FC/SIAP: Former OAG Prosecutors testified about V2, grand jury leaks today (link)

[UncleLar]

well, for one, somebody has to explain why his father, mother and neighbor didn't do anything substantive that evening or years later. And, that leads to why Schultz and Curley didn't do much either. You've got five erstwhile pillars of the community that did next to nothing.

MM having a wishy washy story is about the only thing that satisfies that scenario. (Also, BTW, one has to consider that MM didn't see anything directly, but saw what he saw through a mirror).

I'm not sure what the mirror has to do with anything. Even if he did, a locker room mirror isn't like a fun house, it's not going to distort anything.

Not sure what you mean by a "wishy washy" story? If you mean one where he doesn't go into explicit detail, then certainly his story was "wishy washy". As far as doing anything substantive, perhaps one reason I side with McQueary is a realization that his actual actions are probably exactly what I, and I'm willing to bet, 90% of the other people would do under similar circumstances (if they even do anything). I worked for a large multi-national corporation. Back then, if I had walked into a corporate locker room and saw a respected executive in the company engaged in questionable behavior with a youth, the last thing on my mind would have been to call the cops. I'd have probably made a noise just like McQueary did, then I'd maybe call my boss looking for advice or maybe corporate security, which is basically what Dranov and McQueary senior recommended doing. That's just the way things were handled back then.

The one thing that I hope people take away from this mess is that the first call probably should be to the authorities. Unfortunately, given the way that McQueary has been treated, I fear the exact opposite lesson is the one being taught, i.e. close your eyes, forget you saw anything and get the hell out of there because if you don't your life is ruined.

 

[UncleLar]

funny, the SWIGJ who heard his testimony didn't find Mike credible

neither did the trial jury on the IDSI charge, and that was WITH 3 rebuttal witnesses throttled

Quite the contrary. They didn't dismiss the charge because they didn't believe what McQueary stated. He stated he didn't see penetration. They simply believed that without seeing penetration there wasn't enough evidence to support a conviction. Now if McQueary had testified that he saw penetration and the jury found Sandusky not guilty, then I would say that they didn't believe him.

 

[Bobpsu]

Nobody. I'm voicing my opinion just like everyone else here. The only difference is that I'll typically back my statements up with supportive links, while many others simply blow smoke with claims that they can't back.

Must not be a lawyer if you can backup your claims. We
Are

 

[francofan]

Yep...MM isn't credible unless corroborated with a ton of creepy stores from people claiming to be victims. Especially if you are aware of all the machinations that went on in 1998 only to find there wasn't enough to press charges.

MM's credibility stands on its own. Newsflash - there are not a ton of creepy stories from credible people claiming to be victims, unless you are counting people like Matt Sandusky, Anthony Spinelli, John Doe 150, and John Doe 71 as credible. Even Ray Blehar who is convinced that Sandusky is a pedophile finds v5, v9, and v10's trial testimony flawed. If there is a retrial, I believe the accuser with the most credibility is Aaron Fisher and my understanding is that there is a ton of impeachment material that could be used against him. I just don't see the overwhelming evidence of CSA. The PCRA evidentiary hearings have shown to me that Sandusky didn't have a chance in his trial and that his trial was patently unfair. If there is a new trial, and I realize that that is a huge if; I like Sandusky's chances for exoneration or at least a release on time served. Please remind me, just what did Sandusky do that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Based on my current understanding of the facts and evidence, there is real doubt that far exceeds the reasonable doubt standard.

 

[LundyPSU]

I'm not sure what the mirror has to do with anything. Even if he did, a locker room mirror isn't like a fun house, it's not going to distort anything.

Not sure what you mean by a "wishy washy" story? If you mean one where he doesn't go into explicit detail, then certainly his story was "wishy washy". As far as doing anything substantive, perhaps one reason I side with McQueary is a realization that his actual actions are probably exactly what I, and I'm willing to bet, 90% of the other people would do under similar circumstances (if they even do anything). I worked for a large multi-national corporation. Back then, if I had walked into a corporate locker room and saw a respected executive in the company engaged in questionable behavior with a youth, the last thing on my mind would have been to call the cops. I'd have probably made a noise just like McQueary did, then I'd maybe call my boss looking for advice or maybe corporate security, which is basically what Dranov and McQueary senior recommended doing. That's just the way things were handled back then.

The one thing that I hope people take away from this mess is that the first call probably should be to the authorities. Unfortunately, given the way that McQueary has been treated, I fear the exact opposite lesson is the one being taught, i.e. close your eyes, forget you saw anything and get the hell out of there because if you don't your life is ruined.

So why exactly is Mike's life ruined right now? It isn't because of what he has done from 2010 forward. It is what he didn't do from that night in 2001 until investigators approached him in 2010.

