JVP FACTS
Posted: February 10th, 2013, 2:27 pm
IF YOU WANT TO TALK STRICTLY AND EXPRESSLY ABOUT FACTS RATHER THAN THE FREEH OR THORNBURG REPORTS, TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT EXACTLY WHAT JVP SAID IN JVP'S GRAND JURY PRESENTMENT FROM JANUARY 12, 2011...Most of this was taken from an editorial which was published today from D. Jones of the Harrisburg Patriot...
After the senile old man tried gladhanding the Grand Jury inviting them to his house for dinner to talk this thing over, he took his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...then he spoke. For roughly 7 minutes.
In his sworn presentment, JVP acknowledges Mike McQueary told him directly that Jerry Sandusky "was fondling... a young boy" in the Lasch Building showers. Those are Paterno's words. They are not indicative of "some amorphous incident" as former FBI special agent Jim Clemente termed McQueary's description to Paterno on Outside The Lines.
Paterno also said this:
"Obviously, he (Sandusky) was doing something with the youngster. It was of a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was. I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset."
Of a sexual nature. Fondling a young boy. McQueary very upset.
These are not speculative terms or muddy thirdhand conclusions provided by an investigator.
These are Joe Paterno's words, given under oath. Exactly what is ambiguous about them?
Yet, JVP, the self proclaimed last bastian of moral and ethical superiority, felt that his proper course of action was to wait until the following week to inform his "superiors" so as not to "interfere with their weekends" and then sat by and watched as Sandusky strutted around Penn State unimpeded for the next decade plus. JVP even included Jer in his travel parties to bowl games and allowed him to bring his victims to PSU football practices.
No matter what Paterno's apologists offer up as rationalization for his inaction, they always divert or equivocate in response to this question:
If Paterno had heard such a story about his own grandson in a shower with Sandusky, what do you think would have happened?
Some skeptics might say he was so arrogant, so drunk with power, so overly concerned with his own manufactured image and reputation that he would even sacrifice the innocence of his own grandson to protect the PSU football brand name as well as his own self righteous reputation. Others would say that preposterous.
Either way, I never get a straight answer from PSU cultsists when I ask that question.
The best they can come up with is, "Well, Joe is the only one of the bunch who admitted he should have done more." Then, I say, yes, that's correct, he should've done more. A LOT MORE.
And history will judge Joesph Vincent Paterno in consort with that assessment.
It is a rational assessment. It's based on JVP's own testimony. It can't be undone. It won't be undone.
Nor should it be undone.
It is a real life, truthful, sworn example of just the type of man JVP was.
After the senile old man tried gladhanding the Grand Jury inviting them to his house for dinner to talk this thing over, he took his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...then he spoke. For roughly 7 minutes.
In his sworn presentment, JVP acknowledges Mike McQueary told him directly that Jerry Sandusky "was fondling... a young boy" in the Lasch Building showers. Those are Paterno's words. They are not indicative of "some amorphous incident" as former FBI special agent Jim Clemente termed McQueary's description to Paterno on Outside The Lines.
Paterno also said this:
"Obviously, he (Sandusky) was doing something with the youngster. It was of a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was. I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset."
Of a sexual nature. Fondling a young boy. McQueary very upset.
These are not speculative terms or muddy thirdhand conclusions provided by an investigator.
These are Joe Paterno's words, given under oath. Exactly what is ambiguous about them?
Yet, JVP, the self proclaimed last bastian of moral and ethical superiority, felt that his proper course of action was to wait until the following week to inform his "superiors" so as not to "interfere with their weekends" and then sat by and watched as Sandusky strutted around Penn State unimpeded for the next decade plus. JVP even included Jer in his travel parties to bowl games and allowed him to bring his victims to PSU football practices.
No matter what Paterno's apologists offer up as rationalization for his inaction, they always divert or equivocate in response to this question:
If Paterno had heard such a story about his own grandson in a shower with Sandusky, what do you think would have happened?
Some skeptics might say he was so arrogant, so drunk with power, so overly concerned with his own manufactured image and reputation that he would even sacrifice the innocence of his own grandson to protect the PSU football brand name as well as his own self righteous reputation. Others would say that preposterous.
Either way, I never get a straight answer from PSU cultsists when I ask that question.
The best they can come up with is, "Well, Joe is the only one of the bunch who admitted he should have done more." Then, I say, yes, that's correct, he should've done more. A LOT MORE.
And history will judge Joesph Vincent Paterno in consort with that assessment.
It is a rational assessment. It's based on JVP's own testimony. It can't be undone. It won't be undone.
Nor should it be undone.
It is a real life, truthful, sworn example of just the type of man JVP was.
