For those that followed the C/S/S trial closely, what was said by Curley or Schultz...

[KC-KS-Lion]

that supported the claim that Joe was kept in the loop on not just the 2001 situation, but also the 1998 or earlier, beyond the 'after talking with Coach' email?

This seems to come up in comments on the recent Ganim article.

Thanks.

 

[Raffycorn]

IIRC, Curley directly testified that his use of "coach" in the 1998 emails was in reference to Joe, although I don't believe he testified to any specifics as to what he and Joe discussed in 1998 about the investigation.

 

[JWB389]

I still haven't figured out what the hell 1998 has to do with anything since the Police department actually investigated it.

 

[ClarkstonMark]

I still haven't figured out what the hell 1998 has to do with anything since the Police department actually investigated it.

Two ways to look at it ....

1. You have the crowd that says that the fact that Sandusky was investigated 3 years prior, as soon as McQ told Joe, they should have immediately called the police. The real police.

2. On the other side, you have people who think, well, Sandusky was investigated 3 years ago, no charges were filed, he must have been innocent, so no big deal, no need to do anything urgent or drastic.

I can honestly see merit in both arguments. But if #1 had been done, everyone would be treating PSU differently. Just my opinion, but I think this is exactly what Joe was referring to in the hindsight comment.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Two ways to look at it ....

1. You have the crowd that says that the fact that Sandusky was investigated 3 years prior, as soon as McQ told Joe, they should have immediately called the police. The real police.

2. On the other side, you have people who think, well, Sandusky was investigated 3 years ago, no charges were filed, he must have been innocent, so no big deal, no need to do anything urgent or drastic.

I can honestly see merit in both arguments. But if #1 had been done, everyone would be treating PSU differently. Just my opinion, but I think this is exactly what Joe was referring to in the hindsight comment.

You forgot number 3. The crowd that thinks if MM really saw what he said he saw, he should have physically assaulted JS. At that point 1. or 2. would be moot.

 

[JWB389]

Two ways to look at it ....

No argument. I understand that. To me, the counter point only bolsters Joe's action of taking it to Curley (rather than running to the police).

 

[Cletus11]

Two ways to look at it ....

1. You have the crowd that says that the fact that Sandusky was investigated 3 years prior, as soon as McQ told Joe, they should have immediately called the police. The real police.

2. On the other side, you have people who think, well, Sandusky was investigated 3 years ago, no charges were filed, he must have been innocent, so no big deal, no need to do anything urgent or drastic.

I can honestly see merit in both arguments. But if #1 had been done, everyone would be treating PSU differently. Just my opinion, but I think this is exactly what Joe was referring to in the hindsight comment.

Note to your #2. He was investigated by the District Attorney, Police, and PA child services AND found not guilty (so he was found innocent). Not 'he must have been innocent'. All three agencies that deal in this stuff investigated and found him innocent (wrongly, but they did).

 

[pandaczar12]

Two ways to look at it ....

1. You have the crowd that says that the fact that Sandusky was investigated 3 years prior, as soon as McQ told Joe, they should have immediately called the police. The real police.

2. On the other side, you have people who think, well, Sandusky was investigated 3 years ago, no charges were filed, he must have been innocent, so no big deal, no need to do anything urgent or drastic.

I can honestly see merit in both arguments. But if #1 had been done, everyone would be treating PSU differently. Just my opinion, but I think this is exactly what Joe was referring to in the hindsight comment.

Just because immediately calling the police could have changed how people treat PSU, doesn't mean Joe failed.

 

[Bob78]

Two ways to look at it ....

1. You have the crowd that says that the fact that Sandusky was investigated 3 years prior, as soon as McQ told Joe, they should have immediately called the police. The real police.

2. On the other side, you have people who think, well, Sandusky was investigated 3 years ago, no charges were filed, he must have been innocent, so no big deal, no need to do anything urgent or drastic.

I can honestly see merit in both arguments. But if #1 had been done, everyone would be treating PSU differently. Just my opinion, but I think this is exactly what Joe was referring to in the hindsight comment.

#2 is where this went off the rails, imo. Anyone who knew any details (beyond the surface info, which is most likely what JVP was told), almost certainly had the thought of 'here we go again' come to mind immediately.
I agree with the poster who said that #3 - whereby McQ would have taken action had he truly seen something sexual at the moment of truth in Lasch - is also a big factor in how people reacted.

This is why, to me, Curley did exactly the right thing in going to Raykovitz. Tim was no doubt thinking it's another nuisance accusation, ala '98, JS could be unfairly accused again, and this is all way out of my comfort zone for knowing what to do. Raykovitz was/is mandated to investigate any and all of this sort of thing.