 

[Aoshiro]

I worked for a large multi-national corporation. Back then, if I had walked into a corporate locker room and saw a respected executive in the company engaged in questionable behavior with a youth, the last thing on my mind would have been to call the cops. I'd have probably made a noise just like McQueary did, then I'd maybe call my boss looking for advice or maybe corporate security, which is basically what Dranov and McQueary senior recommended doing.

Wow. That's quite an admission. And it goes a long way towards explaining why you find Mike credible.
But no. Normal people do not witness an adult having sex with a child and turn and walk away, leaving the child with the adult.
And normal medical professionals, upon hearing that someone has seen an adult having sex with a child, do not advise the witness to wait until the morning and call the football coach.

No. Absolutely not.

So either
a) the McQuearys are the most despicable people in State College, or maybe even Pennsylvania; or
b) Mike is lying about what he told people in 2001.

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

My biggest issue with MM isn't that he was used by corrupt prosecutors but that he ALLOWED himself to be used and when he figured out that he was being used, he never spoke up to correct the record (re: the FALSE GJP), offered an apology, etc..

His 2010 statement to OAG that he was certain sodomy was occurring (or that it looked like it was occurring) and reported it as such to PSU admins/Joe is completely in-congruent with his and everyone else's actions in 2001 and MM's other testimony, especially his testimony during the 12/16/11 prelim where he said he wasn't 100% sure what was occurring bc he couldn't really see anything (hands/privates/etc.) and when TC called him a few weeks later to follow up he never expressed dissatisfaction or said that MORE needed to be done besides informing TSM and revoking JS' guest privileges.

So this means that according to his 2010 statement and subsequent testimony MM was 99.999% sure JS was raping a kid (based on the sounds and positioning he observed), he told some college admins this and when MM noticed JS was never arrested and questioned (or even had his access to kids restricted) he never once expressed dissatisfaction or said more needed to be done to ANYONE that he made his initial report to or anyone else....so, either MM is a terrible person for waiting 9 years to finally make a written statement to LE or he played revisionist history to try and save his own hide thus throwing everyone he told about 2001 under the bus.

If MM was certain that JS was sodomizing a boy or that it looked like that was happening based on the positioning he saw, why didn't he ever:
-file a police report
-ask Schultz to send someone from UPPD to get his statement
-place anonymous call to childline (if he was worried for some bizzare reason about telling the UPPD about this)
or
-express dissatisfaction or say more needed to be done when TC followed up with MM a few weeks later re: PSU's action plan??

IMO MM's main flaw was him playing revisionist history in 2010 by telling OAG that he reported certain abuse to PSU admins when in reality he wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing b/c he couldn't really see anything but was weirded out. MM's written statement and GJ testimony gave the OAG enough wiggle room to make the claim in the GJP that MM eye-witnessed a child rape and reported it as such to PSU admins.

All MM had to do was tell the truth and he didn't. Without MM's revisionist history the OAG had no way to tie everything to PSU b/c 1998 was fully investigated by everyone under the sun and the janitor stories weren't enough. MM's written statement and GJ testimony was the linchpin for the OAG's entire case against PSU.

MM was the tool the OAG needed to ensure the attention was directed to PSU instead of the real enablers you point out (TSM, CYS, OAG etc.).

"MM was the tool..." He certainly was a tool...

 

[Obliviax]

I'm not sure what the mirror has to do with anything. Even if he did, a locker room mirror isn't like a fun house, it's not going to distort anything.

Not sure what you mean by a "wishy washy" story? If you mean one where he doesn't go into explicit detail, then certainly his story was "wishy washy". As far as doing anything substantive, perhaps one reason I side with McQueary is a realization that his actual actions are probably exactly what I, and I'm willing to bet, 90% of the other people would do under similar circumstances (if they even do anything). I worked for a large multi-national corporation. Back then, if I had walked into a corporate locker room and saw a respected executive in the company engaged in questionable behavior with a youth, the last thing on my mind would have been to call the cops. I'd have probably made a noise just like McQueary did, then I'd maybe call my boss looking for advice or maybe corporate security, which is basically what Dranov and McQueary senior recommended doing. That's just the way things were handled back then.

The one thing that I hope people take away from this mess is that the first call probably should be to the authorities. Unfortunately, given the way that McQueary has been treated, I fear the exact opposite lesson is the one being taught, i.e. close your eyes, forget you saw anything and get the hell out of there because if you don't your life is ruined.

A mirror distorts depth perception and is less clear. This isn't a mystery. And, by the time he turned around, they were separated. They must move like the Indian on Josey Wales.

I am sympathetic to MM and understand his hesitancy on that day. Having said that, ten years? His father and neighbor are people of means. No action? Then to blame Schultz and Curley? Let them twist in the wind? Hard to believe.

