Your fantasy is gonna turn into a nightmare pretty soon Seth. The feds got Chaka. You and the rest may be next on their list
John Doe took the Ira Lubert approved settlement but is "too fragile" to testify
- Thread starter eloracv
- Start date
So now you're suggesting that the GJ Court Reporter is also a liar? How about if you list all those whom you think ARE telling the truth? It shouldn't take you long.
So far, all we have of Joe's GJ testimony is Beemer (a corrupt corbett crony) reading it into the record at one of the prelims. This isn't good enough for me, and it shouldn't be for you or anyone else for that matter. Maybe the court reporter made an error, etc.?
That's why I want to hear the audio. It's extremely odd that he would make a declarative statement then follow it up with a qualifier and Joe didn't mention the sexual in nature part in his prior interview.
That's all besides the point that it was a non cross examined (what does "sexual in nature" mean to Joe?) 10 year recollection, it's not something one should hang their hat on.
It's not hard to figure out, the people that are telling the truth are the ones asking for transparency and NOT trying to obfuscate, like your heroes on the OG BOT, Corbett, et al. have been doing from DAY ONE.
If JVP testimony was read into the record at a preliminary hearing, then the entire transcript of said JVP testimony has been provided to defense counsel. Funny, we haven't heard any of the defense lawyers suggest it was inaccurately read, or inaccurately transcribed, nor have they requested the audio, or filed any motion of any kind challenging it. But, in fairness, they probably haven't had the benefit of your advice. LOL!
Elmo - JVP did exactly what he should have......period.
You can keep spinning all you want but it causes me to question your motives.
We already know he did what he should have so the testimony BS means absolutely NOTHING. so when we know the guy did what he should have but there are so so so many others who's motives and actions need to be questioned --- I'm wondering what your motive is to keep harping on the guy who helped put JS away ?
Speaking of BS, anyone that had to pay a $100 fine or face trial at a later date did not have their charges dropped. Nice try. LOL!
Don't disagree at all. Something obviously made Joe elevate it to Curley. The contemporaneous actions of everyone involved suggest what was said was much closer to horsing around than anal rape. But I admit I don't and probably never will really know for sure.
I see... too old to be able to handle his own testimony but not too old to be the head coach of a major college football program?
I don't have a problem with thinking that Joe probably forgot some of the more intricate details of what happened, but the overview of what went down is not something one would make a mistake about... certainly not with what was alleged. And that doesn't mean that Joe did anything wrong, I just hate to see the age thing as an excuse when those same people wanted Paterno to remain the head coach of the football team.
Uhhh, you don't know wtf you're talking about, per usual. Scott did in fact request the audio of Joe's GJ testimony, not sure if he ever received it though. I have no idea if CSS' lawyers also requested the audio.
As others have said, Joe's actions show he did exactly as he should have with MM's vague assumption riddled report so I'm not sure why you keep wanting to focus on one line of his worthless GJ testimony, oh that's right, it's because it's the only scrap you have left at this point.
Last edited:
Really ?
You keep referencing Joe and his testimony
I'm telling you his testimony helped convict JS
And other than that nitpicking his testimony rather than focus on the real bad guys does a disservice to children
I'm also asking you why you keep harping on Joe unecessarily
That sounds relevant to me
So why don't you answer the question
There are so many items not germane to the original point in this response. Joe was perfectly capable of coaching and winning (410) but that has nothing to do with what MM told him. The point is that it's not reasonable to expect him to remember something that a lackey grad assistant told him 10 years prior. Sexual/non sexual, horseplay and whatnot all the while the cops are leading him to a conclusion they already made. Have you ever read the Sassano interview? The cop tries to play "cop games" with Joe by mixing Curley and McQuerey and then back to Mike.
She thinks they're very believable. You can usually find her walking to a crisis near somebody.I wonder if she has an opinion about the Jack Reacher novels.
I read the interview and how do you fit this into your scenario?
SASSANO: Okay, and can you tell me what Mike McQueary told you please.
J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on. We didn’t get in to what the inappropriate action was, but it was inappropriate. And that’s how I knew about it.
SASSANO: So he did not elaborate to you what this sexual activity was, only that he witnessed some sexual activity between Sandusky and a young boy?
J. PATERNO: Well he, well he, to be frank with you it was a long time ago, but I think as I recall he said something about touching.
SASSANO: Touching?
J. PATERNO: Touching.. whatever you want to call them, privates, whatever it is.
SASSANO: Okay, could he have said there was something more? An actual sex act?
. PATERNO: He never said that.
I thought JVP's sworn testimony was "I don't know what you would call it"...????
