Juror speaks
- Thread starter LundyPSU
- Start date
Mike was the only witness to the 2001 event. What he did next and how he communicated what he witnessed is the gating item to everything about this case as it pertains to the harm done to PSU. So yeah there is a different standard applied to his involvement. Did others screw up or make bad decisions too? Yes it appears they did.
The issue for many here (myself included) is that nobody Mike reported this to in 2001 acted in a manner that is consistent with what he said he believed he witnessed under oath a decade later.
i don't get your point....yeah, he was the witness......McQueary was a confused 28 year old kid who saw something disturbing...from a beloved man in the community, a legend he knew all his life (some call him a coward for bolting, but i think that's big talk for not being in Mike's situation)....he followed the advice of his father & dranov....he reported it Joe......he met with Curley & Shultz......at that time, I'd imagine Mike thought he was doing the right thing......if Curley & Shultz reported to DPW or the cops....nobody would be debating Mike's actions.
conversely, I will say the fact that nothing happened with Jerry after the investigation and Mike being ok with it (i'm assuming he was ok with it since he moved on with his life), is peculiar.......potentially, cowardly.
I also add Mike's been inconsistent on what he's reported....1st only hearing slapping sounds, and seeing a kid pop his head beyond a shower wall, then seeing jerry's arm pull him back.....then it was, oh I saw jerry pinning boy up against the wall.....huge difference. so i don't know what to believe when it comes to Mike....keep going back n forth
Last edited:
Since you experienced being asked questions about events that you had no recollection of and so answered, can you imagine answering anyway knowing your answer would have helped lead to criminal sex charges being filed against someone you had previously worked with?
This would be consistent with what Clemente has said about "good guy" offenders.
I'm also thinking of the similar case of Art Schlichter here in Columbus. Yes, the crime was different--but the "good guy offender" meme was in full bloom. He fooled folks the second time around--after being given a second chance.
Bob I saw you are in HR. Hope you don't mind a question. Why is there no paper trail in this mess, not a single one? There's no detailed account of mike report, there are not reports of steps and actions taken, no follow up report from or with Courtney? Even in the atty file there is only a copy of the invoice... not one other thing. We know one of Gary's departments was H R.
Since you are in the field it would be interesting to hear your take?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
And why would CSS talk in code in their emails? All fair (and damning) questions.
I am not sure what you are asking here.
In any case, I am not sure how an answer of "I don't recall" would lead to any charges being filed on someone else.
In case anyone saw the emails. This could be done by looking over someone's shoulder, IT hacking the account, or anyone hacking the account. It is a highly confidential manner. There could be a million reasons to "talk in code" that had nothing to do with hiding it from the police.
The same reason why MM, Dad and Dranov have no written records. In fact, Schultz did keep some notes (as we saw). But that fact that none of these hairballs documented this is beyond belief.
Not damning at all. This was a highly sensitive and delicate matter whether Sandusky was guilty of child molestation or not.
A better question is why, if they were told by McQueary that Sandusky had engaged in sex with a child and were trying to cover it up, would they communicate about it at all via email? Any good lawyer would have advised them against any email communication on this topic, regardless of what they thought had occurred.
I'm not sure there would have been a "paper trail". Many offices have gone "paperless"--including my own--in the past few years. Old files? I know when I got a new boss, a few years back, all of the old file cabinets left his office. We had a number of containers from a secure shredding company. And there was nothing nefarious about it. By the time the grand jury met, it was 10 years later. Penn State had transitioned it's electronic servers and e-mail system at least once. Even if electronic files still existed at that point, it might well have been difficult to impossible to retrieve them (read the story of the guys trying to recover the original e-mail message at Carnegie Mellon proposing the use of the emoticon [i.e. "
"] for the first time for an example--they had to restore some old computers in a basement for the old storage tapes to work). ANd as I recall, the e-mails in question weren't even gotten off of the PSU servers, were they? Weren't they physical copies printed off years ago? So we don't have the whole trail, elecronic or paper.I have a bunch of old memos and the like from my first years at my job. They may well be the only copies in existence anymore as I am pretty senior. But they stop around 2004 when we went computerized. And they will be recycled when I retire in a few years, I am sure. I haven't had a physical pay stub in years either. My reviews have been electronic for a decade.
Now there might well have been things in the Second Mile files. But we'll never know.
Assume you were giving testimony under oath about an event that occurred years ago and for parts of which you had no recollection. If I understood your post you said that in fact happened to you.
My question is having walked in those shoes, could you imagine if, instead of saying I don't remember, you would give an answer anyway knowing that answer could lead to the filing of criminal sexual charges against someone you had worked with?
I believe Curely testified that they were writing these cryptic references because PSU was having problems with leaks at that time.
I don't know. The answer you are apparently looking for would require foreknowledge of what might happen.
Kid? What was he when he was the starting QB at PSU and completed 18 straight passes against Wisconsin? A baby?
With all due respect, there should be different standards "applied to mike v. others." He is the only WITNESS to whatever it was that he witnessed.
This dipshit is trying to set you up kgilbert.
"I don't know what you would call it". "I don't know exactly what it was".
A different standard for honesty? A different standard for change of testimony? I think not.
Dukie...no you didn't verbatim write it, but you're implying it. You wrote (as you have in a similar fashion many times)..."the report to dr r was well ambigious at best and seem to be a hey this happened but don't worry we handled it type report."
You are clearly implying that Curley (at least) intentionally watered down (or covered-up or whatever you want to call it) the report to Raykovitz. With that description you're implying that Curley is not a good man.
You keep saying let's wait for the transcript but you're assigning blame as well.
And there are different standards for Mike and others because Mike is the only actual eyewitness.
same question to you then gmj - what exactly did Tim lie about - what was the truth if he wouldn't have lied
Very good questions. My guess is that HR was not involved. I know that athletics, like other depts./divisions within PSU, now has an HR person embedded as their go-to HR 'Consultant'. I don't know if that was the case back in 2001 or not. My assumption (emphasis there!) is that Tim and Gary did not consider this an HR-needs-to-be-involved situation, as no current faculty or staff were involved as being the core of the issue. Or, they just did not trust HR to step up and help, which of course could have been a reflection on HR at the time... who knows?
I know that in talking with one or two HR people at PSU, they believe that HR involvement could have helped dramatically in how this was handled and documented. In cases at work where an outside person has been at the center of the complaint, I still follow the procedures and document and inform as I deem appropriate. (Quick example: a vendor visits the site and says something insulting or intimidating or inappropriate to an employee. I would still document it, and would also make a call to the vendor's employer to inform them of the situation and let them know that either the following things happen, or this person is not to come to our facility again. The doc would be in an HR file, and most probably not the employee's file unless there were extenuating circumstance beyond the surface of the complaint.)
To your questions, and all just my opinion: This, like any incident, needed to be thoroughly documented. And I am not saying that in hindsight, but rather on my HR experience and career. The docs would not be kept in any staff person's file (i.e. not to be kept in McQ's file - it was not a matter that involved performance or discipline). The proper place to keep the file was in HR outside of any staff files (we all have special situation files from things that arise over the years), with the attorney, and probably with Gary as the Org. Head of Campus Police. So at least there was some informal documentation kept with Gary. The lack thereof anywhere else is puzzling, except I believe that HR was never involved anyway.
One thing I've found for myself is the mere process of documenting a situation helps me think about it and often uncovers another idea or two about something that needs to be or could be done about the situation. And with the more complex issues, I almost always find a trusted executive, either a peer or my boss, or maybe my most insightful HR staff person, to run things by to help me think of other aspects that I may be overlooking. But I still own my piece of the process and the decisions needed to be made toward that end. (To me, that is why Tim went to JVP - he trusted his insight and opinion and experience and wanted someone to bounce this off of... NOT to make the decision for him. He still owned his part of the process and the decisions he made in that regard, not JVP. I believe he said as much the other day.)
One of the issues with HR that PSU is now trying to transform is that in an academic setting, HR had not been seen as a full 'partner' when it comes to strategic planning or handling the tough stuff. HR has been more tactical and transactional in academia, rather than strategic. If that was the attitude toward HR then, I can see why HR was never consulted or even considered. I am sure that is different now, or is moving in that direction. My HR experience is that 20 years ago, I had to go around to the company leadership (my peer level peeps) and the management teams and tell them in no uncertain terms that I needed to get involved, that I was there to help them, that I don't expect them to be great at everything even 'sort of HR-related' that comes across their paths.
Again, just my opinion.... I suspect there was a lack of HR involvement either by design or by intimidation when it came to the end of McQ's career and contract and Joyner handled it ham-handedly... as he did almost everything. Had he followed HR procedures and had HR input, the vital need for consistency in that instance (to match the way other coaches were exited) would have been made apparent. Or, maybe HR tried to get involved but Joyner ran over them without considering anything except doing what he wanted. From the outside, and from what I could glean from the trial and from reading about things, it sounded like either an HR person screwed it up royally, or that HR was not involved. Given it was a Joyner thing, my guess is that HR was not involved or was intimidated into being a silent bystander.
Hope that helps answer your questions. No doubt in my mind that documentation is crucial in nearly every issue escalated to management. People are unpredictable, and thoroughly documenting the decision-making whys and whats and whens and hows has been best practices for quite a while in HR.
So you are saying that they suspected CSA may have occurred?
But it was just talking about "horseplay", right? What's wrong with that?
Yes. Since he had been caught in "horseplay" several times before, was the leader of a charity that had been on the cover of SI, had adopted several "at risk" boys, had been vetted by several child advocacy groups and that it is not illegal to shower with kids (especially after sporting events) or even give them "bear hugs"...yes.
No I didn't say that at all. You being to dense to understand my point is par for the course.
Couldn't you ask that same head-in-the-sand-question about anyone who testifies? Sorry, but Tim not remembering about a number of things wrt this event is not believable. It's not believable to me, the jury or many reasonable people.
Well to be more specific; Joe testified to certain things that McQueary told him concerning what he had observed that night at Lasch.
Now if Joe had no recollection of what McQueary had told him 10 years earlier, as many posters here have maintained, then based upon what law enforcement had coached him on (again according to posters here), he gave testimony against a man with whom he had worked for years, which could result in criminal charges being filed against Sandusky even though he didn't remember the conversation.
Having been in a situation where you answered you didn't remember instead of answering anyway, I was curious as to your thoughts.
Then what's the concern? Why even contact lawyers for advice? Why even tell JR? Why even tell Jerry not to bring boys to the facility anymore?
You cannot say that there wasn't concern because clearly there was. And if there is legitimate concern regarding a mature male and a boy in the showers, it needs to be reported. Period.
Because your point is sidestepping the issue. Yes, of course it is highly sensitive. Many things are sensitive.
Yep. So predictable.
And BTW I won't hold you to your "many" allegation, show just one post where someone said Joe had "no recollection of what McQueary told him". Now scram.
Again more proof that you don't understand the point. Re-read mine and Obliviax's posts and if you still don't understand, find some other point to display your lack of intelligence.
Actually just for shits and giggles, why do you think they wrote in code in emails captured on a University server about this matter?
Mrs KG might well say that I still act like a kid--at 61.
Good news is the trial brought some clarity. LOL. Then you still have the village idiot with his finger in his ears.
Then you still have the village idiot with his finger in his ears. 