 

[simons96]

Quite the contrary. They didn't dismiss the charge because they didn't believe what McQueary stated. He stated he didn't see penetration. They simply believed that without seeing penetration there wasn't enough evidence to support a conviction. Now if McQueary had testified that he saw penetration and the jury found Sandusky not guilty, then I would say that they didn't believe him.

uhm so why did the OAG charge Sandusky with IDSI for that incident?

you seriously have me baffled

 

[bdgan]

I'm not sure what the mirror has to do with anything. Even if he did, a locker room mirror isn't like a fun house, it's not going to distort anything.

Not sure what you mean by a "wishy washy" story? If you mean one where he doesn't go into explicit detail, then certainly his story was "wishy washy". As far as doing anything substantive, perhaps one reason I side with McQueary is a realization that his actual actions are probably exactly what I, and I'm willing to bet, 90% of the other people would do under similar circumstances (if they even do anything). I worked for a large multi-national corporation. Back then, if I had walked into a corporate locker room and saw a respected executive in the company engaged in questionable behavior with a youth, the last thing on my mind would have been to call the cops. I'd have probably made a noise just like McQueary did, then I'd maybe call my boss looking for advice or maybe corporate security, which is basically what Dranov and McQueary senior recommended doing. That's just the way things were handled back then.

The one thing that I hope people take away from this mess is that the first call probably should be to the authorities. Unfortunately, given the way that McQueary has been treated, I fear the exact opposite lesson is the one being taught, i.e. close your eyes, forget you saw anything and get the hell out of there because if you don't your life is ruined.

How has McQueary been treated?

John McQueary testified that his son didn't tell him specifics. Dranov testified that he asked MM three times if he witnessed anything sexual and got no answer. MM testified that he used soft language when talking to Joe and Joe testified that MM didn't get into details. Shultz & Curley testified that MM didn't tell them about anything sexual.

MM would have us believe that we should believe his dad and Dranov, half believe Paterno, and not believe Curley & Shultz. That's pretty fishy, don't you think? I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to question what MM really told people. I think it's reasonable for people to ask why MM didn't do more himself (not just when he witnessed the incident but later when he realized that nobody reported this to police. Same with his father and Dranov.

His story sure seems "wishy washy" to me but now he says that he made sure that Joe, Curley, & Shultz knew about sexual abuse. John McQueary even said that he didn't testify at a perjury trail. Are you kidding? There are a lot of inconsistencies and some people are calling him out on that. Why is that unreasonable or unfair?

Other than questioning those inconsistencies I am unaware of anybody treating MM unfairly.

 

[PSUEngineerx2]

it bears repeating . . .

I believe it was Ray Blehar who provided Barry Bozeman and me with the photos and diagram of the coach's locker room in the Lasch building.

I challenge anyone to read Mike's testimony at trial, while looking at these photos and diagrams, and find anything he said credible.

Why is it that MM's description of the locker room/what he saw doesn't make sense but some (prosecutors and others) still believe him

while

Allan Myers "doesn't draw the locker room correctly" 10 years later when he was in said room as a 14 yr old and some (prosecutors and others) say this disqualifies him as V2?

Pick a f*cking lane.

 

[Chris92]

Why is it that MM's description of the locker room/what he saw doesn't make sense but some (prosecutors and others) still believe him

while

Allan Myers "doesn't draw the locker room correctly" 10 years later when he was in said room as a 14 yr old and some (prosecutors and others) say this disqualifies him as V2?

Pick a f*cking lane.

What about the janitors? Remember they they described seeing two sets of legs obstructed by a partition and claim the crime was committed in the coaches locker room. At trial, the prosecution approaches Cleland and tell him Petrosky will now testify it was actually the support staff locker room. If the janitors can't get the description right, who can?

 

[UncleLar]

How has McQueary been treated?

John McQueary testified that his son didn't tell him specifics. Dranov testified that he asked MM three times if he witnessed anything sexual and got no answer. MM testified that he used soft language when talking to Joe and Joe testified that MM didn't get into details. Shultz & Curley testified that MM didn't tell them about anything sexual.

MM would have us believe that we should believe his dad and Dranov, half believe Paterno, and not believe Curley & Shultz. That's pretty fishy, don't you think? I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to question what MM really told people. I think it's reasonable for people to ask why MM didn't do more himself (not just when he witnessed the incident but later when he realized that nobody reported this to police. Same with his father and Dranov.

His story sure seems "wishy washy" to me but now he says that he made sure that Joe, Curley, & Shultz knew about sexual abuse. John McQueary even said that he didn't testify at a perjury trail. Are you kidding? There are a lot of inconsistencies and some people are calling him out on that. Why is that unreasonable or unfair?

