If I was Curley or Shultz
- Thread starter bdgan
- Start date
He is out plowing roads... because "Chew on this..." people have to get to work.
That is laughable. McQueary may not even testify:
Prosecutor: Did you meet with Mr. McQueary?
C/S: Yes.
Prosecutor: What did he tell you?
C/S: That he saw Jerry Sandusky molesting a young boy in the shower of Lasch Building.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
I hope he returns and shares his sources.
His statements were so factual that I went to PennLive to look for the quotes, admissions, etc. he said he based them on. Found nada.
Or... Is the more reasonable response to that question:
C/S: To be honest, he really didn't verbalize much at all. He did seem agitated over what he saw, but he really didn't put in to specific words exactly what he saw or heard. I/we didn't really know what had transpired.
I'm minded of the question asked Kareem once when he was talking about traveling in Europe. "What's it like to go somewhere where you are not a celebrity?"
His reply?
"when you are 7'4", everywhere you go, you are a celebrity".
Maybe if MM dyes his hair....
Hugely unlikely. They have already told the OAG what they'd and that was the basis of the plea deal.
Wrong, if they testify, they would be rock star witnesses.
Q: Did you plea guilty to EWOC?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you consult with or get approval from Dr. Spanier regarding how to handle this scenario.
A: Yes
Q: Did Dr. Spanier agree with your proposed actions?
A: Yes
Q: Do you admit by your guilty plea that these actions were insufficient to protect minors from abuse by Mr. Sandusky and thus endangered the welfare of children in the commonwealth?
A: Yes
Q: And these same actions that were insufficient were known and agreed on by Mr. Spanier?
A: Yes
Q: Did Mr. Spanier have the authority, either then or anytime after, to suggest a different course of action by the University than agreed upon with you?
A: Yes
Q: Did he ever discuss further action with you?
A: No
Q: Are you aware of any other actions that he took independently of you in this matter?
A: No.
Q: Did Mr. Spanier ever acknowledge the "liabilities" of taking this approach?
A: Yes
Q: And what where those?
A: That if Mr. Sandusky did not hear our message to seek help, that PSU could be vulnerable to liabilities to his actions.
Q: So Mr. Spanier was aware at the time of the potential shortcomings of this plan?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you.
All of those things OAG will seek to substantiate through evidence in emails etc, so attacking C/S believability won't erase that. They just need to show that C/S believe they are guilty, that Spanier was involved and approved, Spanier recognized more may need to be done, and that Spanier or them never did anything beyond that.
If C/S testify and Spanier doesn't testify to contradict them, then why would a jury think C/S are guilty, but Spanier is innocent.
I fully understand that C/S pleading guilty may be a compromise on their end to avoid the gamble and they may still feel like they weren't really guilty, but they cannot say so because then Bocabello takes that into consideration and either sentences them more harshly for equivocating on their admission.
Let's take a stab at the defense questioning of C/S...
Q: Did the witness (MM) ever speak to Mr. Spanier directly?
A: No
Q: Did you have any reason to believe the action plan signed off on by Mr. Spanier was insufficient AT THE TIME?
A: No, we realized there was a possibility of another similar situation arising so we took appropriate steps by revoking guest privileges to prevent that and also informed the director of his charity of the 2001 incident and our new directives that his guest privileges were revoked and his showering behavior was wrong/needed to stop so they could take whatever steps they were required to from their end (which they didn't).
Just because someone cops a plea to a charge 10 years later doesn't mean that everyone knew at the time that actions were insufficient.
I actually felt the state's case against Spanier was the weakest because what he heard from C/S re: 2001 could be considered triple hearsay or something along those lines.
If C/S were unhappy with the action plan then they should blame mostly themselves. The emails show the action plan was mostly devised by C/S then they brought it to Spanier for his sign off and he said sure, that works based on what you told me and that was the extent of it.
Last edited:
Hugely unlikely? We're probably going to agree to disagree of the logic and reasonableness of everything that happened.
Dad McQ and Dranov already told everyone that what Mike told them was not enough to warrant a call to police or other authorities. Paterno's reaction and statement agrees with Dad McQ and Dranov. Even MMcQ own inaction and silence over 10 years corroborates that wasnt even sure himself.
McQueary is not even an issue.
Further J McQ, and Dranov, testified that McQueary was so up he could not articulate it.
Dranov was a defense witness in Sandusky's trial, and it blew up in Amendola's face.
