<p>“that doesn’t give him unconditional power by no means.”</p>
<p>No one was suggesting he had unconditional power. We’re talking about whether he had the power to decide whose office remained in the football building. If this were a story about firing an engineering professor or something like that, it would be unconditional power.</p>
<p>I also agree with what parent57 has had to say. The direction this thread has taken mirrors the media frenzy and the national pulse as people rush to judgement without hearing all the facts.</p>
<p>We have all read the same grand jury report. These are the facts pulled together after questioning many people so that charges could be made. The DA also made their opinions known by stating who they found credible and who they did not.</p>
<p>People have run with the grand jury report and connected the dots with their own opinions on how things have played out. Many of these connections are now made to sound like facts because so many people have repeated them. </p>
<p>I want to hear from each and everyone of them what they knew and when they knew it before I condem them. It’s easy yo get caught up. I find myself getting caaught up and have to stop myself. I want the facts. Not your guesses at connecting the dots.</p>
<p>Again thank you to parent57.</p>
<p>Here is an article explaining some ideas on if Mcqueary can be seen as a whistleblower
<a href=“http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7219659/penn-state-assistant-coach-whistleblower-protection-reporting-sandusky-alleged-incident[/url]”>http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7219659/penn-state-assistant-coach-whistleblower-protection-reporting-sandusky-alleged-incident</a></p>
<p>“i read about how the grad assistant is being looked at as a whistleblower. This makes no sense to me. He witnessed this act in 2002 and did not go to the police. It took a mother, a victim, the school system and finally the police to bring this to an investigation 7 years later.”</p>
<p>This is true.</p>
<p>How did the DA find out about McQuery? I do not see that anywhere in the report</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is what we all want. I doubt, however, that this is what we will get. I don’t think we are going to hear all that much about what happened, really. My sense, anyway, is that everyone was just kind of trying to pass this off like a hot potato to somebody else as fast as they could. Nobody really wanted to “touch it.”</p>
<p>And, ultimately, I think that’s what we will find. </p>
<p>The grad student obviously was bothered by what he did or did not do and has had second thoughts and is attempting to do his best to correct his past failure to act. This is much better than what he could have done. Still, had the last boy’s mother not gone to CPS with her child, after having been discouraged to go to them by the high school, none of this would even be being investigated. </p>
<p>So, good for her and good for her for listening to her son and good for him for having the guts to speak out.</p>
<p>As for the tone of the conversation, I hope nobody ever feels insulted by me, ever. But, I think parent 57 and I have had a civil discussion throughout, about the issues.</p>
<p>“How did the DA find out about McQuery? I do not see that anywhere in the report”</p>
<p>I would assume that McQuery came up during the investigation that took place when the high school (Superintendent) reported what it knew. People would have been questioned at that time.</p>
<p>When Sandusky was confronted he apologized, said he wished he was dead, and refused to say he would not do it again. Sounds like a lot of self-loathing there (well deserved, I know).</p>
<p>The man may be walking around with a death wish. I can’t believe he isn’t in protective custody.</p>
<p>If you think members of the thread are jumping to conclusions, there are ways to express that criticism besides calling fellow posters a lynch mob without a rope. It’s an ad hominem attack, and it is the furthest thing from a civil tone. Even if we’re all wrong, discussing opinions about a case in the news has nothing in common with acts of violence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps it is the sarcasm (as in “who even dare to suggest”) and the sanctimonious tone that raises the ire of many. I, for one, have no problem when JHS says we should let the legal process go forward. Yes, let Sandusky have his day in court. I happen to feel, however, that it is very likely that he has committed unspeakable acts, just as I am very sure that OJ Simpson murdered his wife. And when someone “informs” me that OJ was acquitted, I do not react well. So be it. As for Paterno, he should have taken the moral high ground and resigned immediately after release of the grand jury presentment. Instead, he tried to hold onto his lucrative sinecure.</p>
<p>“The man may be walking around with a death wish. I can’t believe he isn’t in protective custody.”</p>
<p>You make a good point regarding Sandusky, considering McQuery has had death threats.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sax, it isn’t necessary for a whistleblower to make a report to an outside agency. Reporting a violation to one’s own employer is sufficient to be deemed a whistleblower:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law](<a href=“http://www.wolfbaldwin.com/attorneys_lawyers/articles.asp?ArticleID=28&Page=PA_employee_whistleblower_whistle_blower_law_Pennsylvania.asp]The”>http://www.wolfbaldwin.com/attorneys_lawyers/articles.asp?ArticleID=28&Page=PA_employee_whistleblower_whistle_blower_law_Pennsylvania.asp)</p>
<p>ohiomom. Facts. Not assumptions.</p>
<p>sk8rmom. Thanks for that link. I get it now.</p>
<p>During the Grand Jury investigation, Curley told the grand jury that McQueary told him that he saw Sandusky “horsing around” with the boy. That’s how McQueary got called.</p>
<p>According to the presentment, McQueary told the grand jury that he told Curley he had seen what he believed to be anal sex. The grand jury believed McQueary.</p>
<p>
Tom dont know … but good question.</p>
<p>
ohiomom why do you make that assumption?</p>
<p>How would the school or mother know about McQuery?</p>
<p>If it comes out that Paterno was told that the 2002 incident was reported to CPS do you see his actions in a different light?</p>
<p>Tom, I just don’t think Paterno wanted to “deal with it.” Unlike others, I don’t think that makes him an “evil man,” but I do think it makes him less than the legend he has been made out to be, by far.</p>
<p>I don’t think he is legally culpable. I do believe he is going to have a hard time living with this now that he can’t distract himself with work.</p>
<p>ETA: I dont hold him primarily responsible, either, though. He’s just the shakesperean Lear figure in this tragedy. IMHO. He is the most interesting of those responsible because of his “integrity and honor.” etc…</p>
<p>But, he’s not primarily responsible.</p>
<p>“ohiomom. Facts. Not assumptions.”</p>
<p>The fact is questions are asked during investigations of child abuse and an investigation took place after the high school Superintendent reported allegations of abuse in 2009 and there has been an ongoing investigation for 3 years in which may facts have come to light, including McQuery’s involvement.</p>
<p>“During the Grand Jury investigation, Curley told the grand jury that McQueary told him that he saw Sandusky “horsing around” with the boy. That’s how McQueary got called.” - chocololic</p>
<p>In other words, "It came up during the investigation that took place when the high school (Superintendent) reported what it knew. People would have been questioned at that time.”</p>
<p>Sorry I did not know specifically it was Curley. Thank you choloholic.</p>
<p>The mother went to CPS before the superintendent, which might explain why he/she was not able to get any information from them.</p>
<p>Again - how did the super know about McQuery?</p>
<p>poet I agree that most likely Paterno did not want to deal with it and his I should have done more could have meant I should have called CPS. But what if was told that CPS was called. Curly and Schultz were not known liars. In fact it is reasonable to believe that Schultz would have contacts with CPS that Paterno would not have had.</p>