ADVERTISEMENT

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

I think somewhere in testimony info (jimmy w might help) there was a call made to tim saying you guys are in trouble what I. The he'll did you guys say. So yes I think mike was shocked dumb founded at what happened in 10/11.

In my opinion mike had no reason to question the top brass of his department and at the university itself when he was told we have done all we can. Lots of reasons for my thoughts and I am give if you disagree but it would take an hour conversation to hash that all out. In fact we have had six years of board postings and while something's have changed most opinions have not. I think I can say some opposing opinions have softened if I was trying to be fair.


MM was a grown man when he saw whatever he saw that fateful night. If he saw a child getting raped, I can understand the 'shock' and not doing something that instance when he saw the child and JS walk out of the shower, fight or flight took over and he flew. But the fact he went home and talked to his father and trusted doctor friend, who were professionals and knew how to ask questions and get out of MM what he saw, and neither of those men, those men being good men, those men being educated men, those men being non-biased men, the fact those men did nothing other than say go talk to coach tomorrow morning, is all one needs to know. MM did not all of a sudden change his story to Joe the next day and then Tim and Gary a few days later. A grown man doesn't change stories on a day to day basis when he sees rape. A grown man can tell another grown man what he saw without being shy or bashful or ashamed or scared or whatever. A grown man says what he saw and if that grown man doesn't think the other person understood, that grown man tells them in a different way that they do understand. And if a grown man sees a child being raped, that grown man tells the police.

MM didn't see rape that night. MM didn't report rape to anybody after the fact. MM got put in a cop car many year later and was told by police that he either saw rape and didn't report it to and because of his cowardly action many more kids got raped. Or MM could tell the world that he did tell people and that they didn't listen and that he was in the right all these years. you choose which makes the most sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206 and Helmut
MM was a grown man when he saw whatever he saw that fateful night. If he saw a child getting raped, I can understand the 'shock' and not doing something that instance when he saw the child and JS walk out of the shower, fight or flight took over and he flew. But the fact he went home and talked to his father and trusted doctor friend, who were professionals and knew how to ask questions and get out of MM what he saw, and neither of those men, those men being good men, those men being educated men, those men being non-biased men, the fact those men did nothing other than say go talk to coach tomorrow morning, is all one needs to know. MM did not all of a sudden change his story to Joe the next day and then Tim and Gary a few days later. A grown man doesn't change stories on a day to day basis when he sees rape. A grown man can tell another grown man what he saw without being shy or bashful or ashamed or scared or whatever. A grown man says what he saw and if that grown man doesn't think the other person understood, that grown man tells them in a different way that they do understand. And if a grown man sees a child being raped, that grown man tells the police.

MM didn't see rape that night. MM didn't report rape to anybody after the fact. MM got put in a cop car many year later and was told by police that he either saw rape and didn't report it to and because of his cowardly action many more kids got raped. Or MM could tell the world that he did tell people and that they didn't listen and that he was in the right all these years. you choose which makes the most sense.
So why was he in a chat way before that talking about. It kind of blows your theory way out of the water. Not to mention EVERYONE passing it up the chain. People here make so much BS up it has become fact.

SSDD
 
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.
Here are your choices:
  1. MM lied
  2. Everybody except MM lied
 
On why the Centre County DA did not press charges in 1998. While I hate to give the Freeh report any credence, the report does give a reason. Jerry was investigated by University Park police, State College Police, and a rep from the state DPW as well as some other agencies. The State DPW rep is quoted in a police report that there was no crime and that Jerry did not exhibit the characteristics of a pedophile. These conclusions tied the DA hands. If there is no crime (the conclusion of the 1998 investigation) there can be not charges.

He tied his own hands. Purposely.

If Ganim would spend more time on this and less time on Mike and Joe she might just win another Pulitzer.
 
Last edited:
OK. JM, Dranov, Joe, Curley, Shultz, and Spanier. Better?

I was not criticizing you. My point was that "Everybody except MM lied" is not a valid choice since it is a long list of people who were not inherently tied to one another and therefore would not protect one another. For example, why would Dr. Dranov protect Joe and Penn State Football? Likewise, raykovitz had no direct connection to the football program. If mcqueary's tell, whatever it was, had stayed strictly within the football staff or just with Joe, then "Everybody except MM lied" might have legs.
 