Other than questioning those inconsistencies I am unaware of anybody treating MM unfairly.

I believe he thinks he conveyed the message to Curley and Schultz but because he didn't use graphic terms what Curley and Schultz visualized was "horsing around". The big mistake that C/S made was not having McQueary document what had happened. We wouldn't be having this discussion if they had had him write it down.

As far as McQueary being treated unfairly, he went from being considered a decent college football coach to persona non grata, an individual who has been pilloried in the press and on all sorts of message boards for the last five years. He's basically unemployable. All because he tried to do what he thought was right. Excuse me if I don't think that's unfair.

 

[canuckhal]

I believe he thinks he conveyed the message to Curley and Schultz but because he didn't use graphic terms what Curley and Schultz visualized was "horsing around". The big mistake that C/S made was not having McQueary document what had happened. We wouldn't be having this discussion if they had had him write it down.

Under your scenario, why is it the responsibility of others to decipher what MM failed to communicate clearly? Why couldn't he have gone to the police or child welfare later if he saw action wasn't taken? Why did he show little to no interest in following-up? And why did he participate in JS and TSM events after 2001?

 

[roswelllion]

the way I've read it, there is a Vic 2, but it is not AM. The reason it is not AM is 1) he got the date wrong (but really, other than JS, who didn't? 2) he drew a picture of the locker room/shower area poorly from memory of something 10 yrs prior. For the record Ray doesn't think he is vic 2 either.
Why don't they just ask JS?? He knows, correct?

Don't recall what Ray's reasons are for not thinking AM was vic 2. Are his reasons the locker room drawing as well? That seems like a terrible reason for someone who was 10-13 and it was 10 years earlier. AND if as someone in this thread states it can be shown he was definitely in the locker room over the years his recollection for the drawing makes absolutely no sense as a disqualifier.

 

[bdgan]

I believe he thinks he conveyed the message to Curley and Schultz but because he didn't use graphic terms what Curley and Schultz visualized was "horsing around". The big mistake that C/S made was not having McQueary document what had happened. We wouldn't be having this discussion if they had had him write it down.

As far as McQueary being treated unfairly, he went from being considered a decent college football coach to persona non grata, an individual who has been pilloried in the press and on all sorts of message boards for the last five years. He's basically unemployable. All because he tried to do what he thought was right. Excuse me if I don't think that's unfair.

Where has he been pilloried outside of State College? Why won't other schools hire him?

I agree that MM tried to do what was right but he didn't help himself with inconsistent testimony. I agree with you that I might have gone to my dad if I was in his position but that doesn't explain why he or his dad didn't make a stink when they saw that little action was taken against Sandusky. That leads me to believe that the McQueary family was doing some back peddling when the crap hit the fan. Perhaps others should have done more but the McQueary family isn't completely innocent in this sorry affair.

P.S. I'm not sure I agree that Curley & Shultz should have had MM write things down but I do agree that they should have documented the whole incident. There's no excuse for Shultz to think that he reported to CYS but isn't sure. There should be records of these things.

 

[roswelllion]

From the preliminary hearing transcript (p 42)

Q: Okay. Now, we were talking earlier at least when you were answering Mr. Beemer's questions, specifically the night of this incident, how do you know or do you know whether it was 2002?

A: I'm relatively sure it was 2002. I remember it being a Friday night before spring break.

From the same hearing transcript (p 86)

Q: Mr. Mcqueary, the year that this happened, can you locate this event to any other event in your life that tells you if it was 2002 versus 2001 or another year?

A: Not right off the top of my head. I'm sure if you give me 30 minutes, I can think of something, but, no, not right now.

So what I read into the testimony is that McQueary wasn't 100% sure that it was 2002, but thought that it was. I'd say he was more concerned about getting the details about the incident right than he was the actual date. People that try to use this as an example of him changing his story are off base. He was clear that he wasn't 100% sure about the date. So what if it later turned out to be 2001? He had always stated that was a possibility. While the date may be important as to whether the incident fell within the statute of limitations, it clearly had little importance to McQueary. When they tried to pin him down regarding the date, he was unable to provide a definitive response. That shows that he just wasn't sure. The fact that it later turned out to be 2001 surely can't be held against him since he always left that open as a possibility.

Hmm, so I am thinking to myself were there any events that occurred between spring of 2001 and spring of 2002 that might help jog a person's memory? Hmmm, let me think for a minute didn't something happen in Sept of 2001 that was a significant event?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

P.S. I'm not sure I agree that Curley & Shultz should have had MM write things down but I do agree that they should have documented the whole incident. There's no excuse for Shultz to think that he reported to CYS but isn't sure. There should be records of these things.

