<p>^ I suppose there are some scenarios under which I could be persuaded that Curley and/or Schultz didn’t commit perjury. But we have not only McQueary’s testimony, but Paterno’s statement to the grand jury that he understood from McQueary’s conversation with him that the shower incident witnessed by McQueary was “of a sexual nature.” Paterno testified that he related a version of what McQueary told him to Curley and told him “we have a problem,” and that he later met with both Schultz and Curley to discuss the incident. Yet both Schultz and Curley denied any knowledge that the incident was “sexual.” So if Schultz and Curley were being truthful, does that mean Paterno lied to the grand jury about what he had told them? Or that Paterno knew the incident was “sexual” but somehow omitted that seemingly relevant bit of information when he discussed the incident with Schultz and Curley? And on top of that, McQueary perjured himself before the grand jury and again at Schultz and Curley’s preliminary hearing? And what would be his motive?</p>
<p>If Schultz and Curley were telling the truth, that seems to make Paterno the centrally culpable figure here, because by Paterno’s own admission, although McQueary did not go into the details (and Paterno did not bother to ask), Paterno knew that McQueary was talking about a sexual incident, but (again if C & S were telling the truth) that information stopped with Paterno. What’s more, Paterno told McQueary he had done “the right thing” by reporting it to Paterno and assured him that he would take care of it from there, strongly implying that McQueary had done his duty and it was now out of his hands–no need to take further action, like reporting it to the police.</p>
<p>So either Paterno was the #1 scumbag here (well, #2 after Sandusky), or it was Schultz and Curley. Either way it looks bad for Penn State.</p>
<p>Hunts post #3848 asks the question what if the perjury charges are dropped not that there is a finding of not guilty but dropped by the prosecutor. Does that change anyone’s opinion?</p>
<p>I asked how does it make sense that they did not know Sandusky was molesting young boys in Penn State showers? When Paterno knew, McQueary knew, they reported it to Curley and Schultz, yet somehow Curley and Schultz just didn’t know.</p>
<p>I really want to understand how that makes sense to someone.</p>
<p>Then they deserve the consequences. I have never said anyone was innocent until all the information is out I do not know what anyone did or did not do. I said it is possible some of them may be or some made errors that in hindsight they would not make again but it may not have been anything more than human error and not an act of cover up. To me human error is not as bad as acting in a way to hide these attacks. It is also possible all or some are guilty as many suggest. That does not mean I do not wish things would have been handled differently.</p>
<p>So what are your thoughts if as Hunt posted the charges are dropped?</p>
The point is that we don’t actually know who knew what when, and who told what to whom when. We have one massaged version of the facts in the grand jury report, and we also know that the report doesn’t include all the facts (for example, unless I’m mistaken, it doesn’t even mention that another person was present when McQueary talked to his father, much less what that person’s recollection was of what was said). Lots of people are awfully sure of what various people “must have known,” but what they actually did know will be harder to pin down.</p>
<p>Sure, McQueary could have told Schultz and Curley without any help from Paterno, and he claims he did. In claiming they didn’t know the incident involved sexual contact, however, Schultz and Curley are now in effect claiming McQueary is now lying about what he told them. I find that pretty improbable; after all, McQueary did tell Paterno, according to Paterno who said he knew the incident was “of a sexual nature.” I should think McQueary would tell Schultz and Curley at least as much as he told Paterno; after all, he had more to fear from Paterno, his boss, than from Schultz and/or Curley. But if Schultz and Curley are telling the truth about what McQueary told them (i.e., that there was “horsing around” but not that it was “sexual”), then that also must mean that Paterno didn’t tell them it was sexual, because they claimed to have no knowledge of that key piece of information. It’s in that sense that the information “stopped with Paterno” if Schultz and Curley aren’t lying. But of course, it also then “stopped with” McQueary. </p>
<p>But it’s really, really hard to make sense of that scenario given what McQueary knew, and given what McQueary told Paterno (according to both of them), and given Paterno’s impulse to kick the whole matter upstairs. Which is why I think Schultz and Curley are just lying.</p>