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.
I just remembered another quote I think Joe said on tv video just after the OAG announcement of charges against Sandusky and before his firing that to paraphrase he and others were really fooled by Jerry. I would take that quote along the with hindsight and I should have done more quote, and think it was possible or likely that he believed nothing seriously wrong (possibly unwise or even stupid) of a sexual nature occurred. However, after the charges and reflection, he felt and stated he should have seen and done more, I'm not sure for what and how....stand in line. I would like to hear how all the major players from 1998 and beyond would fill in the blank statement 'In hindsight I would ....'. Those that add nothing are perfect or lying, and probably the latter.
In any case, MM's book should be interesting and possibly enlightening, even though he is a polarizing figure in this situation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pandaczar12
Here are your choices:
  1. MM lied
  2. Everybody except MM lied

I think it's possible that it's not that clear cut. I keep going back and forth on what I think happened. Although it has been mentioned, I think that hindsight bias is FAR, FAR underrated here.

Mike walks into the locker room. Sees Jerry and a kid in the shower. Doesn't see banging, but he is led to believe that Jerry is banging that kid. Heroes of the world say they would have run right in there and beat the shit out of Jerry. Let's face it, that is mostly sanctimonious grandstanding. If the kid was screaming, and clearly under extreme duress? Yes, I think many would intervene. But according to all accounts, that wasn't the case.

Mike doesn't have the benefit of hindsight. Do you think it entered his head that if he didn't intervene, Jerry was going to go on and bang countless other kids, and that Penn State would be brought to ruin over this? No. I think he didn't want to get involved. He ran it by his Dad and Dr. Dranov. They didn't really want to get involved. Who wants to call the cops and report something like this? I wouldn't, if I'm being honest.

That is one possible theory, that I think is totally plausible.

The other possible theory is that Mike wasn't sure what he saw, but was disturbed by Jerry being in the shower with a kid late at night. Told his Dad and Dr. Dranov exactly that. Told Paterno exactly that. No one had an inkling they were dealing with sexual abuse. There may not have even ever been any sexual abuse. Then Mike enhanced his story when cops came asking about it ten years later. Totally plausible as well.
 
I think it's possible that it's not that clear cut. I keep going back and forth on what I think happened. Although it has been mentioned, I think that hindsight bias is FAR, FAR underrated here.

Mike walks into the locker room. Sees Jerry and a kid in the shower. Doesn't see banging, but he is led to believe that Jerry is banging that kid. Heroes of the world say they would have run right in there and beat the shit out of Jerry. Let's face it, that is mostly sanctimonious grandstanding. If the kid was screaming, and clearly under extreme duress? Yes, I think many would intervene. But according to all accounts, that wasn't the case.

Mike doesn't have the benefit of hindsight. Do you think it entered his head that if he didn't intervene, Jerry was going to go on and bang countless other kids, and that Penn State would be brought to ruin over this? No. I think he didn't want to get involved. He ran it by his Dad and Dr. Dranov. They didn't really want to get involved. Who wants to call the cops and report something like this? I wouldn't, if I'm being honest.

That is one possible theory, that I think is totally plausible.

The other possible theory is that Mike wasn't sure what he saw, but was disturbed by Jerry being in the shower with a kid late at night. Told his Dad and Dr. Dranov exactly that. Told Paterno exactly that. No one had an inkling they were dealing with sexual abuse. There may not have even ever been any sexual abuse. Then Mike enhanced his story when cops came asking about it ten years later. Totally plausible as well.
Your second "theory" is pretty much fact. If you knew the layout of the locker room, it would be a cinch that MM didn't really "see"anything. The mirror above the sink doesn't provide a view into the shower. Another key, is Mike relating how the child came out of the shower and he saw someone pull the kid back in. This is consistent with being obstructed in view and the child in question exiting, if momentarily, from the shower area.
I hang my hat on the sterling reputations of the men who handled Mike's report (what ever it was) and a person I know (whose character is beyond reproach) who absolutely believed/believes that JS was not a pedophile.
 