Spot on there

 

[roswelllion]

So Lar, how does it make sense that dad, Dranov, and JVP [by Mike's own admission] don't get specifics but C&S do? I have never been able to get beyond that.
And then after he speaks with C&S dad or Dranov meet with Schultz and he tells them "well there is nothing we can sink our teeth into". By then MM surely would have told dad and Dranov the specifics that he shared with C & S. The follow question question that screams off the page is "are you clear Mike thought he saw sodomy in that shower, and how can that be something to sink your teeth into". There simply had to be a conversation as opposed to a shrug and okay we'll just move on from here. I struggle that any rational person could believe those activities have any sort of logical possibility of occurring.
Five years later still talking about the same damn issues. Amazing.

 

[Misder2]

I believe he thinks he conveyed the message to Curley and Schultz but because he didn't use graphic terms what Curley and Schultz visualized was "horsing around". The big mistake that C/S made was not having McQueary document what had happened. We wouldn't be having this discussion if they had had him write it down.

As far as McQueary being treated unfairly, he went from being considered a decent college football coach to persona non grata, an individual who has been pilloried in the press and on all sorts of message boards for the last five years. He's basically unemployable. All because he tried to do what he thought was right. Excuse me if I don't think that's unfair.

I thought it w

So Lar, how does it make sense that dad, Dranov, and JVP [by Mike's own admission] don't get specifics but C&S do? I have never been able to get beyond that.
And then after he speaks with C&S dad or Dranov meet with Schultz and he tells them "well there is nothing we can sink our teeth into". By then MM surely would have told dad and Dranov the specifics that he shared with C & S. The follow question question that screams off the page is "are you clear Mike thought he saw sodomy in that shower, and how can that be something to sink your teeth into". There simply had to be a conversation as opposed to a shrug and okay we'll just move on from here. I struggle that any rational person could believe those activities have any sort of logical possibility of occurring.
Five years later still talking about the same damn issues. Amazing.

I thought the investigation was know about in 2009

 

[Bobpsu]

I believe he thinks he conveyed the message to Curley and Schultz but because he didn't use graphic terms what Curley and Schultz visualized was "horsing around". The big mistake that C/S made was not having McQueary document what had happened. We wouldn't be having this discussion if they had had him write it down.

As far as McQueary being treated unfairly, he went from being considered a decent college football coach to persona non grata, an individual who has been pilloried in the press and on all sorts of message boards for the last five years. He's basically unemployable. All because he tried to do what he thought was right. Excuse me if I don't think that's unfair.

No not a lawyer just full of shitt.

 

[marshall23]

How can the witness be credible when the act he described is impossible? So impossible, that prosecutors needed to use props to depict what the witness claimed was occurring.

The only way MM's testimony could have an impact on the jury was to silence Curley and Schultz and claim that victim #2 was known only to God. How does Amendola not explode over the stool?

 

[L.T. Young]

MM's credibility stands on its own. Newsflash - there are not a ton of creepy stories from credible people claiming to be victims, unless you are counting people like Matt Sandusky, Anthony Spinelli, John Doe 150, and John Doe 71 as credible. Even Ray Blehar who is convinced that Sandusky is a pedophile finds v5, v9, and v10's trial testimony flawed. If there is a retrial, I believe the accuser with the most credibility is Aaron Fisher and my understanding is that there is a ton of impeachment material that could be used against him. I just don't see the overwhelming evidence of CSA. The PCRA evidentiary hearings have shown to me that Sandusky didn't have a chance in his trial and that his trial was patently unfair. If there is a new trial, and I realize that that is a huge if; I like Sandusky's chances for exoneration or at least a release on time served. Please remind me, just what did Sandusky do that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Based on my current understanding of the facts and evidence, there is real doubt that far exceeds the reasonable doubt standard.

Quit listening to Ziegler.

He did an interview with Sandusky, the Paternos distanced themselves from him, JZ then "accidentally" posts AM name on his website, which then suffered a cyber attack making it impossible to remove the information, and JZ was complete toast.

What did he have left? He was public enemy #1 and the only thing he had was the Sanduskys. It's not hard to figure out why he started attacking victims. I can prove it.


JZ on CNN and listen to what he's saying on 3-25-13 about Sandusky after interviewing him.


2 days later is when the AM release catastrophe happened.

Now look at what he's saying 6 months later to Jim Clemente in an email exchange he couldn't help but post on his site.

http://www.framingpaterno.com/my-last-email-exchange-jim-clemente

Now it's everyone else's fault. They were out to get him. They all conspired to make him look bad. They're frauds and only JZ knows the truth.

JZ admits that it was the most important series events in his career and damaged him greatly. If that's not incentive to discredit the victims, making what he did acceptable, I don't know what it is.