My question continues to be, where was Harmon in all this? How could he not have known something about '01? It does not make sense to me that he could have not either been informed, or somehow became aware. At that point, it is his sworn duty to investigate.

 

[VaNtyLion]

Two ways to look at it ....

1. You have the crowd that says that the fact that Sandusky was investigated 3 years prior, as soon as McQ told Joe, they should have immediately called the police. The real police.

2. On the other side, you have people who think, well, Sandusky was investigated 3 years ago, no charges were filed, he must have been innocent, so no big deal, no need to do anything urgent or drastic.

I can honestly see merit in both arguments. But if #1 had been done, everyone would be treating PSU differently. Just my opinion, but I think this is exactly what Joe was referring to in the hindsight comment.

Anyone clinging onto the #1 argument are either

1) trying to change the conclusions of the '98 investigation, let alone introducing rape into that investigation, which was never even part of it.

2) living in the fantasy land that MM told Joe he, first off, witnessed a rape (which he has flat-out denied) and secondly gave Paterno a completely different version of the incident than he did to his father and Dranov the night before when neither of them concluded the incident rose to the level of calling the police.

 

[jerseylion109]

the problem is that joe said he has never heard of 98. We know this isnt true based on what curley said or am i missing something?

 

[bdgan]

Two ways to look at it ....

1. You have the crowd that says that the fact that Sandusky was investigated 3 years prior, as soon as McQ told Joe, they should have immediately called the police. The real police.

2. On the other side, you have people who think, well, Sandusky was investigated 3 years ago, no charges were filed, he must have been innocent, so no big deal, no need to do anything urgent or drastic.

I can honestly see merit in both arguments. But if #1 had been done, everyone would be treating PSU differently. Just my opinion, but I think this is exactly what Joe was referring to in the hindsight comment.

That's correct, but an honest person who believed #1 would have to ask themselves the following questions before focusing their angst at Joe and the football program:

• What's wrong with following university and now NCAA policy by reporting the incident to university administrators who should be better equipped on how to handle such matters?
• How does trusting administrators to handle the situation equate to enabling a pedophile in order to protect football?
• Why is there no media outrage at the failings of CMHS, DPW, AG, MM, JM, Dranov, etc?

 

[psudukie]

Tim himself denied knowledge of an incident in 98 ... I believe three separate times. When he testified in Spanier trial is when he said he knew of 98.

98 is a red flag period. No charges were brought but all parties knew and were aware that Jerry behavior was inappropriate.

 

[Bob78]

Tim himself denied knowledge of an incident in 98 ... I believe three separate times. When he testified in Spanier trial is when he said he knew of 98.

98 is a red flag period. No charges were brought but all parties knew and were aware that Jerry behavior was inappropriate.

Inappropriate in what way? All they knew was what the police, etc. investigation concluded. This is where the "boundary issues" statement came from, no?

So when asked if they knew of any sexual abuse in '98, which is what I think JVP was asked in the grand jury, the correct answer was 'no'. If they knew of an incident of some minor magnitude based on the outcome of the investigation, the answer was 'yes'.

Are you aware of CSA vs. are you aware of an unfounded accusation.... two different animals there, no?

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Two ways to look at it ....

1. You have the crowd that says that the fact that Sandusky was investigated 3 years prior, as soon as McQ told Joe, they should have immediately called the police. The real police.

2. On the other side, you have people who think, well, Sandusky was investigated 3 years ago, no charges were filed, he must have been innocent, so no big deal, no need to do anything urgent or drastic.

I can honestly see merit in both arguments. But if #1 had been done, everyone would be treating PSU differently. Just my opinion, but I think this is exactly what Joe was referring to in the hindsight comment.

The only way #1 drastically changes things is if MM calls the cops right away and they catch JS in the shower. Otherwise, if they wait to go the next day when he told Joe, JS could say nothing happened and likely produce the boy who may testify to the same.

 

[psudukie]

Bob I hear you, but I am fairly certain tim in his third chance to answer question about 98 the word sexual wasn't used. He was simply asked were you aware of an incident. He answered the same. By the way why was Jerry told no more kids on campus in 98, if there wasn't a problem?

The only reason I bring this up is that the board crucifys mine on changing stories and yet we hear very little about the inconsistency of Gary and tim.

Hey testifying is not easy you don't have hours to self analyze your words like others will after. Mike is often referred to as discreditedand not credible, but his tesimony has stood up, not been impeached, not even really been shown to be inconsistent through multiple trials depositions hearings and now six years of time.