Your second "theory" is pretty much fact. If you knew the layout of the locker room, it would be a cinch that MM didn't really "see"anything. The mirror above the sink doesn't provide a view into the shower. Another key, is Mike relating how the child came out of the shower and he saw someone pull the kid back in. This is consistent with being obstructed in view and the child in question exiting, if momentarily, from the shower area.
I hang my hat on the sterling reputations of the men who handled Mike's report (what ever it was) and a person I know (whose character is beyond reproach) who absolutely believed/believes that JS was not a pedophile.

I agree with you, but the only thing that gives me pause is Joe's attitude toward Mike. From what I understand, Joe was a staunch defender of Mike's through all of this. Wasn't Joe quoted as saying that "Old Main screwed it up"? I trust Joe far more than anyone else in this. If he really had Mike's back, then there is probably a good reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KC-KS-Lion
Although it has been mentioned, I think that hindsight bias is FAR, FAR underrated here.

I agree. Imo, hindsight bias has driven the entire narrative since Nov. 2011.

Everyone knows exactly what they would have said or done or whatever given McQ's or JVP's or Tim's points of view. And anyone else, for that matter. But, those are a knee-jerk reactions to an unthinkable crime that you've had time to consider and to allow your outrage to grow. They are not necessarily at-the-moment reactions.

Could be that McQ might as well have seen an alien or a giant bolt of light come out of the sky that night... he was dumbfounded, he was shaken, he was uncertain what to do next. And I'm saying that believing he did not see a sexual assault!

JVP follows procedures. Tim reports it to a trained professional, a mandated reporter. All reasonable actions taken given what was most likely reported to them. Same for the McQ family and friend. Many, many people on these boards point that out.... their reaction and actions are in line with something far less than sexual assault on a young boy. That is the most reasonable explanation.

But the nature of the assumed crime itself gives everyone their internet muscles and the right to critique anyone and anything that happened in its wake. That is the classic definition of creating a hindsight bias. But at the moments of truth, these guys reacted reasonably given what they saw and were told. I'm giving McQ some leeway here. What he saw could have easily rocked him even if it was not sexual assault. It was just so sudden and unexpected and strange and out of the normal thought process.

If we could get some respected, nationally-recognized reporters to look at this more objectively and rationalize these actions and reactions and at-the-moment thought processes, we would have a different narrative. One with just one bad person, not an entire community. And that would lead to far better education, understanding, and preparation for the prevention of future cases of CSA.
 
I agree with you, but the only thing that gives me pause is Joe's attitude toward Mike. From what I understand, Joe was a staunch defender of Mike's through all of this. Wasn't Joe quoted as saying that "Old Main screwed it up"? I trust Joe far more than anyone else in this. If he really had Mike's back, then there is probably a good reason.

I think it was McQ himself who said that at one point.
Grain of salt or two may be needed. Maybe not, but maybe.
 
I agree with you, but the only thing that gives me pause is Joe's attitude toward Mike. From what I understand, Joe was a staunch defender of Mike's through all of this. Wasn't Joe quoted as saying that "Old Main screwed it up"? I trust Joe far more than anyone else in this. If he really had Mike's back, then there is probably a good reason.
I think Joe felt the screw up surely was at the feet of those trustees who championed Sandusky's emeritus agreement. However, I'm not sure it was because he believed that JS was a pedophile. If you recall two things: Joe didn't believe the seriousness or the possible consequences to him and PSU in the beginning. Scott had to insist that Joe read the GJP. I think Joe was always of the mind that Sandusky had too many kids around, it was a distraction and a liability issue. Please refer to JVP's opinion (in writing) that JS not be permitted to allow access to children from TSM.
As an old HS AD, I can tell you that I would have done the same, based purely on liability concerns. 10 and 11 year old kids should not be running around a college weight room etc. Nothing good will happen.
Sandusky's retirement agreement and emeritus status was not the brain child of Spanier, Curley or Paterno. There were trustees who functioned as Jerry's advocates. Funny how the names have never been confirmed? Yes, Old Main screwed up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mixolydian
Sandusky's retirement agreement and emeritus status was not the brain child of Spanier, Curley or Paterno. There were trustees who functioned as Jerry's advocates. Funny how the names have never been confirmed? Yes, Old Main screwed up.