But feel free to latch on to a victim shaming hack that is the epitome of desperate. That's logic backed up by actual facts, in a very distinct order, proving JZ had personal motives to go the direction he did.

 

[francofan]

Quit listening to Ziegler.

He did an interview with Sandusky, the Paternos distanced themselves from him, JZ then "accidentally" posts AM name on his website, which then suffered a cyber attack making it impossible to remove the information, and JZ was complete toast.

What did he have left? He was public enemy #1 and the only thing he had was the Sanduskys. It's not hard to figure out why he started attacking victims. I can prove it.


JZ on CNN and listen to what he's saying on 3-25-13 about Sandusky after interviewing him.

View embedded media

2 days later is when the AM release catastrophe happened.

Now look at what he's saying 6 months later to Jim Clemente in an email exchange he couldn't help but post on his site.

http://www.framingpaterno.com/my-last-email-exchange-jim-clemente

Now it's everyone else's fault. They were out to get him. They all conspired to make him look bad. They're frauds and only JZ knows the truth.

JZ admits that it was the most important series events in his career and damaged him greatly. If that's not incentive to discredit the victims, making what he did acceptable, I don't know what it is.

But feel free to latch on to a victim shaming hack that is the epitome of desperate. That's logic backed up by actual facts, in a very distinct order, proving JZ had personal motives to go the direction he did.

I will listen to whomever I please. I am not a fan of Ziegler, but he ocassionally has something relevant to say.

 

[simons96]

I notice Uncle Lar hasn't answered my question . . .

 

[Royal_Coaster]

(I know) . . . love to know how Roxine knows he is a "victim" . . .

Could be the hourly rate she gets paid for providing "counseling" services.

 

[BobPSU92]

I notice Uncle Lar hasn't answered my question . . .

He needs to stick to sports.

 

[UncleLar]

So Lar, how does it make sense that dad, Dranov, and JVP [by Mike's own admission] don't get specifics but C&S do? I have never been able to get beyond that.
And then after he speaks with C&S dad or Dranov meet with Schultz and he tells them "well there is nothing we can sink our teeth into". By then MM surely would have told dad and Dranov the specifics that he shared with C & S. The follow question question that screams off the page is "are you clear Mike thought he saw sodomy in that shower, and how can that be something to sink your teeth into". There simply had to be a conversation as opposed to a shrug and okay we'll just move on from here. I struggle that any rational person could believe those activities have any sort of logical possibility of occurring.
Five years later still talking about the same damn issues. Amazing.

We don't know what specifics Curley and Schultz got (frankly, I don't think they got much more than Paterno did). But what we do know is that the conversation with them happened about ten days later when he would be much more likely to give a measured response less full of emotion than he would have give his dad, Dranov, or Paterno, all of which occurred within less than 24 hours of the incident. I would fully expect C/S to get something more specific but how much more and in how much detail is pure speculation on all of our parts.

 

[UncleLar]

I notice Uncle Lar hasn't answered my question . . .

Sorry been busy but frankly I'm not even sure what the point of your question is? Even so, the answer is simple. The prosecution almost always overcharges in any criminal case. They hit defendants with every charge that might remotely be possible to stick to them in order to facilitate a plea bargain or to give the jury something to toss aside to facilitate a compromise among dissident jurors. Worst case situation for the prosecution, the judge tosses the charges (which he did for four of the counts against Sandusky) or the jury returns a not guilty verdict (which they did for three of the Sandusky counts).

 

[simons96]

He needs to stick to sports.

his answer is laughable. not sure what subject he should stick to

 

[simons96]

Sorry been busy but frankly I'm not even sure what the point of your question is? Even so, the answer is simple. The prosecution almost always overcharges in any criminal case. They hit defendants with every charge that might remotely be possible to stick to them in order to facilitate a plea bargain or to give the jury something to toss aside to facilitate a compromise among dissident jurors. Worst case situation for the prosecution, the judge tosses the charges (which he did for four of the counts against Sandusky) or the jury returns a not guilty verdict (which they did for three of the Sandusky counts).

13000 posts and under 300 likes

this response seems to indicate why . . .

 

[UncleLar]

Under your scenario, why is it the responsibility of others to decipher what MM failed to communicate clearly? Why couldn't he have gone to the police or child welfare later if he saw action wasn't taken? Why did he show little to no interest in following-up? And why did he participate in JS and TSM events after 2001?

He certainly could have gone to the police but what he did do was follow university policy at the time. He reported the incident to his superiors which, by the very nature of it being university policy, would put the burden on them to proceed appropriately.

As far as following up. What in heaven's name suddenly made Mike McQueary this Lone Ranger, Knight in Shining Armor, who was supposed to put Sandusky in jail. That was not his responsibility. He did what he was supposed to do.