 

[marshall23]

Tim himself denied knowledge of an incident in 98 ... I believe three separate times. When he testified in Spanier trial is when he said he knew of 98.

98 is a red flag period. No charges were brought but all parties knew and were aware that Jerry behavior was inappropriate.

But it is apparent that even to law enforcement and child services, inappropriate is not criminal and JS was not prosecuted. So what made 2001 criminal?
Dr. Dranov has testified that nothing he heard from Mike made him feel a call to CYS and or police was the proper action. Yet, more than a decade later, Mike claims he saw CSA. Something is very rotten in this case.

 

[bdgan]

the problem is that joe said he has never heard of 98. We know this isnt true based on what curley said or am i missing something?

This isn't an official transcript but Joe didn't say he never heard of 1998. He said that he didn't know about any other inappropriate sexual conduct by JS with young boys.

Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

Mr. Paterno: I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it.

A person might think that Joe should have put 2 and 2 together but we have no idea what Joe knew about 1998. If he was totally plugged in he would have known that authorities did not find inappropriate sexual conduct.


Regardless of what Paterno knew... he turned it over to Curley according to university (and now NCAA) policy. How does that make Joe a pedo enabler?

Q: You indicated that your report was made directly to Tim Curley. Do you know of that report being made to anyone else that was a university official?

Mr. Paterno: No, because I figured that Tim would handle it appropriately. I have a tremendous amount of confidence in Mr. Curley and I thought he would look into it and handle it appropriately.

 

[Bob78]

Bob I hear you, but I am fairly certain tim in his third chance to answer question about 98 the word sexual wasn't used. He was simply asked were you aware of an incident. He answered the same. By the way why was Jerry told no more kids on campus in 98, if there wasn't a problem?

The only reason I bring this up is that the board crucifys mine on changing stories and yet we hear very little about the inconsistency of Gary and tim.

Hey testifying is not easy you don't have hours to self analyze your words like others will after. Mike is often referred to as discreditedand not credible, but his tesimony has stood up, not been impeached, not even really been shown to be inconsistent through multiple trials depositions hearings and now six years of time.

Thanks for the reply.
I don't know that Tim and Gary were as inconsistent as you claim, but that's another back-and-forth that will get us nowhere.
As for Mike, for some weird reason he has not been subjected to much cross-examination directly related to what he reported to Joe and Tim and Gary that I recall off the top.
I am one who feels he probably deserved to win his wrongful termination suit vs. PSU based on how he was treated inconsistently vs. the other coaches. I don't know for sure, but my guess is Joyner got himself too involved there and did not care about policies and practices and protocols to safeguard against all that.

So, what is Mike going to say about JVP in this book he is writing? Is Ganim involved in any way?

 

[pandaczar12]

By the way why was Jerry told no more kids on campus in 98, if there wasn't a problem?

Because it was simply a legal liability. Another kid could "falsely accuse" him.

 

[marshall23]

Bob I hear you, but I am fairly certain tim in his third chance to answer question about 98 the word sexual wasn't used. He was simply asked were you aware of an incident. He answered the same. By the way why was Jerry told no more kids on campus in 98, if there wasn't a problem?

The only reason I bring this up is that the board crucifys mine on changing stories and yet we hear very little about the inconsistency of Gary and tim.

Hey testifying is not easy you don't have hours to self analyze your words like others will after. Mike is often referred to as discreditedand not credible, but his tesimony has stood up, not been impeached, not even really been shown to be inconsistent through multiple trials depositions hearings and now six years of time.

Jerry wasn't told no more kids on campus in 98. He had use of facilities as part of his retirement agreement. JVP objected to this and his opinion was over ruled.

 

[Bob78]

Jerry wasn't told no more kids on campus in 98. He had use of facilities as part of his retirement agreement. JVP objected to this and his opinion was over ruled.

But he was told no more kids on campus after '01, correct?
And Dr. Jack told him 'swim trunks'. Brilliant!

 

[roswelllion]

Tim himself denied knowledge of an incident in 98 ... I believe three separate times. When he testified in Spanier trial is when he said he knew of 98.

98 is a red flag period. No charges were brought but all parties knew and were aware that Jerry behavior was inappropriate.

What changed between the first 3 times TC testified and the Spanier trial?

 

[marshall23]

Something is rotten in "Denmark."

MM to Dad and Dr. D. " I saw JS abusing and or sexually abusing a boy." Did this happen? If so why did two medical professionals not contact CYS immediately?
MM tells TC and GS, " I saw JS sexually abusing a boy." TC calls MM and says we banned JS from our facilities and informed his charity. MM, never objects.
Dr. D and Dad never contact the authorities.
Come on man! But 10 years later.............

