Thanks man and sorry if I offended you. Not my intention. I'm fortunate because my parents are able to help me.
ESPiN hypocrisy is numbing!!!
- Thread starter PennStateNate
- Start date
Thanks man and sorry if I offended you. Not my intention. I'm fortunate because my parents are able to help me.
Haven't read Joe's statement in a while, but re-reading it now, it's just amazing how perfectly appropriate his words were in a situation that demanded such wisdom and leadership.
As I said, lots of blame is to go around, but PSU did most of the damage to itself.
You still don't get it. You have someone representing the university in Sandusky who allegedly (at the time) was engaged in inappropriate (at best) acts with a minor. If you hear this as a university official, you should turn this over to police immediately. Too much risk involved not to. And look at us now... we got screwed because of it.
The media didn't create the association with the football program. It was a fact. Former coach, assistant coach, head coach, AD... all were involved in the chain.
C/S/S/P were big boys. They knew the risks associated with their strategy. Unfortunately for them, their families, and PSU it came back to bite them. It is unexplainable how these educated men, who always appeared to choose to "do the right thing" in their history, got this so wrong.
Even if MM simply said "horsing around" they needed to report it to authorities (especially in light of 1998). There was too much downside risk not to, and yet they chose to put themselves and the entire University community at that risk. Why?
What was the potential reward? To protect Jerry's reputation? To protect fund-raising? To protect the glory of Dear Old State? The football programs image? What other upside was there? In any scenario, they made a bad decision for which all Penn Staters are paying the price. The risk outweighed the reward.
Leaders are paid to make intelligent decisions based on these types of analyses. They got it horribly wrong and failed as leaders of the University.
C/S/S/P were big boys. They knew the risks associated with their strategy. Unfortunately for them, their families, and PSU it came back to bite them. It is unexplainable how these educated men, who always appeared to choose to "do the right thing" in their history, got this so wrong.
Even if MM simply said "horsing around" they needed to report it to authorities (especially in light of 1998). There was too much downside risk not to, and yet they chose to put themselves and the entire University community at that risk. Why?
What was the potential reward? To protect Jerry's reputation? To protect fund-raising? To protect the glory of Dear Old State? The football programs image? What other upside was there? In any scenario, they made a bad decision for which all Penn Staters are paying the price. The risk outweighed the reward.
Leaders are paid to make intelligent decisions based on these types of analyses. They got it horribly wrong and failed as leaders of the University.
getmyjive11 said:
You still don't get it. He was not representing the university, and you lose all credibility when you make that statement. Also, no one was told of inappropriate acts with a minor. The University officials acted appropriately given the watered down, untimely hearsay they received. Not one of them will ever be convicted of a crime. The BOT screwed us.
How about you tell us why you are so motivated to pin some sort of guilt on to JVP and C/S/S, who did exactly what they were supposed to do, instead of shining the spotlight on the "professionals" at DPW/CYS/TSM that actually failed those kids?
The downside for you, and your post, is that Paterno followed policy in 2001. He also followed policy had it happened the same way in 2016. Schultz' office, BTW, was described as being the top officer of campus police. What Schultz did, or did not do, we don't know. Why? Four years later, he still hasn't had a trial and we don't know his side of the story.
Just to round it out, MM said Joe came back to him several times to ask if everything was OK in regards to the incident. Since Joe didn't witness anything, that is all he could do under the law. The same is true of Curley. So in the end, if there is blame, it falls on MM and Scultz. But we'll see once we hear what they have to say.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
You really are a special kind of stupid aren't you Seth????
bwifan
Well-Known Member
I think it's explainable in that I believe that they really thought, deep down, that Jerry didn't commit a crime. I think it's reasonable to conclude (based on everything that we know) that they thought it was a big misunderstanding, that it was Jerry goofing around, that Jerry would never hurt a child, etc. Basically, they were giving him the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of the 1998 situation where he was accused of something and it turned out to be false (based on the info known in 2001). After talking and getting Courtney's take on things, they determined that the best course of action was just to let 2nd Mile know, talk to Jerry and tell him that it would be inappropriate to have any more kids in this situation, and close the book on things.
Joe/Tim/Gary/Graham all made a terrible mistake, but I believe it was all rooted in the fact that they thought that Jerry's actions were inappropriate, but not illegal (or in Joe's case, he felt that he was doing the right thing in passing things along to Schultz/Spanier, even if they were illegal so that they could investigate). I don't buy the whole "protect the football program" or "protect the donors" angle.
Last edited:
No, I'm saying that there is a very high likelihood that Paterno and McQueary compared notes not too long before Joe testified before the Grand Jury.
A) Of course I agree, going online and telling people how much you're making is douchebaggery at it's finest
B) You could also take some of that advice, bragging about how you made 68k at your part time job
C) 68k is pretty damn good for an entry level job. And if he can't live on 68k, then he's got bigger problems. It's pretty ridiculous to act like 68k a year is "nothing" when there are millions upon millions of people that work their ass off year after year and never see close to that much money.