And your last question is once again, one of those internet rumors that refuses to go away (probably because John Ziegler keeps harping on it claiming that there's evidence but never producing any - of course Ziegler also believes Sandusky is innocent). There is absolutely no evidence that McQueary ever participated in any event that Sandusky's name was attached to save one - a charity football game that McQueary had no idea that Sandusky was part of and which McQueary says he bailed on as quickly as he could once he discovered Sandusky was there. The defense even tried to make a case that McQueary played in a Second Mile event but the director of the event specifically testified that he didn't.

From Henry Lesch's (the director of the Second Mile's golf tournament) cross-examination by the prosecution during the seventh day of the Sandusky trial.

Q: Okay. So we have undated picture, a letter to Mr. McQueary, but not from him with no acknowledgement return and a couple of lists of people who may or may not have played in the golf tournament; is that pretty much it?

A: Yes

Q: Did they reflect anything about who you know who actually played.

A: I would recall people who would have played. Mr. McQueary is not one of them.

There you have it. The tournament director and the defense's own witness says that McQueary didn't play.

 

[UncleLar]

13000 posts and under 300 likes

this response seems to indicate why . . .

I'm not running for election nor a popularity contest so I couldn't give two shits about how many likes I have. Not sure what relevance that has to any argument I might put forth.

 

[simons96]

I'm not running for election nor a popularity contest so I couldn't give two shits about how many likes I have. Not sure what relevance that has to any argument I might put forth.

when no one agrees with you, the problem might be you. just sayin.

 

[L.T. Young]

I will listen to whomever I please. I am not a fan of Ziegler, but he ocassionally has something relevant to say.

No he doesn't. He ignores all psychology of CSA to reach his conclusions.

I just made a fact based argument, with a timeline, that proves Ziegler most certainly has something to personally gain by taking the position he has. He's gone after every known victim trying to attack their character to save his career.

You specifically mentioned AF. He's gone after him relentlessly. He's stalked him IRL.

 

[Aoshiro]

As far as McQueary being treated unfairly, he went from being considered a decent college football coach to persona non grata, an individual who has been pilloried in the press and on all sorts of message boards for the last five years. He's basically unemployable. All because he tried to do what he thought was right. Excuse me if I don't think that's unfair.

Mike is unemployable because he's told the world that he saw a man raping a child and he left the child with the rapist and went home.

 

[biacto]

No he doesn't. He ignores all psychology of CSA to reach his conclusions.

I just made a fact based argument, with a timeline, that proves Ziegler most certainly has something to personally gain by taking the position he has. He's gone after every known victim trying to attack their character to save his career.

You specifically mentioned AF. He's gone after him relentlessly. He's stalked him IRL.

Formerly lt.young of the PL cabal of hatred and misinformation.

 

[bdgan]

He certainly could have gone to the police but what he did do was follow university policy at the time. He reported the incident to his superiors which, by the very nature of it being university policy, would put the burden on them to proceed appropriately.

As far as following up. What in heaven's name suddenly made Mike McQueary this Lone Ranger, Knight in Shining Armor, who was supposed to put Sandusky in jail. That was not his responsibility. He did what he was supposed to do.

And your last question is once again, one of those internet rumors that refuses to go away (probably because John Ziegler keeps harping on it claiming that there's evidence but never producing any - of course Ziegler also believes Sandusky is innocent). There is absolutely no evidence that McQueary ever participated in any event that Sandusky's name was attached to save one - a charity football game that McQueary had no idea that Sandusky was part of and which McQueary says he bailed on as quickly as he could once he discovered Sandusky was there. The defense even tried to make a case that McQueary played in a Second Mile event but the director of the event specifically testified that he didn't.

From Henry Lesch's (the director of the Second Mile's golf tournament) cross-examination by the prosecution during the seventh day of the Sandusky trial.

Q: Okay. So we have undated picture, a letter to Mr. McQueary, but not from him with no acknowledgement return and a couple of lists of people who may or may not have played in the golf tournament; is that pretty much it?

A: Yes

Q: Did they reflect anything about who you know who actually played.

A: I would recall people who would have played. Mr. McQueary is not one of them.

There you have it. The tournament director and the defense's own witness says that McQueary didn't play.

MM's more measured response after 10 days might have been even more muted. He might have second guessed what he had actually witnessed.

I agree that MM might have not gone to police after limited action by administration, but wouldn't you expect John McQueary to at least talk with Curley and say "what the heck!"?

BTW, I have no problem with your different point of view as long as it's reasonably thought out and you don't act like a jerk (which you haven't)

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Mike is unemployable because he's told the world that he saw a man raping a child and he left the child with the rapist and went home.