 

[Lyons212]

But it is apparent that even to law enforcement and child services, inappropriate is not criminal and JS was not prosecuted. So what made 2001 criminal?
Dr. Dranov has testified that nothing he heard from Mike made him feel a call to CYS and or police was the proper action. Yet, more than a decade later, Mike claims he saw CSA. Something is very rotten in this case.

We have no idea why the State declined to bring charges against JS in 98. It could be that Gricar did not believe JS did anything criminally wrong. It could be that Gricar declined to press charges because the kid refused to cooperate for whatever reason (going through a trial is different than participating in an investigation). It could be that Gricar believed something criminal did happen but was not going into court with the testimony of a 10 or 12 yo troubled boy against St Jerry a local icon. Keep in mind if you bring charges against Sandusky and lose, good luck bringing charges in the future. Could be Gricar was waiting to bring charges if and when Sandusky crossed the line again.

Gricar never commented on why he did not bring charges...so we really don't why...any attempt to explain future actions from the 98 investigation is pure speculation.

 

[marshall23]

But he was told no more kids on campus after '01, correct?
And Dr. Jack told him 'swim trunks'. Brilliant!

Correct. So JR and BH arrange for JS to take his workouts down the street. For this JR is punished by becoming The Commonwealth's star witness against GS. You can't make this shit up.

 

[marshall23]

Sorry, there is only one logical explanation:
Mike wasn't sure what he saw until investigators told him.
That's why Dad told him to go to Joe. Why Joe told him to talk to GS and TC. and why Jack Raykovitz did nothing after speaking to Tim. Which explains why MM always felt creeped out by JS but never took his report to CYS or anywhere else and didn't file a written statement.

 

[marshall23]

We have no idea why the State declined to bring charges against JS in 98. It could be that Gricar did not believe JS did anything criminally wrong. It could be that Gricar declined to press charges because the kid refused to cooperate for whatever reason (going through a trial is different than participating in an investigation). It could be that Gricar believed something criminal did happen but was not going into court with the testimony of a 10 or 12 yo troubled boy against St Jerry a local icon. Keep in mind if you bring charges against Sandusky and lose, good luck bringing charges in the future. Could be Gricar was waiting to bring charges if and when Sandusky crossed the line again.

Gricar never commented on why he did not bring charges...so we really don't why...any attempt to explain future actions from the 98 investigation is pure speculation.

Don't know if we want to give Centre County DAs much credit. It appears they have had their own issues.

 

[Lyons212]

Thanks for the reply.
I don't know that Tim and Gary were as inconsistent as you claim, but that's another back-and-forth that will get us nowhere.
As for Mike, for some weird reason he has not been subjected to much cross-examination directly related to what he reported to Joe and Tim and Gary that I recall off the top.
I am one who feels he probably deserved to win his wrongful termination suit vs. PSU based on how he was treated inconsistently vs. the other coaches. I don't know for sure, but my guess is Joyner got himself too involved there and did not care about policies and practices and protocols to safeguard against all that.

So, what is Mike going to say about JVP in this book he is writing? Is Ganim involved in any way?

Mike was not subjected to tough cross examination for the simple reason that it would make the defendants look bad, he was an eye witness and the star witness for the State, yet somehow he was not challenged.

You could make Mike look bad by having him explain why he did not do more that night. OTOH, does anyone think that this former D1 QB who all parties described as visibly upset when talking about it over the next 24 hours, was caused by witnessing horse play? The defense, let the State ask Mike their questions and then move on. Losing play attacking him.

Keep in mind, every jury found Mike credible. In the Spanier trial there was no need to be rough on Mike since he never spoke to Spanier.

 

[marshall23]

I know this: Once the floodgates could no longer hold, the powers that be in The Commonwealth conspired to make this as much about PSU as about Sandusky. The fact that JVP became collateral damage made them ecstatic. Those same forces are spending to keep the JVP angle in the public eye. The only thing I can't determine is why.

 

[roswelllion]

This thing exhausts me.
Joe was told LESS the TC, GS, MM's father, and Dr Dranov, and Raykovitz [even per MM's testimony] and did MORE and yet he is the enabler. Buls$$$t!!
Remember at this time Jerry is a public citizen not an employee of PSU

People MM informed Action taken
Joe - "vague with respect to his age" reports to his boss per policy [TC]
TC - detailed questions JS reports to Raykovitz [JS boss]
Tells JS no more kids on campus
GS- detailed questions JS gives responsibility to TC
Dad - detailed tells MM to tell Joe
Dranov -detailed tells MM to tell Joe
Raykovitz - vague nothing

Joe gets his well deserved lifetime reputation ruined, TC, GS, get their lives ruined,
Mike get's rich, dad and Dranov and Raykovitz life goes on as normal.
Yea that's fair.

 

[psudukie]

I want to correct sonething at end of 98 investigation Jerry was told not to showere with kids. Tim and Gary were not necessarily aware of that directive given to Jerry. Sorry fir my error.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Something is rotten in "Denmark."

MM to Dad and Dr. D. " I saw JS abusing and or sexually abusing a boy." Did this happen? If so why did two medical professionals not contact CYS immediately?
MM tells TC and GS, " I saw JS sexually abusing a boy." TC calls MM and says we banned JS from our facilities and informed his charity. MM, never objects.
Dr. D and Dad never contact the authorities.
Come on man! But 10 years later.............

Asked if he thought it was “bad enough” to call police or child welfare agencies that night, Dranov said no.

That's the bottom line. Period. A trained medical professional told the night of the incident and his recommendation is to tell Joe. This isn't difficult.

 

[psudukie]

Marshall with out being confrontational. How did HS know to write a letter to a DA if criminal activity wasn't suspected?

 

[drblue1977]

Tim himself denied knowledge of an incident in 98 ... I believe three separate times. When he testified in Spanier trial is when he said he knew of 98.

98 is a red flag period. No charges were brought but all parties knew and were aware that Jerry behavior was inappropriate.

If CYS knew his behavior was inappropriate........why didn't they "indicate" JS? 1998 should be the name of the movie they are filming instead of Paterno. Bye the Bye..........when MM ...........calmed down before he dozed off that fateful night, did he utter any intelligible syllables to anyone? Mrs. M was their that night, yet I never heard any comment from her? Did she also agree to wait till morning to talk to Joe? Surely, she must of been involved since she picked up the phone when MM called home.

 

[marshall23]

Marshall with out being confrontational. How did HS know to write a letter to a DA if criminal activity wasn't suspected?

Who is HS? Are you referring to the long time "JVP" hater? If so, one needs to look at his relationship with an asst. DAs husband. That entire "email" is suspect because of this and the timing.

 

[psudukie]

I understand those relationships but why report it to a da or report anything to anyone? If it is as some have described not worth reporting why say a word?

I use sane logic with mike going to joe... why would mije make an effort... why have meetings follow ups lawyers over a non csa report? Doesn't make sense.

 

[kentuckycb]

Tim himself denied knowledge of an incident in 98 ... I believe three separate times. When he testified in Spanier trial is when he said he knew of 98.

98 is a red flag period. No charges were brought but all parties knew and were aware that Jerry behavior was inappropriate.

I'm not trying to be confrontational with you, but you of all people should not be criticizing how anyone reacted to Sandusky in this matter. The fact remains that much of this drama could have been prevented by Mike making a phone call to police (if in fact he truly believed Sandusky was abusing that child in the shower).

A single phone call to police from the only actual witness...and much of this tragedy could have been prevented.

 

[marshall23]

I understand those relationships but why report it to a da or report anything to anyone?

Good question, as he didn't have any first hand knowledge of anything. My guess is he saw conversations on a message board (which had to originate from the incident and Mike) and he wanted to "help" his buddies wife. Bringing down JVP was delightful for him. Curious why this email came the day after Corbett was elected?
If Mike really witnessed something sinister enough to compel HS to email the DA, why didn't Mike do that in the first place? We wouldn't be discussing this, would we? Also, why did Mike respect Tim and call him a "good man," if he (Tim) buried a report of child abuse?

 

[kentuckycb]

This isn't an official transcript but Joe didn't say he never heard of 1998. He said that he didn't know about any other inappropriate sexual conduct by JS with young boys.

Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

Mr. Paterno: I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it.

A person might think that Joe should have put 2 and 2 together but we have no idea what Joe knew about 1998. If he was totally plugged in he would have known that authorities did not find inappropriate sexual conduct.


Regardless of what Paterno knew... he turned it over to Curley according to university (and now NCAA) policy. How does that make Joe a pedo enabler?

Q: You indicated that your report was made directly to Tim Curley. Do you know of that report being made to anyone else that was a university official?

Mr. Paterno: No, because I figured that Tim would handle it appropriately. I have a tremendous amount of confidence in Mr. Curley and I thought he would look into it and handle it appropriately.

Exactly. Joe's GJ testimony and Sally Jenkins interview don't prove that he knew any specifics about Jerry in 1998.