<p>Of course not. But if you are in the receiving end of a vague conversation, it is easy to assume something similar until it is spelled out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a case the devil is in the details. What did the GA say exactly? How did he describe what he had seen to paterno? Was he explicit about the extent of physical contact? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly. And this is where the man’s accomplishment and credibility comes in. How we perceive. I don’t know him. We don’t follow football at all. From what I read so far since the other day impresses me that Paterno was squeaky clean. Winning in a rightful manner was important to him. To suddenly think him as someone for whom winning is everything that he covered up a grave crime? I don’t get that. To me, it’s more plausible to think there was miscommunication between GA and Paterno.</p>
<p>Seems to me, if someone came to my house upset and told me about something like that, I think my response would be, “What? What do you mean? You saw WHAT? No, you must be mistaken. Tell me EXACTLY what you saw. EXACTLY.” </p>
<p>Hard to believe the GA left it at “I saw something of a sexual nature…”</p>
<p>Or that Paterno allowed him to leave it that way.</p>
<p>Please remember that a grand jury only hears the evidence provided by the prosecutor. There is no defense evidence at all.</p>
<p>If you have a strong opinion about this situation, reflect on how much of it is based on specific facts that were provided by only one person. That should give one some pause.</p>
<p>I am of opinion GA told Paterno EXACTLY what happened…Paterno,being from a generation where the word ‘anal’ was likley rarely uttered,coukdn’t bring himself you to use the EXACT words the GA used whne Paterno met with AD and VP, so he used differnet terminology…</p>
<p>“Legally, what this says is that the graduate assistant told Paterno he saw a boy, estimated age of 10, being anally raped in the shower. There isn’t doubt about this . . .”</p>
<p>There is doubt about this. Paterno said that McQuery (the GA) was not specific.</p>
<p>McQeary was VERY specific to the grand jury, however.</p>
<p>Very difficult to understand how a 28-year-old man could witness an assault on a 10-year-old boy and not intervene.</p>
<p>There are moments in life in which the application of physical force is justified.</p>
<p>geeps - Oh, sure, bad enough. Still much better in that victims will recover easier than a physical penetration. Besides, that would have been nothing new unfortunately.</p>
<p>"Hard to believe the GA left it at ‘I saw something of a sexual nature…’</p>
<p>Or that Paterno allowed him to leave it that way. "</p>
<p>Agree - Wouldn’t it makes sense for Paterno to demand to know exactly what McQeary saw? How else would he know what to report - other than to insist that McQueary report what he saw directly to the police?</p>
<p>I also don’t understand all this “wait until the next day” stuff.</p>
<p>^^I have asked the same thing in earlier posts…what kind of leader doesn’t clarify what exactly is being reported. even if McQueary was initally vague, which I don’t personally believe, it was Paterno and then Schultz, Curly and Spanier to ask the tough questions. </p>
<p>How does Spanier support their handling of the situation without knowing the facts. Sorry I have disdain for this sick form of leadership. They want the glory of their power but none of the responsibility.</p>
<p>the really scary thought I have had is what if they all did know it was exactly what it was and still felt, it’s not really that awful.</p>
<p>AP reporting President Graham Spanier is likely to be fired or ‘resign’ by the end of today.</p>
<p>According the the AP:</p>
<p>“The Express-Times reports that Spanier was made aware of then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary’s witness account of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky allegedly sexually assaulting a boy in the Penn State locker room. Spanier did not involve police, according to grand jury testimony.”</p>
<p>If McQuerry just told Paterno in ‘vague’ terms, then why did Paterno even feel the need to go to Curley and Schulz, and to top that off, why did C & S feel the need to have further discussion with McQuerry?</p>
<p>A few more days will not make much difference in a case that is decades overdue. On the other hand, the “wait a day” is also what allowed one to reach numbers that include 409. </p>
<p>In a way, one could hope that “somebody” would find it justifiable to erase some of the PSU record, and reverse the celebrations of a few weeks ago. </p>
<p>But yet again, this is football. The terms Legends and Leaders are quickly becoming even more farcical than when theuy were unveiled.</p>
<p>Or maybe everyone wanted to hear what they wanted to hear when there is a $70 million a year football program at stake.</p>
<p>“A few more days will not make much difference in a case that is decades overdue. On the other hand, the “wait a day” is also what allowed one to reach numbers that include 409.” Ouch!</p>
<p>Just what Paterno said he knew about it and did nothing should lead to his firing. He knew that in his words, fondling or other sexual things, were occurring between an older man and young boys. Even if he didn’t know about the rapes, is sexual molestation without rape ok in anyone’s book except a pervert’s:? </p>
<p>I would much rather hear about gifts to prospective players or other recruiting scandals than this kind of behavior. I don’t understand the GA’s behavior at all. When my husband and I were discussing this last night, while I was bemoaning who sees such a thing and doesn’t call the police, he said, what kind of man sees such a thing and doesn’t pummel the offender? Paterno allowed this Sandusky character and his ‘charity’ to even come to the campus this last weekend. He was still bringing around boys long after 2002, even if not in the shower. Its as if the college management and football coaching staff seemed to think that removing shower access would remove all opportunities for molestation.</p>
<p>To anyone interested in considering other sides of a story before jumping to conclusions, I suggest giving this a read.</p>
<h2>Thoughts from an outsider</h2>
<p>First let me say that I’m sure some will disagree. Let me also say that I have no real horse in this race, as I don’t love or hate Penn State. However I do have some thoughts on this that I wanted to get out. This seemed the appropriate place.</p>
<p>Things that I don’t understand</p>
<p>I have been reading reaction on this scandal for three days. I’ve read almost every thread on this board and a host of articles from elsewhere. Each and every talking head that I’ve heard is in favor of the entire thing being blown up. It’s almost mob-like at this point.</p>
<p>There are lots of things that people are missing, though, at least in my opinion.</p>
<p>My first issue is with people filling in facts on their own. I’ve read the grand jury presentment. There is a lot of good information there, but there are many holes, too…</p>