McQueary was not "silent" for ten years. He reported it the next day.
They probably would not have gotten the plea deal without admitting that McQueary told them of abuse. You will have two witnesses saying that McQueary told them it was abuse; you don't need McQueary.
And amazingly McQueary was unable to articulate what happened even to his father for the next ten years. Boy, that night really must have shaken him up.
Also, amazingly his father or Dranov never asked him about it again after that night. Guess they didn't think it was too big a deal. lol
Confidence or false bravado or arrogance? He has a couple million reasons why he might be holding out and then there's his legal actions against Freeh and PSU at stake. That all hangs in balance. There was another guy that was equally confident/arrogant. His name was Lance Armstrong. Old Lance was pretty "confident" that no one could touch him either. He filed slander lawsuits against anyone that questioned his wins. He intimidated researchers and continued to lie about PED's for almost 10 years. He talked about independent test results that "proved" he was legit. He had the protection of his inner circle and hired a NY PR firm to provide cover just like Spanier.Timmy and Gary never took that route and for the most part they have remained pretty quiet since the initial indictment.
The moral to the story is that the people that file libel lawsuits are often the ones that have the most to hide. They are over compensating. It's human nature - go on the offensive and make the other party play defense. I am now of the mind that Gary and Timmy are taking the fall for Spanier's decisions - they were pawns. Spanier even tried to set them up in the whistle blower case by claiming he "trusted" their judgement when it came to researching the 2001 shower incident. By doing that he was sending the message that he was hands off and didn't even bother to look into the matter. That of course is a lie. Spanier had his hands on everything. He was a micro manager and documented everything.
Took a while to get to that place but that's where I am after Monday. Joe is also a pawn and did exactly what he should have. That was never in doubt though. MM is still a coward for not slamming Jerry's head against the shower tile until he was unconscious but that another debate altogether.
Why and for whom?
P.S. Congratulations on learning how to copy and paste. Now if we could just teach you not to eat your own boogers.
Yet as recently as Sunday, some on your side thought they were callous bastards who didn't care about the safety of children. Now when it appears they flipped, suddenly you're worried how they're going to be viewed and treated by the rest of the community.
Unfortunately, what they thought at the time is irrelevant now. I agree that depending on what MM precisely told them may have influenced them to underestimate the situation especially in comparison to what his later testimony claims, but regardless the flaw is that C/S/S aren't in the position to investigate it and never notified someone who could. Thus, even if they acted with the best intentions, their actions made them the decision makers, so they were at risk if the were wrong because they were holding the bag.
What they did does seem to have prevented it from PSU campus but not otherwise, so even though they were trying, they aren't going to get credit because the end result is that not reporting it to LE or Childline that an opportunity was lost to stop Sandusky. There are a whole host of people that did have opportunities as well, but proving someone else is as responsible doesn't erase the opportunity they missed, even if it was unintentional at the time.
Last edited:
Still pretty amazing, though, don't you think?? Don't bother answering. Your reply wouldn't be worth reading.
My side? So let me guess who was on my side. jive, elvis, LT Young...and the list goes on and on there I guess. Ask anyone of them you think is on MY SIDE if I agreed with their points of view on the Big 3 and Joe all along. Hell ask any single one of them if I said these 3 were all guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Ask them...ask any one of them if I was onboard with their views on CSS. I wasn't, but I also never bought into the biggest conspiracy theory either. I never thought JS was framed by the state. I don't think every cop, investigator, and prosecutor in the state just felt the need to bury PSU and all things PSU. Other things said here as opinion have slowly turned into fact...even though they are just opinions.
I don't care how CSS are viewed to be honest. Part of me feels sorry for them as Jerry f--ked up their lives just like so many more and those attached to those guys families. Maybe you're concerned about how certain people are seen or the articles being written from a PR perspective, because you sure seemed to project there and you really missed the mark. People mistake me not playing a pity card for Jerry as I had a pitch fork out for CSS...that wasn't the case. I happen to think now the emails, notes, and plea kind of all add up. It's not a good look and I think they will testify in GS's trial. They aren't bad people, but mistakes were made. Just like they were at TSC, DPW, and all over the place. Somehow if you say PSU screwed up, you're a liar or not a fan or some other BS.
Heck, even Joe is supposed to have said "Old Main screwed up".
McQueary testifed that's what Joe said to him. Needless to say MM is not exactly the most reliable source.
No, there was a culture, not a football culture, but one overall of secrecy and doing things "the Penn State way."
I refer to it as CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA GOTHIC, and not in a humorous vein.
Actually, as far as court of law goes, I would argue that what they know/think now is irrelevant and the only thing that IS relevant is what they thought/knew at the time. You can't use hindsight bias as a means to justify charges against someone, therefore you must go with what people thought/knew/intended at the time.
Also, the only reason C/S found themselves in the position of doing an informal admin investigation is because MM never filed a damned police report! IOW, how could an official LE investigation (as opposed to informal admin investigation) ever get started if the one and only witness never filed an official report with LE?? The admins can't force someone to file a report if they don't want to. The moment MM/Dranov/Dad decided to not call police that night and instead handle it as an internal HR inappropriate behavior issue by telling Joe the next day, they forced C/S to rely on doing their own non child abuse expert informal investigation. If MM felt the admins response was inadequate he should have said something to them, but he never did. That's on MM, not the admins. If MM wanted child care experts (such as CYS)/LE to handle his report he should have brought it to child care experts/LE, but he never did.
That being said, C/S still reported it outside of PSU and the report ultimately died at TSM who had the most responsibility (minus the witness) of anyone involved and they did the least to stop JS or even revoke his 1:1 access to kids.
It's completely absurd for the state or anyone else to argue that the admins should have known or foreseen that TSM would not follow the damned law (look into any and all incident reports) and their own internal policies re: TC's complaint to them.
Now, in retrospect (now that everyone knows JS was a pillar of the community offender and groomed the community for decades) can the admins see/admit that they took the wrong/not enough action with MM's vague assumption riddled report? Of course, since hindsight usually provides clarity on ambiguous situations especially ones involving pillar of the community offenders. Perhaps that's why they decided to plea to a wrist slap misdemeanor instead of rolling the dice on a potential felony and tainted jury pool.
We'll see if/how they testify within a week or so. My bet is that if they do testify it will be largely the same as all the other times before.
I didn't bring up MM, someone else did. I don't think he will testify. But if he does, he will get eviscerated.
So if C/S testify the way you predict above, they will face federal perjury charges based on Spanier's security clearance process. The OAG can't protect them from federal prosecution. How do you reconcile that with your little fantasy scenario?
You don't know that.
It is more likely that the basis for the plea deal is that the OAG knows they have a losing case which is why they let them off with a bare minimum plea (i.e. one they would take even if they are innocent).
I can write up fictional testimony too.
That doesn't mean that is what they are going to testify to, nor does it mean that it would hold up under cross examination.
There are a million "negatives" as a result of the CS plea deals.
Devastating, bewildering, negatives that are as damaging as any we have absorbed from any of the proceedings to date.
Absolutely horrendous. No way to avoid that reality.
But that outcome should surprise no one - - - - - when have we had ANY "legal proceeding" that did NOT end in an absolute ass-f&cking of any quest for illumination?
[Yes, that is a 'rhetorical".....as the obvious answer is "never"]
There is - IMO - only one positive (and at that, a "positive" which only MIGHT have an impact if the GrSpanier part of this shit-fest actually takes place - - - - which isn't a given):
Namely, that it once and for all forces the attention away from the idiotic, decade-long "he said/she said" jerk-fest that was bewilderingly contorted into the focal point of the PSU aspect of the "Sandusky Affair".........the MM/GSchultz/TC "meeting".
That entire fiasco is now utterly moot wrt the remaining legal proceedings.
Finally.
Devastating, bewildering, negatives that are as damaging as any we have absorbed from any of the proceedings to date.
Absolutely horrendous. No way to avoid that reality.
But that outcome should surprise no one - - - - - when have we had ANY "legal proceeding" that did NOT end in an absolute ass-f&cking of any quest for illumination?
[Yes, that is a 'rhetorical".....as the obvious answer is "never"]
There is - IMO - only one positive (and at that, a "positive" which only MIGHT have an impact if the GrSpanier part of this shit-fest actually takes place - - - - which isn't a given):
Namely, that it once and for all forces the attention away from the idiotic, decade-long "he said/she said" jerk-fest that was bewilderingly contorted into the focal point of the PSU aspect of the "Sandusky Affair".........the MM/GSchultz/TC "meeting".
That entire fiasco is now utterly moot wrt the remaining legal proceedings.
Finally.
Hindsoght bias is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what their intentions were then OR now. I think they probably had good intentions or motivations, as we know they told others, restricted access, etc, so that it wasn't a problem at PSU, but stopping it just in your domain isn't enough in child abuse by societies standards. Because abused children aren't often in the position to sound the warning, it is critical the information is shared with those who can investigate and whose jobs it is to do so. Not saying that solves the problem because we can point to many failures of the system, but by not putting it on someone's radar they essentially were left holding the hot potato when the music stopped. I think there are others equally or far more responsible for endangering children in this case, but for various reasons they have escaped criminal prosecution because C/S/S are the ones on an island. They whole cast of participants in 1998 (except the only that cited grooming behaviour), MM, Raycovitz were in as good if not better places to stop Sandusky, but didn't put the bat to the ball.
And the very reason that mandated reporters are required to report these incidents is because they are not the witnesses nor the investigators themselves, but just the conduits of info to pass to LE or Childline so the alleged abuse can be investigated. They don't have to do anything other than relay the info and get out of the way, but if they don't relay it then the are behind the drivers seat because they haven't passed it on. So if something happens, even if they didn't know about it, they are vulnerable regardless of whether their mistake was innocent or not.
The only "assist" in the healing process they should consider is laying out the facts, mistakes made and all. Their 5+ years of silence has been brutal to PSU's reputation.
Well, that admittance would have been far less detrimental to PSU than their absolute silence.
I hope they can do just that. Not an attorney, but I'd bet a lot of $$ that their silence over these years has been them taking legal advice.
Yes, they did stop it in their domain but they also TRIED to stop it outside their domain. They tried to stop it outside their domain by forwarding the info to the child care experts and MANDATORY REPORTERS at TSM who had DIRECT control over JS' access to kids (even if TSM forwarded the report to CCCYS and CYS failed to indicate JS again TSM could still restrict JS' 1:1 access to kids, the PSU admins had no control over this). If TSM failed from there that's on them and has nothing to do with the college admins at PSU.
Believe it or not it was TSM's job to look into any and all incidents no matter how benign and make any reports to CYS/Childline as needed. TSM folks were 1000X more qualified to handle MM's ambiguous report than college admins.
In retrospect if C/S knew TSM was going to completely drop the ball and skirt their legal requirements I'm sure they would do things differently but they don't have the luxury of a time machine.
Last edited:
That could have been Paterno's response because he never wanted TSM kids to have access to PSU facilities as he noted on JS's retirement paperwork.
How many years were you living in central PA studying this "culture"? What towns did you live in and what amount of time did you spend in each town? Provide verification, please.
I need to understand your basis for characterizing the culture of an entire region of PA.
Last edited:
They might not testify. They might not be asked those questions if they testify. But if they do, then those are the answers consistent with their guilty plea and with Spanier's interview and the email. Feel free to correct me on what is false because I don't see it.
Spanier's own interview acknowledges he discusses this with C/S and that nothing further was done by him.
Spanier can claim that he was told something different as in horseplay, but the fact he acknowledge their was a liability risk indicates he wasn't naive to the sensitivity of the issue even if it was just horseplay. The ability to kick this back on MM inability to communicate dissolves with their plea, so if Spanier knew what they knew, then Spanier faces long odds.
You and I obviously have different interpretations of the Spanier email. From a jury's perspective, all they need is reasonable doubt. But let's set that aside for a second.
Do you agree that given:
1) We know that Schultz and Curley were interviewed as part of Spanier security clearance renewal.
2) We know that Spanier's security clearance was renewed.
3) It is an almost certainty that Tim and Gary were asked about this issue during the background check for Graham.
Therefore, that it would be safe to assume that Tim and Gary answered questions to the feds the same way they answered them in court originally? In other words, there is no way they said something damning about Graham and yet he still got his clearance.
If you agree with that assertion, then there is no way they are going to answer those question differently in Graham's trial. Because if they do, they will face federal perjury charges(sorry, as an edit, they technically aren't perjury charges, but lying to a federal agent is a jailable offense. I'm leaving this error in here in the interest of transparency) . PA OAG can't save them from that.
Last edited:
Technically, no and technically it is not perjury. But it is still illegal and punishable by federal jail time.
It falls under "Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001"
You cannot lie to a federal agent. Madoff, Martha Stewart, etc have been convicted of this.
I've made a note above of this distinction.