You mean, what the grand jury report says McQueary said he knew. We don’t even know how definitive his testimony was to the grand jury. And he hasn’t been cross-examined by anybody yet.</p>
<p>So at worst we have a cover up and at best, we have gross negligence (certainly an “error” which results in unknown numbers of boys continuing to be sexually molested would be categorized as such); absolutely not an “unfair reason” to fire the president of a top university who received notice of some questionable goings on between Sandusky and young boys in the shower and never bothered to clarify the problem.</p>
<p>I never said who may have made errors. It is possible someone may have attempted a cover up, someone made errors and someone did nothing wrong based on what they knew.</p>
<p>How come no one is willing to say what their opinion is if the charges are dropped?</p>
<p>Well, I think you know that it’s very hard to prove perjury when it’s just a he-said, she-said situation. And as long as Curley and Schultz stick together, they may very well get their charges dropped.</p>
<p>The point, to me, is how on earth can these 2 guys feign ignorance? They had no idea Sandusky was abusing young boys on campus? </p>
<p>They are now trying to make it about what they knew and when, who told them what and when, yada yada yada.</p>
<p>They are still trying to deflect attention from the real issue.</p>
<p>tom1944, if charges are dropped, it often just means the case could not be made based on available evidence. It is not a determinant of the truth.</p>
<p>No, juries don’t deliver “innocent” verdicts. Innocent and not guilty are two different things. The jury is there to answer one very specific question: Did the prosecution meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? If it didn’t, then the jury must deliver a “not guilty” verdict. That doesn’t necessarily mean the accused didn’t do the crime.</p>
<p>If they are lying, and they did know Sandusky was abusing little boys, then they are hindering the investigation, they are giving Sandusky reason to believe he may get away with this, they are giving Sandusky reason to lie, they are still covering up for him, even if their motive is to just cover their own asses.</p>
<p>And it seems really unlikely they didn’t know, whether or not that can be proven in a court of law.</p>
<p>In my scenario of what happened, they didn’t cover this up back in 2002 because they’re bad, evil men. They thought bringing it to light would hurt too many innocent people, and figured if they banned him from the locker rooms, he would become someone else’s problem, and end up in jail anyway. That’s how they justified it to themselves.</p>
<p>But now is the time to set aside their selfishness, and do what they can to help this investigation. Instead, they are more worried about their own reputations.</p>
Unless they’re telling the truth. If they are, they’re doing what they have to do.</p>
<p>A scenario that I would suggest is that some people in the story may have known that Sandusky was “creepy” or that there was something wrong with him or that he was “too chummy” with young kids, but they may not have had enough real knowledge to do anything about it. What’s key in this story is who knew more than that, and I don’t think that’s been established at all.
I also think that some powerful people have underlings who make a point of ensuring that their bosses aren’t told about certain problems, and I wonder if Paterno might be somebody like that. That doesn’t absolve him of responsibility for things that happened on his watch, but it might complicate the question of what he actually knew.</p>
<p>And if you want to say that I’m just defending evil people, I’d respectfully ask that you save it.</p>
<p>I guess anything is possible, but either they’re lying or McQueary is lying. </p>
<p>Trust me, I don’t care who you’re defending. All I’m saying is if they’re lying, they have passed from making a poor judgement call to bordering evil.</p>
<p>" But now is the time to set aside their selfishness, and do what they can to help this investigation. Instead, they are more worried about their own reputations. "</p>
<p>This is a wonderful, idealized statement. Stand up, tell the truth, help law enforcement. Some here on this CC site believe that way. But have people here on this thread read other threads about simpler things? I’ve read pages and pages of advice on how to get out of traffic tickets! Don’t admit guilt! Deny, deny, deny, get an attorney to deny, get an attorney to negotiate… etc., 100 ways to avoid taking consequences. For something as simple and common as a traffic citation, many people on CC advise to avoid consequences through any means; not fighting to show innocence, but fighting to avoid consequences of guilty actions. Do people on this thread truly believe all Penn St. parties really will tell the full truth about all they know about this alleged scandal?? Seriously?</p>