You didn't post the entire thing which is total BS and very misleading to the novice reader. So here it is for all to see with the cop tactics in red. Look at how Sassano tries to confuse Joe by calling Mike "Mr McQueary". Clearly this threw Joe off. The entire interview is complete bullshit
J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on. We didn’t get in to what the inappropriate action was, but it was inappropriate. And that’s how I knew about it."
SASSANO: So he did not elaborate to you what this sexual activity was, only that he witnessed some sexual activity between Sandusky and a young boy?
J. PATERNO: Well he, well he, to be frank with you it was a long time ago, but I think as I recall he said something about touching.
SASSANO: Touching?
J. PATERNO: Touching…. whatever you want to call them, privates, whatever it is.
SASSANO: Okay, the key element is, do you remember if you told Mr. Curley whether in person or over the phone, that McQueary witnessed a sexual incident between Sandusky and a boy?
J. PATERNO: To my knowledge yes I think Tim was aware of the fact that Mike had seen this inappropriate action.
SASSANO: Sexual action?
J. PATERNO: Well yea, I guess you’d call it sexual.
SASSANO: Okay, so now it’s quite clear to Mike so, oh I’m sorry, to Mr. Curley. So if Mr. Curley would have told us some…
J. PATERNO: I can only tell that he was... it was transmitted to him that there was inappropriate action. To what degree I didn’t, I never asked Mike. All I know was that it was basic… it was something we would probably take, uh, probably call sexual. What Tim got out of it I have no way of knowing. But Tim was aware of the fact that we felt we had a problem.
SASSANO: And do you know what happened after that with regards to Mr. McQueary and/or Mr. Curley?
J. PATERNO: Nope.
SASSANO: Did Mr. Curley get back to you at some point in time after that to advise you what actions were taken…
J. PATERNO: No, no, I didn’t, I had other things to do, we had… As I said, Jerry was not working for me.
SASSANO: Right.
SASSANO: Subsequent to Mr. McQueary coming to you and you advising Mr. Curley of this inappropriate sexual action, whatever that may be
J. PATERNO: Mr. Curley did not come to me, I went to Mr. Curley, I got in touch
S. PATERNO: You misheard what he said, he said Mr. McQueary came to you.
J. PATERNO: Who?
S. PATERNO: He said Mr. McQueary came to you.
SASSANO: Mike.
S. PATERNO: You misheard him
J. PATERNO: He did not come to me.
S. PATERNO: Mike McQueary.
J. PATERNO: Ohhh, McQueary, I thought you said Curley.
S. PATERNO: Not Curley. He’s not used to hearing Mike called Mr. McQueary.
J. PATERNO: No no no. Mike McQueary. Mike McQueary saw it on a Friday, came over here and sat at the very table we’re doing this interview, alright, and was very upset. I said what’s your problem and he said I saw something yesterday, I was in the shower, I was in the locker room, Jerry Sandusky was taking a shower with a person. And he said they were doing things that, ya know, and I never got in to know hey what did he do, did he do this, did he do that, but obviously there was a sexual kind of activity. I said hey Tim we got to let the other people know because I have no responsi… I have no authority over Jerry.
SASSANO: Did any police department ever get ahold of you about this?
J. PATTERNO: Nope.SASSANO: Did anybody from the University, well, anybody from the University Police Department contact you?
J. PATTERNO: Well, not till ten years later.
SASSANO: Coach, how long have you known Mike McQueary?
J. PATERNO: Since he was a high school kid.
SASSANO: And you’ve known him for a long number of years now, correct?
J. PATERNO: I would, he played for me, played for Penn State is what I should say, he.. when he graduated from high school he came here, what year he got out of high school I can’t say..
SASSANO: Okay, but you’ve known him for quite a number of years.
J. PATERNO: Oh, yeah
SASSANO: He’s been on your staff for a long period of time.
J. PATERNO: Twelve, fifteen years probably.
SASSANO: Do you know him to be a trustworthy individual?
J. PATERNO: Absolutely.
SASSANO: If he came and told you something
J. PATERNO: Absolutely…
SASSANO: Would you automatically believe it?
J. PATERNO: Absolutely. He was very upset when I…
SASSANO: Knowing him as you know him, and dealing with stress and pressure like he does in his system, do you know him to be one that over-reacts or does he appropriately handle that and report the same thing?
J. PATERNO: Well, he’s a competitor, a fiery guy in that sense. But I can’t, in his relationship with people I don’t remember him over-reacting. Once in a while with one of his players he’ll foul up and he’ll, and I’ll have to say, you know, are you sure he’s the guy, and you know that kind of thing. But in something like that I don’t think I’ve ever seen him overreact.
SASSANO: In your appraisal of him then if he was upset about something it would be for an appropriate reason, correct?
J. PATERNO: It was legitimate. It was legitimate.
SASSANO: It was what?
