cancer never smoked either.

I followed gop's lead and thought smoking played a role.   I was wrong.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/29/12 4:59 pm • # 72 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112

My former boss' sister died about 2 years ago from multiple cancers she had suffered for the previous 5 or 6 years, which began as lung and metastasized to brain and bones ~ she never smoked either ~

Sooz



Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3   Page 3 of 3   [ 72 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.