Now you are trying to have it both ways. Do you want these people to follow policy, or not? Clearly, you can see that what was in front of Joe wasn't your standard decision on what to do with a kid that got a DUI or into a fight. Once it was turned over, BY LAW, Joe couldn't do more than he did or he was violating the law. As I said, this was up to MM to push it (if he was sure of what he saw) and Curley to push it (as this was his responsibility). What Curley or Joe did, really doesn't matter.
That's a good question. I think that Mike thought that a crime was committed, didn't feel comfortable talking about what he saw, and gave what he believed was enough detail to the others so that they also knew that a crime was committed. However, in hindsight, he didn't actually give them enough so that they knew that a crime was committed (either that, or they simply wanted to give Jerry the benefit of the doubt and felt that it must have been a big misunderstanding and there is no way that Mike actually saw what he thought he saw).
So if what McQueary described to Joe, Curley, and Schultz didn't cross the threshold of being a crime, how did they make an error of judgement by not reporting it?
I've already stated that I think he described some type of crime to Joe (based on Joe's own words). I feel like C/S/S heard enough that they should have at least reported it to the police to have them take a look at things to make sure that nothing happened (unless Mike watered things down an inexplicable amount) . I don't feel that they committed any type of crime or anything by not reporting it, but the three of them weren't the ones that were best equipped to investigate something like that to confirm that a crime wasn't committed. It's just the type of situation where a "better safe than sorry" approach would have certainly done everyone a lot of good.
Agreed...and by "they" you mean Schultz who owned campus police and had ultimate responsibility. And, to your point, we don't know what Schultz did or did not do, at this point, because he hasn't been tried.
Really? So if McQueary told Schultz and Curley that all he saw was Jerry and a young boy taking a shower circa 9:00 PM and maybe running around snapping towels at each other, it goes to the police for investigation? I don't think so.
It looks very self serving for them to just pass on taking this to the police.
We know that McQueary didn't tell Joe that he witnessed rape of a young boy. His description, by his own admission, was not graphic. Isn't it possible that he goes to Curley and Schultz with the same degree of lack of specificity and, on further questioning, they all agree, McQueary included, that he didn't see anything other than "horsing around?"
If someone believes they have witnessed a crime, they should, by all means, go to the police. For me to go, they have to make me believe that they witnessed a crime. Sicking the police on someone is serious business.
I give them the benefit of the doubt and think that it was more "lapse in judgment" than "self serving". Reading the Clemente report, it seems like this was the type of situation where Jerry built up such a good reputation that others felt there was no way that this really could have happened and it must be a big misunderstanding. And as I've said before, I hope the "good" that can come out of this is that more people might look at a similar situation and see it for what it is, rather than getting fooled.
And McQueary is such an upstanding guy that we take whatever he said as gospel? Sure, elvis.
If MM thought a crime had been committed why didn't he ever file a written statement to UPPD? Talking to a football coach and some college admins isn't going to get a formal criminal investigation started. However if he wasn't really sure what was going on in the shower but was weirded out then it makes perfect sense.
If MM thought he saw a crime why didn't he express dissatisfaction or ask that MORE be done when Curley called him a few weeks later to follow up with PSU's action plan?
MM's dad and Dranov never would have recommended he sleep on it then tell a fb coach the next day if he thought a crime happened. In fact JM testified at the 12/11/16 prelim (re: JM's meeting with Schultz a few months later) that MM never reported a crime:
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.
Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?
A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
Q: You never used the phase anal sex with Mr. Schultz?
A: Absolutely not
Q: Or the word rape?
A: Not at all
Q: Or the word sodomy?
A: No, not at all
Q: Or the phrase sexual assault?
A: No, not at all
Q: How about the word fondling?
A: I don’t think I would have used it because I didn’t see it. I would be saying what I was told, but I don’t think I would have used fondling.
Q: I apologize for this, but in the discussion with Mr. Schultz did you describe to Mr. Schultz the action of Mr. Sandusky thrusting his groin into a young boy’s rear end?
A: No
Q: Did Mike tell you that?
A: And Mike never said that
============================
In the same prelim There's also this from MM re: his meeting with Joe:
Page 72 and on:
Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?
A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.
Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?
A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.
Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No
Pg. 74: Q: And you went to Coach Paterno in lieu of, not in addition to, going to police that night?
A: I went to coach Paterno first
Q: Okay, did you go to police that day of – the day you spoke to Mr. Paterno?
A: No
Q: Did you go the next day?
A: No I did not
Q: Did you make any conclusion to Coach Paterno about what was happening
A: Yes, it was extremely sexual, yes
Q: Did you say extremely sexual in nature?
A: In nature?
Q: Yes
A: I can’t remember if I said the word in nature or not ma’am. I don’t know that
Q: Did you ever use the word fondling?