There is probably a lot of truth to this. But I also remember a former player (can't remember who) visited Joe after he was fired, and Joe said something like, "I reported what I knew, and they didn't do a damn thing." Anyone remember the player where that quote came from?
 
There is probably a lot of truth to this. But I also remember a former player (can't remember who) visited Joe after he was fired, and Joe said something like, "I reported what I knew, and they didn't do a damn thing." Anyone remember the player where that quote came from?
Do you think Joe(at that time) knew that Tim took his concerns to Jack Raykovitz?
The issue with believing that MM reported child abuse to JVP and TC, GS is the advice Dad and Dranov gave the night of the incident. Do you believe two accomplished and respected medical professionals would not take action if CSA was reported to them? Their advice to Mike was consistent with an eye witness account that was muddled, confused and without merit to report to police or CYS. Didn't Dr. Dranov essentially testify to this? They fashioned a strategy to file an administrative report......which is the way the incident was handled up the ladder. For 10 years MM never complained nor did Dad or the good doctor. Mike testified that no one told him to keep his experience to himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
Do you believe two accomplished and respected medical professionals would not take action if CSA was reported to them? Their advice to Mike was consistent with an eye witness account that was muddled, confused and without merit to report to police or CYS. Didn't Dr. Dranov essentially testify to this? They fashioned a strategy to file an administrative report......which is the way the incident was handled up the ladder. For 10 years MM never complained nor did Dad or the good doctor. Mike testified that no one told him to keep his experience to himself.

Taking hindsight bias out of it, yes, I think all of this is possible. Not saying that is definitely what happened. But possible.
 
There is probably a lot of truth to this. But I also remember a former player (can't remember who) visited Joe after he was fired, and Joe said something like, "I reported what I knew, and they didn't do a damn thing." Anyone remember the player where that quote came from?

I think it was Lenny Moore.
No one else has stated that or verified his claim, that I know of.
Could be that Joe was told, or assumed, that something was done with what he said. Given that no one else complained about anything for 10 years, that is reasonable.
But when the fit hit the shan, maybe he realized that not enough had been done, despite what he believed to be the case. Given that train of thought, and given hindsight, he wished he had done more. Like follow-up again, like not take someone's word for it that the issue had been satisfied.
Even Tim Curley said he wished he himself had asked more questions.
All reasonable, based on what they eventually learned vs. what they thought they knew at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KC-KS-Lion
Keep this in mind....after seeing the GJP MM tried to walk back what was in the document.
When MM heard that Curley was about to be indicted he deemed him " a good person."
Gun to your head, do you think MM reported to all what he said in his testimon(ies). I say NO.
 
I think it was Lenny Moore.
No one else has stated that or verified his claim, that I know of.
Could be that Joe was told, or assumed, that something was done with what he said. Given that no one else complained about anything for 10 years, that is reasonable.
But when the fit hit the shan, maybe he realized that not enough had been done, despite what he believed to be the case. Given that train of thought, and given hindsight, he wished he had done more. Like follow-up again, like not take someone's word for it that the issue had been satisfied.
Even Tim Curley said he wished he himself had asked more questions.
All reasonable, based on what they eventually learned vs. what they thought they knew at the time.
100% everyone realized they didn't do enough when the shit hit the fan. Old too soon and smart too late. Only in The Commonwealth is that punishable by jail time (by a selected few).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78
Gun to your head, do you think MM reported to all what he said in his testimon(ies). I say NO.

No scenario I envision has Mike telling Joe, Tim, or Gary that he saw Jerry raping a kid. I do not believe that happened. I think Joe, Tim, and Gary acted in good faith.

The only question I have is, did Mike THINK he communicated a serious crime to Joe, Tim, and Gary, and the message wasn't effectively communicated? OR, did Mike flat out not communicate a serious crime, then ramped up his story ten years later?
 
