Juror speaks
- Thread starter LundyPSU
- Start date
Would it surprise you if Mike was using Townys log in to post in his own defense? I am almost 100% certain Mike posted on FOS under Dukies account.
Last edited:
yyyeah....he did do the right thing....it's after he reported it is what the issue is at this point (based Curley's testimony).....he said he didn't know about 98 (Curley said he did).....yeah, that's a tough one to defend.
What exactly did he know, Einstein?
Go back to the rutgers board and keep sucking up to them. You're an embarrassment.
But it's not really 16 years. He was thinking about it for the last 5-6 years. Probably everyday. Are you telling me that he would remember absolutely nothing during that whole time?
HUH? Rakovitz didn't have executive power but CSS did?? Who did JS work for? what charity was he involved with?
Right.. Joe either knew there was an unfounded investigation of something sexual at most and if laws were followed he wouldn't know anything about the nature of the allegations.
And on topic.. of course the juror found Curley not be be credible after the prosecution who had him testify called him a liar.. Prosecution did a nice song and dance and they won. Hopefully Spanier comes up with something proactive in the appeal.
Let me ask you a question: Why the unequal application of the law regarding CS&S versus Raykovitz? And what does that tell you?
Was John McQueary being honest when he denied testifying before the Grand Jury?
PSU admins didn't have "executive power" re: anything JS in 2001. That's the point. The people who did were told and TSM dropped the ball. The only thing PSU admins could control from their end in 01 was JS guest privileges and they did restrict them.
So....they report the situation - whatever it was they heard - to the GD Director of the involved individual's employer.......who just happens to be
a state-supervised Children's Welfare charity.With a Director - a trained, licensed, regulated professional - who is MANDATED to investigate any such report. A report that - as has been mentioned before - prompted responses that clearly indicated that he (JR) was well aware that the nature of the report was certainly well above the criteria that would require a report/investigation - - - THROUGH HIS AGENCY.
I know its hard for mouth-breathers to place two pieces of information together - - - without tripping over their own tongues.
And when every responsible person involved REFUSES to open that door and lay it out for you, and it is up to you to commit to actually "thinking", that is difficult. - - - - - But if you do think for 2 1/2 seconds (I know that is likely a stretch
) and still can't see the idiocy of your contentions....... that's a special breed of stupid right there.
I would find it equally as believable that a man in his 60s (is that even right?) who has been through cancer would not remember things from 16 years ago as a man in his 30s not remembering what he said 10 years earlier.
I haven't read the transcripts of the trial. Did he really not remember anything? Was that his answer to every question?
If I had to guess, I think he probably pled guilty to the misdemeanor to save his pension and because of doubt of a fair trial. I don't think he or Schultz- and certainly Spanier- think they are really guilty of anything. So I could see his testimony being tainted by the thought in his mind that he did nothing wrong and was not going to give ye prosecution anything to help them convict another innocent man.
From a personal standpoint, I absolutely think these guys failed in some fashion. They put a lot of effort into not calling CPS. Easiest thing to do would been to just call. But I don't know the law well enough to know if that makes them legally guilty or not.
And the AG, at the time (IIRC) was one Tom Corbett. (regarding "who just happens to beSo....they report the situation - whatever it was they heard - to the GD Director of the involved individual's employer.......who just happens to be
With a Director - a trained, licensed, regulated professional - who is MANDATED to investigate any such report. A report that - as has been mentioned before - prompted responses that clearly indicated that he (JR) was well aware that the nature of the report certainly well above the criteria that would require a report/investigation - - - THROUGH HIS AGENCY.
I know its hard for mouth-breathers to place two pieces of information together - - - without tripping over their own tongues.
And when every responsible person involved REFUSES to open that door and lay it out for you, and it is up to you to commit to actually "thinking", that is difficult. - - - - - But if you do think for 2 1/2 seconds (I know that is likely a stretch
a state-supervised Children's Welfare charity.")I'm not seeing your point? I maintain that they all failed.
you know...you can disagree without being a jerk.....we're on the same side (i think).
i have no idea what he knew from 98 incident....safe to say he knew Sandusky was being investigated....you think he didn't know for what?
No one is using my account. You guys will make up all kinds of nonsense................. if it fits your needs.
You can always tell when the paterno loyalists have taken a setback for the statue coming back. Even though this is actually all over with, the rehashing of the last 15 years starts back up again. 5 years of trying to fix it went up in smoke by Tim and Gary not sticking to the plan and pleading guilty.....
So....they report the situation - whatever it was they heard - to the GD Director of the involved individual's employer.......who just happens to be
With a Director - a trained, licensed, regulated professional - who is MANDATED to investigate any such report. A report that - as has been mentioned before - prompted responses that clearly indicated that he (JR) was well aware that the nature of the report was certainly well above the criteria that would require a report/investigation - - - THROUGH HIS AGENCY.
I know its hard for mouth-breathers to place two pieces of information together - - - without tripping over their own tongues.
And when every responsible person involved REFUSES to open that door and lay it out for you, and it is up to you to commit to actually "thinking", that is difficult. - - - - - But if you do think for 2 1/2 seconds (I know that is likely a stretch
ok...now you're accusing me of not thinking. for last 5.5 years, i've been thinking about this plenty.
here's the other thing...i want you to be right....but the 2nd mile wasn't on trial.....C/S/S were....they had the ability to report it....did they not? should JR/2nd mile have MORE of a responsibility to report it?...i won't argue that.....but i have a tough time believing that relieves C/S/S's responsibility in the matter.....since the info was laid in their lap
Really? So among other things you are a human memory expert. If I had been unfairly harassed, and targeted for prosecution, the last thing I would want to do is kiss the asses of the slime that made my life a living hell. You can say anything you want about TC, IMO he is a good and decent man.
sorry if I misused the words executive power....but they had the power/the ability to report it....regardless if some other entity (JR/2nd mile) arguably had more of one
i'm with you....the fact that JR/2nd mile get away unscathed is concerning, to say the least.
but...how does that remove any accountability from C/S/S?
Thanks for coming back into the discussion, Towny.
I have not noticed much, if any, advocating for the statue to be returned. I think coveydidn't was trying to goad people into making such statements a few weeks back, but no one took the bait. I'm a Paterno loyalist and I am not advocating - yet - for the same statue to be returned.
So a number of us have asked you about your statements regarding Tim lying. We are asking exactly what did Tim lie about, and what the truth is to the questions he lied about.
Also, given that now both Tim and Gary have stated they took their plea because they wish they had done more (hindsight is great, no?!) I'm curious to know if Mike wishes he had done more in '01 or in the years after until the dam broke.
Thanks.
Having once had to testify in a deposition, only a couple years after the fact, yes I can believe it. The challenge here is if a person is actually remembering or are they remembering a memory of a memory. I had to answer a number of times that I could not remember--for that reason. Now could Curley have been dishonest? Sure. I can see that being possible too. But memory is a tricky thing, especially so many years after the fact.
If he was telling the truth, however, that would seem to indicate that he didn't think the incident was that important at the time.
He either has a fundamental misunderstanding of human memory or the inability to consider facts that don't support his opinions.
And it may be both.
Nothing I said wasn't the truth.
There is no proof that he knew any details of the investigation. In fact legally he should not have known. If you have some proof he knew the details, please show everyone or STFU.
When did he learn of 98? Did he know in 98 or when Curley informed him of a 98 incident in 2001?
I don't consider myself a Paterno loyalist either, but -- and this was true all along, but is especially after the Spanier trial -- there need be no shame in being a Paterno loyalist.
In the end, the worst things he did in life were hire his son to be on his staff, and waited too long to retire. When you weigh that against all the positive he contributed to the world -- mainly with helping to turn many kids of questionable backgrounds into responsible, positive contributors to society -- he's probably in the all-time 99 percentile when it comes to positive effects/contributions to society.
Nothing wrong with being a fan of someone like that.
TSM was obligated to report, and was under the laws and regs of the state regarding such agencies. Why isn't reporting to TSM enough of a report? TSM had the info laid in their lap, and they were mandated to investigate.
I place far more onus on TSM than on PSU and C/S/S once they had been informed.
The actual witness had the ability to report it...did he not?
The witness's father, presumably mother and family friend had the ability to report it...did they not?
The director of a child welfare charity had the ability to investigate it and report it...did he not?
CSS also had the ability to report it and yet they are the only ones who ever went on trial outside of Sandusky.
Something a little fishy there ya think?
jesus
"in fact legally he should not have known".....yyyeah, that's my point...Curley said he did.....what entirely?....obviously, nobody knows.
he learned of 98...in 98...based on the 1998 email chain where Curley said the "coach is anxious to get an update" was Joe (the anxious coach).
i don't disagree on TSM accountability. but to take away accountability from C/S/S doesn't seem fair....in fact, it's not.
McQueary did report it....just like Joe did....to the people in power....who should've reported it to DPW, CYS, cops, who-ever-the-fvck. apparently, they reported it TSM...but that didn't amount to jack sh*t
It's hindsight bias to think that knowing about 1998 would raise a flag in 2001. All they knew about 1998 in 2001 was that JS was cleared of wrong doing. Human nature would lead them to believe this was just another "false alarm" with the saint who helps troubled youth.
a saint that was confirmed...alone and naked with a boy.....twice.....late at night on the 2nd one....after being told to never effin do it again after the 1st time.
i'm pretty sure nobody here denies this fact
Hahaha, are you kidding me? The guy is a millionaire. This scandal is the best thing that ever happened to him. He wouldn't change a thing.
That's where our thoughts on this go in different directions, then. Imo, Tim reported it, just not to the preferred agency(s). The fact that TSM was not the preferred agency at that time is part of the 2011+ hindsight bias. Without hindsight, TSM seems to be a logical place to take the report.
But he reported it to a mandated agency in any event. I think he likely did that because of the built in bias from the outcome of the '98 investigation.
The degree of C/S/S accountability grows with hindsight bias. The degree of TSM accountability stays at the same very high level regardless if 2001 or 2017 imo.