A: I’m sure I did to help describe what I was seeing. I’m sure I did use the word fondling, yes ma’am
Q: Okay, did you see any type of fondling with Mr. Sandusky’s hands on the boy?
A: No, I’ve already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy, that I could not see his hands. The bodies were blocking --
Q: Okay
A: -- his hands so I cannot say that I saw Mr. Sandusky’s hands on a boy’s genitals, no ma’am.
Q: So you can’t – how would you describe fondling, I’m sort of confused here
A: Fondling is touching someone in a sexual way. I don’t know if that’s the exact definition, but that’s what my definition is.
Q: Okay, so that’s what you thought you saw
A: Yes ma’am.
Q: Okay
A: without a doubt
Q: Okay, now when you talked with Mr. Paterno and he told you what he was going to do, he was going to – did he tell you what he was going to do?
A: Yes ma’am. As I already stated, he said that he needed to think and contact some other people and that he would get back to me.
Q: Okay, and did you ask Coach Paterno if those other people meant the police?
A: No ma’am. I did not ask him that.
Q: And did you say to Coach Paterno, coach, I really appreciate it and I also think we should call the police
A: No, I did not
"Once it was turned over, BY LAW, Joe couldn't do more than he did or he was violating the law."
Serious question. What law would be violated by reporting this to the police?
Sure, that's possible. However I think it's very, very unlikely (it would be one thing if it were just Mike's testimony, but we also have Joe's words to back up some of Mike's story). I don't think that Mike witnessed the rape of a young boy or told anyone that he witnessed a rape, and he was obviously much less graphic in his description of what he saw. My hope would be that if he were put in front of a police officer instead of guys that he knew (and as being much higher up the chain than him, may well have been uncomfortable in front of), that he would have given a much clearer version of what he actually saw that night.
In Joe's mind, and in Schultz title description, it calls Schultz the "head of campus police". They took down that web site but I actually captured it as a .pdf. Joe could ask, but anything specific to the investigation had to be kept confidential in these kinds of cases at that time. Joe wasn't a witness and only passed along that someone else was a witness. After that, Joe was out of it.
Its like if you saw someone get assaulted in your company parking lot. You are shocked and don't report it right away. You call your boss and tell him what you saw. The boss calls in the police (in this case, PSU police) and off they go. At that point, it is between MM (a 26 year old adult) and the the police (in this case, PSU police).
Am I correct, from reading your answer, that there is no LAW preventing the report to police?
Grown man. Naked. Young boy. Naked. At night. In shower.
If it never occurred to C/S/S/P that there was the possibility of something sinister going on, especially after 1998, then they must be dumber than a fencepost. They had a responsibility to the University and to the community to report it to authorities so that a proper investigation could take place. Instead,they chose to be "humane" to Jerry which put the University at risk. Bad decision by all. Which is why they got discharged.
If it never occurred to C/S/S/P that there was the possibility of something sinister going on, especially after 1998, then they must be dumber than a fencepost. They had a responsibility to the University and to the community to report it to authorities so that a proper investigation could take place. Instead,they chose to be "humane" to Jerry which put the University at risk. Bad decision by all. Which is why they got discharged.
But Joe wasn't "out of it". Curley consulted him later as to the plan of action.
The admins didn't witness anything. The only person who could file a police report was MM and he NEVER did. And yet you want to blame the admins for that failiure. Yeah, that makes perfect logical sense!!
What if it could be proven that Harmon (who had intimate knowledge of the 1998 incident-moreso than Schultz) was told by Schultz about 2001, would that shut you up?
There's a good reason why freeh never even spoke to harmon and never included the body of the email Schultz sent to Harmon on monday 2/11/01 in which freeh included Harmons response confirming they had the 98 file on record.
That being the case, MM still never filed a written statement to UPPD and since he never did there really wasn't much else the admins could do besides what they did-revoke guest privileges, confront JS, report incident and new directives to TSM. By the way the one and only witness was perfectly happy with this course of action since he never expressed dissatisfaction or said more needed to be done.
Last edited:
You don't know that nor do you know the scope of that conversation. Curley simply said that he spoke to Joe and, since then, formulated a plan of action. Joe simply could have been asked to provide context and/or background on MM. He could also have learned the story he told Joe, at that time, differed substantially from what he told Curley/Schultz (et all).
You don't know...nor do I. Not until the trials.
How is TSM, who were in charge of JS access to kids and REQUIRED to look into any and all incidents and inform CYS if need be, not the "authorities"? They were certainly considered child welfare authorities that's for damned sure.
If anything, I think that 1998 could have played a role in making them LESS likely to report it. I think the memory of 1998 (with a similar situation where Jerry was in a shower with a young boy and it turned out to be nothing*) made them think that "here we go again, someone else thinks Jerry is doing something wrong when he's probably just goofing around again". I think it's logical to think that clearing him in 1998 played some part in him getting away with the 2001 incident and c/s/s not wanting to go down that road and report him again.
* - based on what they knew in 2001