Actually, that is not accurate. He told the world that he thought maybe that is possibly what was going on based on what he initially heard and then briefly saw via two brief glimpses of a reflection in a fogged mirror from an acute angle (i.e., he saw the two parties in close proximity to one another in the reflection but could not see precisely what they were doing other than showering because he could only see from waist up of the taller party, who was JS. Given their height differential, this means he could only see the shorter party from the chest up.). MM then says he was so concerned by what he heard and then saw that he walked directly over to the shower area whereupon looking in he saw the two parties out of the shower and toweling-off. Neither party seemed in distress and they were acting perfectly normal for the situation, so MM left the area, went to his Lasch Office to call his father and finally, upon his father's advice went directly to his father's house to speak with his father and family friend, Dr. Dranov (especially noteworthy that MM's father's advice, based on what MM told him immediately following the event, was to go over to his home to discuss with he & Dr. D....his advice was not to call "first responders" on 911 or at the UPPD [one in the same if you place a 911 call from Lasch Building]).

Contrary to what UncleLed-Head is claiming, 100% of MM's "speculations" as to what he thought maybe, possibly, more-than-likely, probably, etc. ad infinitum modifiers...was going on, the ONLY THING that MM said, by his own admission, to anyone immediately following the incident that is ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE IN A PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF LAW (and therefore would have been relevant to investigators and prosecutors), was his statement as to what he ACTUALLY and FACTUALLY saw and "eyewitness". To wit, MM told everyone he spoke with including his father, Dr. D, JVP, etc... that he DID NOT actually see or witness a criminal sexual assault, but that he was concerned as to what MIGHT have been going on in the shower based on what he had heard when he first walked into Lasch and then the quickly glimpsed via the reflection in the mirror (which was not a criminal sexual assault, but rather two parties standing in very close proximity to one another under the same shower head in the communal Lasch Shower area). IOW, what MM told everyone was 100% "speculative" from a criminality and investigtive standpoint and completely worthless from an evidenciary standpoint within a PA Criminal Court. Not only that, but MM has testified multiple times in a PA Court of Law under oath to the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what the OAG claims in their fabricated prevarication-laced Presentment and Indictments - MM has stated multiple times under oath in a PA Court that he DID NOT SEE or EYEWITNESS any explicit and overt sexual act (not only that but says he never saw anything below the upper bodies of the parties) AND by his own volition extended his statement to say that he "NEVER TOLD ANYONE that he had" actually and factually seen or eyewitnessed a sexual act of any kind, let alone the "anal intercourse" that the OAG's Presentment and Indictment FALSELY claim that he says he did "see" and "eyewitness"! IOW, MM's statments about a potential "sexual assault" in the shower were SPECULATIVE by his own admission and TESTIMONY under oath in a PA Court of Law contrary to what UncleLead-Head keeps claiming.

But I do agree with you that Mike McQueary has been his own worst enemy in terms of destroying his own credibility and character by his own ever-changing rendition of events and recollections of specifics (and then conveniently not being able to recollect critical specifics) about the incident including conversations and even specific words used in conversations....dates and times.......etc..... Again, MM has destroyed his own credibility and integrity - who precisely wants to hire a self-serving, coward, zero-credibility, zero-integrity party to come work for them that is going to pull this kind of bull$hit and "finger-pointing" when the going gets tough???

 

[bdgan]

Regarding Mike McQueary....

It seems likely that McQueary was extremely disturbed by what he had witnessed but he didn't actually see sexual assault and couldn't be sure about what was going on. After all, he testified that the kid was running around and didn't appear to be in distress.

I am not critical of MM for calling his dad instead of the police. I am not critical of him for reporting this to Paterno. I'm not even critical of him for not calling the police after the administration did the minimum to stop JS. I don't think MM knew how to process what he had witnessed so he trusted others to take care of things.

Here's where I am critical of MM. It seems likely that he embellished his story as time passed. This could be because the AG was pressuring him or because he felt guilty for not doing more to stop JS. In the process he has thrown Joe/C/S/S under the bus (but not his dad or Dranov).

This is what Lar doesn't understand IMO. We're not upset at the whistleblower. That part was good. The part where he might have been covering his own rear end while tossing others to the wolves is the problem.

 

[UncleLar]

A mirror distorts depth perception and is less clear. This isn't a mystery. And, by the time he turned around, they were separated. They must move like the Indian on Josey Wales.

I am sympathetic to MM and understand his hesitancy on that day. Having said that, ten years? His father and neighbor are people of means. No action? Then to blame Schultz and Curley? Let them twist in the wind? Hard to believe.

Missed this earlier. A plane mirror, such as what you would find in a locker room, does not distort depth perception (here's a link that explains the physics as to why it doesn't) and any changes to its clearness are probably negligible to the naked eye. Fun house mirrors, car door mirrors, yes you'll get distorted depth; locker room mirrors, not likely,