I think it was McQ himself who said that at one point.
Grain of salt or two may be needed. Maybe not, but maybe.
I seem to remember a quote attributed to Joe advising Mike to make sure he has legal representation in his dealings with the administration. Part of that quote may have been because they screwed up handling the situation. If this was the case and what Joe was willing to say at his cancelled press conference and later, may have been the driver for his firing and throwing him under the bus. It theoretically limited the liability for the university (although the 1998 investigation by non-PSU authorities was more involved with more qualified parties and therefor could be sited as a bigger failure)...once they were aware of the situation they acted. It's pretty consistent with the story the OG BOT has held to.
 
Re: MM We don't really need to guess. In 2001 MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing (since he couldn't see anything) but was rightfully weirded out and thought the shower was inappropriate and that PSU folks should know about it. The problem for me with MM is that he had one story in 2001 that was vague and full of assumptions and a completely different story of being certain a kid was gettting raped in his 2010 statement to PSP/OAG. IMO there's no other explanation for no one's actions in 2001 matching with MM's 2010 version of events, MM played revisionist history for whatever reason.

MM in 2001 reported an inappropriate shower that made him feel uncomfortable (as opposed to child abuse). That's what everyone's testimony boils down to. Even MM's own father testified that 2001 was "at least a very inappropriate action"...indicating there was some grey area to what MM said in 2001.

=======================================
From 12/16/11 Prelim:

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.

=======================================

Since when is someone being 99% sure (as MM claims in the 12/16/11 prelim) a kid was getting raped be categorized as "at least a very inappropriate action"?? There'd be no grey area to what JM testified to. Since there was grey area according to JM, MM wasn't sure what JS and kid were doing other than it concerned him due to the sounds and circumstances, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mixolydian
The only question I have is, did Mike THINK he communicated a serious crime to Joe, Tim, and Gary, and the message wasn't effectively communicated? OR, did Mike flat out not communicate a serious crime, then ramped up his story ten years later?

Given the response of (1) SrMcQ and Dranov, (2) JoePa, and then (3) C&S, which was three separate discussions/descriptions from the same person about he same event, and the reaction those five people took, it is a 100% certainty, no doubt whatsoever, that Mike McQ did not see nor communicate anything near what was stated in the GJP.

Mike can think all he wants, but there is absolutely, positively no way on earth he told anyone a story that suggested anal rape or anything close to it. No Way. No how. Not in a trillion years.
 
"Upon entering the locker room, he glanced in the mirror, saw Sandusky standing behind a boy with his arms wrapped around him." Subsequent questions all answered "no"

Did mike ever tell you that what he saw was horseplay?

Did he use that word during the meeting?

Did mike use the word phrase horsing around.

Did mike ever describe sliding around and slipping around floor?

This is real testimony from the trial.

I think in a previous post months ago if you go up behind your significant other naked in a shower and wrap your arms around them. What is your significant other thinking?
 
I think in a previous post months ago if you go up behind your significant other naked in a shower and wrap your arms around them. What is your significant other thinking?

If my significant other was a 10 year old boy, they'd be thinking, "how in the hell does this 230+ pound guy expect to fit THAT in HERE?" Then they'd be thinking how much they'd be screaming if he did it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AvgUser
Re: MM We don't really need to guess. In 2001 MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing (since he couldn't see anything) but was rightfully weirded out and thought the shower was inappropriate and that PSU folks should know about it. The problem for me with MM is that he had one story in 2001 that was vague and full of assumptions and a completely different story of being certain a kid was gettting raped in his 2010 statement to PSP/OAG. IMO there's no other explanation for no one's actions in 2001 matching with MM's 2010 version of events, MM played revisionist history for whatever reason.

MM in 2001 reported an inappropriate shower that made him feel uncomfortable (as opposed to child abuse). That's what everyone's testimony boils down to. Even MM's own father testified that 2001 was "at least a very inappropriate action"...indicating there was some grey area to what MM said in 2001.

=======================================
From 12/16/11 Prelim:

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.

