Juror speaks

[kgilbert78]

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.

I've never claimed to have a good memory for such things. I've got a good head for trivia, though, which tends to confuse folks. I was also specifically told to not speculate in my testimony.

Joe did have a good memory. However, we now know he was ill and aging at the time. It's not at all stretch of the imagination for him to have thought he had a better memory than he did. Then.

But he was big on doing the right thing. Helping put away a criminal would have appealed to his sense of justice--no matter who it was. We know this from, for example, the "salad bar case", where he was hard on his own family members. I'd also not be surprised if he asked MM about the situation in 2011 as a memory refresher. Yet one thing is clear--he wasn't 100% sure about what Mike meant as noted by his many uses of "I'm not sure" and "I don't know what you would call it".

And many folks mistake the idea of testimony. Some see it as a way to help the prosecution. Some see it as a way to help the defense. But it really is meant to be "just the facts, ma'am".

 

[getmyjive11]

Actually just for shits and giggles, why do you think they wrote in code in emails captured on a University server about this matter?

Because they were suspicious of CSA and didn't want it leaked.

 

[psugisher]

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.

You don't think it could've been a liability concern? Sandusky wasn't an employee and he was bringing non-relatives with him on campus. Just that is an issue. The showering part increases the risk because of how it looks and it involves an at risk kid. It also involved a man completely revered in the public. It would make perfect sense to discuss this and see how to proceed even without suspecting any abuse. This is the scenario where all the actions of all involved make sense.

Your scenario is EVERYONE was told of anal rape. They got more people involved, got legal advice, went against legal advice, went to Jerry to tell him to stop raping kids on campus, went to Second Mile and told them minimal info all to protect Penn State.. perhaps that's the story.. but I doubt a group of intelligent men come to this conclusion with actual black and white allegations that you suggest they had. It's either shut up and be discrete if they're covering up or there's a report to police and Child Protective Services made. This is the bizzarro world scenario the public has been fed.

 

[Connorpozlee]

sorry...i'm 42...i considered myself a kid at 28....but i get your point.

When I was 28 I already had a kid. I was an adult, making decisions that effected not only me but others around me.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You don't think it could've been a liability concern? Sandusky wasn't an employee and he was bringing non-relatives with him on campus. Just that is an issue. The showering part increases the risk because of how it looks and it involves an at risk kid. It also involved a man completely revered in the public. It would make perfect sense to discuss this and see how to proceed even without suspecting any abuse. This is the scenario where all the actions of all involved make sense.

Your scenario is EVERYONE was told of anal rape. They got more people involved, got legal advice, went against legal advice, went to Jerry to tell him to stop raping kids on campus, went to Second Mile and told them minimal info all to protect Penn State.. perhaps that's the story.. but I doubt a group of intelligent men come to this conclusion with actual black and white allegations that you suggest they had. It's either shut up and be discrete if they're covering up or there's a report to police and Child Protective Services made. This is the bizzarro world scenario the public has been fed.

When you exaggerate someone else's point, it doesn't make your point any stronger. FWIW

 

[Lion8286]

Good news is the trial brought some clarity. LOL. Then you still have the village idiot with his finger in his ears.

And you still have LaJolla. . .

 

[LaJolla Lion]

When I was 28 I already had a kid. I was an adult, making decisions that effected not only me but others around me.

Yep, and others that do and don't have kids may not "grow up" as quickly. I do seem to think that most people tend to grow up quicker once they have kids. I have friends a bit older than myself in their mid to late 40's without kids and they can still party like they are 20 years old. I honestly don't know how a few are still alive or have functioning livers. Different people on different paths.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

And you still have LaJolla. . .

Funny thing is you were so wrong that you even dropped it...tick, tock. LMAO...you still call me out which shows exactly how f--king stupid you really are.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Yep, and others that do and don't have kids may not "grow up" as quickly. I do seem to think that most people tend to grow up quicker once they have kids. I have friends a bit older than myself in their mid to late 40's without kids and they can still party like they are 20 years old. I honestly don't know how a few are still alive or have functioning livers. Different people on different paths.

Agreed. That said, a 28-year old man is responsible for their actions and their inactions.

 

[PSUPALY]

When I was 28 I already had a kid. I was an adult, making decisions that effected not only me but others around me.

what are you saying....you would've stopped it, right?....then called the police....because Mike saw an assault/a crime? i don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

[marshall23]

That's right, I'm the bad guy in this.

Admitting it is the first step. Congratulations.

 

[Mixolydian]

Because they were suspicious of CSA and didn't want it leaked.

So they suspected CSA, were conspiring to develop a plan not to report it, and they were discussing this plan in not very veiled code on a University email system? Not that they weren't sure what happened based on McQueary's vague report and felt they needed to look deeper into it, but they suspected CSA? I figured as much. And surely if this blew up in their faces and they became "vulnerable" because they conspired to hide suspected CSA, no one would think to check their emails around the time of the incident. Or if someone did think to check, the code system would have thrown them off. Yep, makes sense.

Neither you nor I have any idea what their suspicions were at the time those emails were written. Most (all?) of them were written before Curley spoke to Sandusky or Raykovitz, which were 2 components of their stated plan. Yet you speak as if you know what their suspicions were at the time the emails were written? Your problem has always been that you confuse biased thoughts that float into the vacuum between your ears for facts.

For obvious reasons, they would not have wanted this sensitive matter leaked regardless of their suspicions. Are you seriously this dense? Rhetorical question, no need to answer.

 

[getmyjive11]

You don't think it could've been a liability concern? Sandusky wasn't an employee and he was bringing non-relatives with him on campus. Just that is an issue. The showering part increases the risk because of how it looks and it involves an at risk kid. It also involved a man completely revered in the public. It would make perfect sense to discuss this and see how to proceed even without suspecting any abuse. This is the scenario where all the actions of all involved make sense.

Your scenario is EVERYONE was told of anal rape. They got more people involved, got legal advice, went against legal advice, went to Jerry to tell him to stop raping kids on campus, went to Second Mile and told them minimal info all to protect Penn State.. perhaps that's the story.. but I doubt a group of intelligent men come to this conclusion with actual black and white allegations that you suggest they had. It's either shut up and be discrete if they're covering up or there's a report to police and Child Protective Services made. This is the bizzarro world scenario the public has been fed.

I could be wrong, but I believe that CSS were advised by the lawyer to report the incident. If I am wrong, please point out the article because that is what's sticking in my mind.

 

[getmyjive11]

what are you saying....you would've stopped it, right?....then called the police....because Mike saw an assault/a crime? i don't want to put words in your mouth.

I believe he is saying, at minimum, he would have contacted the proper authorities with getting others involved (or at least at some point).

 

[marshall23]

It is my understanding that Jack Raykovitz did contract work for CYS and was a mandated reporter.

 

[getmyjive11]

So they suspected CSA, were conspiring to develop a plan not to report it, and they were discussing this plan in not very veiled code on a University email system? Not that they weren't sure what happened based on McQueary's vague report and felt they needed to look deeper into it, but they suspected CSA? I figured as much. And surely if this blew up in their faces and they became "vulnerable" because they conspired to hide suspected CSA, no one would think to check their emails around the time of the incident. Or if someone did think to check, the code system would have thrown them off. Yep, makes sense.

Neither you nor I have any idea what their suspicions were at the time those emails were written. Most (all?) of them were written before Curley spoke to Sandusky or Raykovitz, which were 2 components of their stated plan. Yet you speak as if you know what their suspicions were at the time the emails were written? Your problem has always been that you confuse biased thoughts that float into the vacuum between your ears for facts.

For obvious reasons, they would not have wanted this sensitive matter leaked regardless of their suspicions. Are you seriously this dense? Rhetorical question, no need to answer.

For all the pontificating you do about my intelligence, it is amazing that you don't understand how reporting this incident was the only proper move to make. How it would have prevented all this damage to everyone involved. But no, please tell me more about how those men did the right thing while watching them get sentenced. It's too bad this crazy world doesn't see it your way, eh?

 

[psugisher]

When you exaggerate someone else's point, it doesn't make your point any stronger. FWIW

This might be the wrong place to provide posting etiquette advice.

So, is it a mild exaggeration or a big one?

 

[Bob78]

WEAR. SWIM. TRUNKS.

We should have known you were a 'nevernude'...... Outrageous!

Someone in the football office should have done more.

 

[marshall23]

For all the pontificating you do about my intelligence, it is amazing that you don't understand how reporting this incident was the only proper move to make. How it would have prevented all this damage to everyone involved. But no, please tell me more about how those men did the right thing while watching them get sentenced. It's too bad this crazy world doesn't see it your way, eh?

Right you are again. You are on a roll. This is a crazy world where nearly two dozen victims claim abuse by JS and met him through a charity, The Second Mile. Yet, all the financial settlements to the claimants and the only people being held accountable are affiliated with Penn State. Curious, strange, hard to explain.......crazy.

 

[PSUPALY]

I believe he is saying, at minimum, he would have contacted the proper authorities with getting others involved (or at least at some point).

yeah again...I think Mike thought he was doing that. i don't know....all i know is, I never blamed Mike for being in shock....because it was shocking....Jerry wasn't a stranger...it was "Jerry".

only thing i fault him for at this point is (in addition to embellishing his story) ....if he truly saw Jerry pinning a boy up against the shower wall (i mean...that's egregious), how the f*ck was he ok with the inaction that occurred after his meeting with C&S?

 

[marshall23]

yeah again...I think Mike thought he was doing that. i don't know....all i know is, I never blamed Mike for being in shock....because it was shocking....Jerry wasn't a stranger...it was "Jerry".

only thing i fault him for at this point is (in addition to embellishing his story) ....if he truly saw Jerry pinning a boy up against the shower wall (i mean...that's egregious), how the f*ck was he ok with the inaction that occurred after his meeting with C&S?

If Mike saw a boy being sexually abused and he was not satisfied with what PSU did.....all he had to do is ask for a second meeting and say,"Gentlemen, maybe I didn't make my self clear.......here is what I saw and I'm willing to testify to this so we can handle it properly."
Just as on that fateful night, if in fact he did see something, he only needed to walk closer to the shower area and say, "Oh, I was surprised to see anyone here tonight." How ya doin coach?"

 

[Obliviax]

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.

WE should have known you were a 'nevernude'...... Outrageous!

View embedded media

Classic! I forgot about that. Gotta "hide your thunder!" what is even funnier, in real life his TV wife is gay (married to Elen degeneres).

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

This woman clearly fancies herself as a pseudo intellectual but she's out of her league judging this case and she got all the facts wrong. This is why we need an intelligence test for jurors. There was no cover up. These men were diligent and in the end there was no real case for reporting to CYS, DPW or the police... period. They had already been down that road in 1998 and nothing came of it. Were there some communication issues? Sure, but those communication issues arose from MM and his inability to be clear and concise not from C/S/S hiding anything.

 

[Zenophile]

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.

Dukie- Can't answer the question about 2001 (no idea if Schultz was an HR professional by training or education), but it's my observation that HR was obvious by its absence in the handling of Paterno's and Mike's respective situations in 2011-2012. Those were abysmal failures and could have been easily avoided.

 

[Art]

yeah again...I think Mike thought he was doing that. i don't know....all i know is, I never blamed Mike for being in shock....because it was shocking....Jerry wasn't a stranger...it was "Jerry".

only thing i fault him for at this point is (in addition to embellishing his story) ....if he truly saw Jerry pinning a boy up against the shower wall (i mean...that's egregious), how the f*ck was he ok with the inaction that occurred after his meeting with C&S?

I'll buy the "shock" reaction for 5-10 seconds. Beyond that, it's cowardice or worse.

 

[lionville]

This woman clearly fancies herself as a pseudo intellectual but she's out of her league judging this case and she got all the facts wrong. This is why we need an intelligence test for jurors. There was no cover up. These men were diligent and in the end there was no real case for reporting to CYS, DPW or the police... period. They had already been down that road in 1998 and nothing came of it. Were there some communication issues? Sure, but those communication issues arose from MM and his inability to be clear and concise not from C/S/S hiding anything.

How much was there in common between 1998 and 2001? Jerry showering with a kid. Could their thought process have been "here we go again", and since JS was cleared and there were no charges in 1998, they devised a plan to respond and take clear actions. Confront JS, Ban him from bringing kids into PSU facilities, report it to his boss at TSM.

 

[coveydidnt]

Right you are again. You are on a roll. This is a crazy world where nearly two dozen victims claim abuse by JS and met him through a charity, The Second Mile. Yet, all the financial settlements to the claimants and the only people being held accountable are affiliated with Penn State. Curious, strange, hard to explain.......crazy.

That other people not directly associated with PSU also messed up does not equate to jive's point - that a report by any one of the people at PSU to authorities would have avoided all the settlements, trials, and all.

Or at least would have removed any danger of being found guilty (except for JS) either legally or ethically.

The irony is -- and it's largely unappreciated on this board -- if those guys WOULD have reported in 2001, and there was a smaller scandal, Jerry might have even gotten off. But you know what the majority on this board would say - CSS & Joe should have kept their damn mouths shut, we're losing recruits, we're getting blasted in the press, etc...

 

[Lion8286]

The irony is -- and it's largely unappreciated on this board -- if those guys WOULD have reported in 2001, and there was a smaller scandal, Jerry might have even gotten off. But you know what the majority on this board would say - CSS & Joe should have kept their damn mouths shut, we're losing recruits, we're getting blasted in the press, etc...

This is possibly one of the stupidest things ever posted on this board.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

If TC had an attorney and had responded in that fashion to the Grand Jury, perhaps he would not have been charged with perjury. I'd love to see you skewered about something that happened 16 years ago. I think juries should be very suspicious of individuals who claim to have a clear memory of what happened 16 years back, based on sounds heard through closed doors and a 3 second view via mirrors and around a wall..

I revised your response...

 

[Bob78]

That other people not directly associated with PSU also messed up does not equate to jive's point - that a report by any one of the people at PSU to authorities would have avoided all the settlements, trials, and all.

Or at least would have removed any danger of being found guilty (except for JS) either legally or ethically.

The irony is -- and it's largely unappreciated on this board -- if those guys WOULD have reported in 2001, and there was a smaller scandal, Jerry might have even gotten off. But you know what the majority on this board would say - CSS & Joe should have kept their damn mouths shut, we're losing recruits, we're getting blasted in the press, etc...

The irony is -- and it's largely unappreciated on this board -- if those guys WOULD have reported in 2001, and there was a smaller scandal, Jerry might have even gotten off. But you know what the majority on this board would say - CSS & Joe should have kept their damn mouths shut, we're losing recruits, we're getting blasted in the press, etc...

It is largely unappreciated by this board because it is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever presented by "your" side. The vast majority of this board would have embraced the idea of Success With Honor being put into play in that specific case. Anyone who would have argued it would have received the appropriate internet message board beat downs.

ThisCoveyshouldgetaclue.

 

[coveydidnt]

The irony is -- and it's largely unappreciated on this board -- if those guys WOULD have reported in 2001, and there was a smaller scandal, Jerry might have even gotten off. But you know what the majority on this board would say - CSS & Joe should have kept their damn mouths shut, we're losing recruits, we're getting blasted in the press, etc...

It is largely unappreciated by this board because it is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever presented by "your" side. The vast majority of this board would have embraced the idea of Success With Honor being put into play in that specific case. Anyone who would have argued it would have received the appropriate internet message board beat downs.

ThisCoveyshouldgetaclue.

No. You'd be leading the parade to lnych CSS for turning in an "innocent man" & "ruining his life" --- until one day he was caught for real.

 

[Bob78]

No. You'd be leading the parade to lnych CSS for turning in an "innocent man" & "ruining his life" --- until one day he was caught for real.

Me? Way off the mark here, didnt. I cannot think of anyone on these boards who would be leading that parade, or even walking along beside it.

 

[Bob78]

Dukie- Can't answer the question about 2001 (no idea if Schultz was an HR professional by training or education), but it's my observation that HR was obvious by its absence in the handling of Paterno's and Mike's respective situations in 2011-2012. Those were abysmal failures and could have been easily avoided.

Gary was a Finance professional by education / training, iirc. HR may have reported up through him, but I would guess he had little more than a few fairly routine HR training sessions along the way.

I also think HR was absent from those situations in 2011 - 12 for the wrong reasons. Under Joyner, given his reputation for intimidating people and the undercurrent of fear for jobs, the reason those better equipped to handle these things were silent most likely fall squarely on him.

 

[Connorpozlee]

what are you saying....you would've stopped it, right?....then called the police....because Mike saw an assault/a crime? i don't want to put words in your mouth.

I am saying that is what he should have done. Or at any point until the day the police found him to talk about it. The others has expressed some regret that they didnt stop it at the time. Except Mike. Which is kind of disturbing when you think about it.

 

[getmyjive11]

Right you are again. You are on a roll. This is a crazy world where nearly two dozen victims claim abuse by JS and met him through a charity, The Second Mile. Yet, all the financial settlements to the claimants and the only people being held accountable are affiliated with Penn State. Curious, strange, hard to explain.......crazy.

You say that like I don't think TSM or JR is responsible as well.

 

[Zenophile]

Gary was a Finance professional by education / training, iirc. HR may have reported up through him, but I would guess he had little more than a few fairly routine HR training sessions along the way.

I also think HR was absent from those situations in 2011 - 12 for the wrong reasons. Under Joyner, given his reputation for intimidating people and the undercurrent of fear for jobs, the reason those better equipped to handle these things were silent most likely fall squarely on him.

The Paterno situation was one of the most egregious errors in the handling of the crisis -- and IMHO it was THE most egregious, as it was completely avoidable.

If you want an irrefutable argument against the continued presence of the Business & Industry trustees, I'll summarize it for you: where was their invaluable business savvy in November of 2011?

 

[Obliviax]

You say that like I don't think TSM or JR is responsible as well.

Right...and to your point, had TSM done anything (lets say, TSM barred JS from being with young men alone, without others to supervise) there would never have been a problem is correct. Joe could have called the DA, like was done in 1998, and we'd still have a similar outcome (dozens of kids molested). At the end of the day, this falls on the following, in this order:

1. JS
2. MM, as the only true witness
3. Dad & Dranov for not reporting or, at least, directing MM to report it to the police
4. Schultz, who was the guy who owned the resources to do something
5. TSM, who was the singular connection point to connect the dots on what JS was doing
6. Curley, who was AD and should have been more forceful
7. Spanier who should have asked more pointed questions on behalf of the university
8. The state for not making orgs like TSM keep better notes
9. MM's GF
10. The 1998 gang for not being able to get out of their own ways
11. The janitor for being too timid when kids were at stake
12. Joe Paterno, who should have violated protocol and gotten more involved than the rules allowed.

 

[PSU65]

Towny, Dukie, and UncleLar. Other than those three, perhaps the jurors in this trial and MM whistle blower suit, but not the jurors in the Sandusky case.

And definitely not me.

 

[coveydidnt]

The Paterno situation was one of the most egregious errors in the handling of the crisis -- and IMHO it was THE most egregious, as it was completely avoidable.

If you want an irrefutable argument against the continued presence of the Business & Industry trustees, I'll summarize it for you: where was their invaluable business savvy in November of 2011?

If you mean the firing of Paterno, that was entirely his fault. It was completely avoidable, I agree.

 

[GTACSA]

I've never claimed to have a good memory for such things. I've got a good head for trivia, though, which tends to confuse folks. I was also specifically told to not speculate in my testimony.

Joe did have a good memory. However, we now know he was ill and aging at the time. It's not at all stretch of the imagination for him to have thought he had a better memory than he did. Then.

But he was big on doing the right thing. Helping put away a criminal would have appealed to his sense of justice--no matter who it was. We know this from, for example, the "salad bar case", where he was hard on his own family members. I'd also not be surprised if he asked MM about the situation in 2011 as a memory refresher. Yet one thing is clear--he wasn't 100% sure about what Mike meant as noted by his many uses of "I'm not sure" and "I don't know what you would call it".

And many folks mistake the idea of testimony. Some see it as a way to help the prosecution. Some see it as a way to help the defense. But it really is meant to be "just the facts, ma'am".

But it really is meant to be "just the facts, ma'am"

Absolutely.