J. PATERNO: He would have been legitimately upset.
Sounds to me like Sassano wanted Joe to speculate on whether Mikes speculation about what JS may have been doing in the shower was sexual or not. What a freaking joke. MM testifed he couldn't even see anyone's hands or privates. So anything other than "I saw JS standing with his arms around a boy in the shower" is conjecture (no wander MM never felt compelled to make a written statement to UPPD).
Exactly. The whole thing is BS and the grand jury as well.
Scott Paterno is not representing any of the defendants, so whatever he or any other lay person harp about is not going to matter. Scott is a loving, loyal, but perhaps desperate son grasping at straws hoping against hope that a sliver of exoneration will shine through. However, as far as legal impact, Bernie McCue might as well have requested it.
As you acknowledged, you "have no idea if CSS' lawyers also requested the audio" which proves my point. (It also affirms that it is you, not me, that has no idea what you're talking about).
Last edited:
inappropriate sexual activity
legitimately upset
touching privates
sexual kind of activity
JVP's own words. How could anyone think he was talking about innocent horseplay? You'd have to be blind and daft.
The only question that remains is how early in JS' career did JVP first learn of JS tendencies.
legitimately upset
touching privates
sexual kind of activity
JVP's own words. How could anyone think he was talking about innocent horseplay? You'd have to be blind and daft.
The only question that remains is how early in JS' career did JVP first learn of JS tendencies.
Good God you are insufferable. So I should have clarified that Scott is a plaintiff that has requested the audio not a defendant, my point was that the audio has been requested. You tried to insinuate that it wasn't.
Do you know for a fact that CSS have not requested the audio?
Also you continue to completely ignore the fact that Joe's testimony is worthless we know he did exactly as he should have, report to supervisor and stay the heck outta it.
You also continually ignore the fact that when Joe and Curley respectively followed up with MM he never expressed dissatisfaction or said more needed to be done.
Once again, Black Elmo takes a thread and directs it back to that boy in the shower. You seem to do that quite often. In fact, one might find it a rather unhealthy compulsion. But it's everyone else who has the problems.
JVP testimony is worthless? Is that another way of saying that it incriminates CSS so it should be ignored?
He shouldn't remember a GA coming to tell him that he saw his former DC and a boy naked in a shower and something of a "sexual nature" was occurring? That doesn't go away.
When you couple that with the fact that MM couldn't recall the month or YEAR the shower incident even occured, what does that tell you?
Losing Al Golden and LB recruit Leon Williams, the best player to come out of Brooklyn in 25 years, right before signing day(and the shower incident) wasn't memorable at all.
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/williams-picks-miami-article-1.938749
I can tell you lots of things that happened a long time ago that I could not tell your the month or year it happened.
Any mistakes as to before or after 9-11 in your bad memory? Any man-child rape witnessings that you've lost track of?
So Sassano tried to get JVP to say how well MM handles pressure situations while others would tell you the reason he did nothing the night before and explained nothing worthy of reporting to Mr. M and Dr D was because he was likely traumatized. So was he a man great under pressure or too traumatized to explain what really happened?
Sassano is very clearly and deliberately steering Joe toward the answer he wants to hear. He wants to establish MM is an honest and upstanding person and thus credible witness and Joe has no idea they are setting him up. And he has no idea that they are trying to get Tim and Gary either. He's just trying to be helpful as always. This interview and the grand jury testimony are a sham. Any good lawyer would have that squashed.
If I would forget about something, I would just make it up when asked about it. If Paterno forgot what MM told him, he would have said that something of a sexual nature occurred. Clearly, he remembered the big picture of what was going on, which is what you would expect.
SASSANO: Okay, and can you tell me what Mike McQueary told you please.
J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on. We didn’t get in to what the inappropriate action was, but it was inappropriate. And that’s how I knew about it.
"Sassano is very clearly and deliberately steering Joe toward the answer he wants to hear"
Could you enlighten us on how Sassano's question "clearly and deliberately" steered Joe to his answer?
Can someone translate this for me? While no "looses" or other 412 type errors, it makes no sense.
"Anyone can speak Troll. All you have to do is point and grunt."
—Fred Weasley joking about Troll language.
Basically, what getmyjive11 is saying is that if in 2011 Joe Paterno completely forgot what Mike McQueary had told him in 2001 then it would stand to reason that Joe would not simply admit that he didn't recall what Mike told him but rather it stands to reason that Joe would make up some bullshit about what Mike told him that fits the general narrative (i.e., no harm - no foul) and relay that bullshit to Sassano and the Grand Jury. And getmyjive11 starts off by claiming that that all makes sense to him because that is exactly what he himself would do if he found himself in the same shoes.
Black Elmo, Roxine and the Paterno haters will never admit that's a possibility.