=======================================

Since when is someone being 99% sure (as MM claims in the 12/16/11 prelim) a kid was getting raped be categorized as "at least a very inappropriate action"?? There'd be no grey area to what JM testified to. Since there was grey area according to JM, MM wasn't sure what JS and kid were doing other than it concerned him due to the sounds and circumstances, etc.
Wasn't this meeting with Schultz about a business transaction between PSU and McQueary/Dranov?
 
I seem to remember a quote attributed to Joe advising Mike to make sure he has legal representation in his dealings with the administration. Part of that quote may have been because they screwed up handling the situation. If this was the case and what Joe was willing to say at his cancelled press conference and later, may have been the driver for his firing and throwing him under the bus. It theoretically limited the liability for the university (although the 1998 investigation by non-PSU authorities was more involved with more qualified parties and therefor could be sited as a bigger failure)...once they were aware of the situation they acted. It's pretty consistent with the story the OG BOT has held to.

I think this is also related to Joe not trusting Baldwin (rightfully so)
 
"

I think in a previous post months ago if you go up behind your significant other naked in a shower and wrap your arms around them. What is your significant other thinking?

It depends on the context. Are you saying that every time you hug your significant other from behind it results in anal sex? Good for you, I guess.
 
"Upon entering the locker room, he glanced in the mirror, saw Sandusky standing behind a boy with his arms wrapped around him." Subsequent questions all answered "no"

Did mike ever tell you that what he saw was horseplay?

Did he use that word during the meeting?

Did mike use the word phrase horsing around.

Did mike ever describe sliding around and slipping around floor?

This is real testimony from the trial.

I think in a previous post months ago if you go up behind your significant other naked in a shower and wrap your arms around them. What is your significant other thinking?
Well...first, he saw it "through a mirror" which warps depth perception and increases the distance (line of sight to point of focus and back).
 
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?
He said something, a rumor, may have been discussed in his presence. And the guy was 84 when he was recalling this stuff and couldn't remember player names on the team and was dying of cancer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RussianEagle
Wasn't this meeting with Schultz about a business transaction between PSU and McQueary/Dranov?

Yeah, pretty sure it was a few months after Feb 2001 and it was about some random business nothing to do with MM's report (Dr. D was there as well). Then at the end of the meeting is when JM/Dr. D/Schultz briefly discussed Mike's report and that discussion is what the questioning was about in the 12/16/11 Prelim.

Note that during this meeting JM didn't go ballistic & demand an explanation when he learned that JS still hadn't been arrested MONTHS after Mike's initial report to PSU admins where he supposedly told them he was certain a kid was getting abused....hmmmm. Not even a "hey Gary, this could be a very serious crime, why didn't anyone from UPPD come get Mike's statement after your meeting with him?"

If MM's 2010 version is true how were JM and Dr. D not outraged??? Why not one peep of dissatisfaction from them? To me the only explanation for this lack of outrage is that they were all satisfied with PSU's response of revoking guest privileges and informing mandatory reporters at TSM because MM's report was about an inappropriate shower that made him feel uncomfortable and was vague/full of assumptions, not certain child abuse.
 
Last edited:
It depends on the context. Are you saying that every time you hug your significant other from behind it results in anal sex? Good for you, I guess.

Well unc you are a fairly well informed poster add the location time ... add the context of that night.
 
Well unc you are a fairly well informed poster add the location time ... add the context of that night.

None of us know the context of that night because we weren't there.

I don't see how the location or the time impacts this at all. Is every hug that occurs after dark immediately sexual?

The hindsight bias here is unbelievable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78 and WeR0206
"Upon entering the locker room, he glanced in the mirror, saw Sandusky standing behind a boy with his arms wrapped around him." Subsequent questions all answered "no"

Did mike ever tell you that what he saw was horseplay?

Did he use that word during the meeting?

Did mike use the word phrase horsing around.

Did mike ever describe sliding around and slipping around floor?

This is real testimony from the trial.

I think in a previous post months ago if you go up behind your significant other naked in a shower and wrap your arms around them. What is your significant other thinking?

Real testimony from the trial... a decade later. Do you think his actions from that night in 2001 match his words from a decade later?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT