Who mentioned the statue?!! More like people are pissed that MM and JR are not held to the same standard as PSU administrators.
Juror speaks
- Thread starter LundyPSU
- Start date
Who mentioned the statue?!! More like people are pissed that MM and JR are not held to the same standard as PSU administrators.
So he saw something sexual and did not call police and was apparently OK with Curley's plan or he was not sure of what he saw but then becomes convinced it was definitely sexual 10 years later when pressured by the OAG. So he is a coward or a liar. Which one is it?
Yup. Joe could have called upon His omniscience or His omnipotence to take care of any or all of those yet-unknown things.
But back to our non-fantasy realm, those who assumed leadership of the university in November of 2011 bore the burden of leading. And when we needed them to do so, ours failed us completely regarding their handling of Paterno.
And I have said this to the face of a former trustee who could offer me no response. Even they know.
Last edited:
I'm not talking about Joe. As far as I'm concerned his name shouldn't have come up during the trial. He didn't need to know any details, the others did.
C/S/S were the people making the decisions. It was very relevant and certainly discussed. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.
OK, so let's assume they all knew about 1998. So what? We know that ended with Jerry being investigated and nothing happened - the slate was clean. So isn't it likely they just said to themselves... "here we go again another bogus report with some misunderstanding about Jerry and some kid in a shower". This guy was a pillar in the community. He had his own mural downtown and was beloved for his kindness and compassion.
I'm not insinuating it's part of some greater cover up or Freeh's "conspiracy of silence".
They obviously lied about it though. So the question is why? Most likely it's what you layed out and none of them wanted to own after the judgment call went terribly wrong.
I'm of the opinion now that it was an honest mistake they tried to avoid the consequences for that ended up being a political football.
By consequences I mean the stigma attached not the criminal charges. I don't think that was even remotely a concern.
Why does one side always stoop to vulgarities and name calling?
Because some trolls are vulgar - and there is no more accurate way to "address" them?
Maybe?
Dukie the biggest issue I have had with Mikes story is your Dads testimony. Nowhere in his testimony which I would assume would be the most reliable since it was minutes after Mike walked in on JS. Nowhere in what your dad testified to did Mike mention he saw anything more that JS in the shower with the boy. Your dad testified that he asked Mike twice if he saw ANYTHING and Mike said NO. From his testimony it was obvious your father was trying to elicit if Mike saw anything sexual.
“It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or ANYTHING ELSE you can verify?” His son AGAIN said NO.
Then there is a little later that night when Mike went home and spoke to your dad again and Dr. Dranov.
Dranov said that three times he pressed Mcquery to describe what he actually saw, and three times Mcquery said that he did not see anything in the shower. Dranov conceded that Mcqueary might have been holding back; he too remembered just how upset Mcqueary was, which was why he kept pressing the issue. But at the end of the conversation Mcqueary continued to say that he did not see any act but that he heard those noises.
Add to that, Mike recently testified he didn't tell Paterno anything sexual.
You and your family are saying we are now expected to believe that Mike tells your dad twice, moments after he doesn't witness anything sexual. He then goes home and tells Dr. Dranov 3 times he saw nothing sexual, only describes sexual sounds. The next morning he goes to tell Joe Paterno what he saw and he didn't describe anything sexual. But we are supposed to believe after not telling any of the previous 3 he witnessed anything sexual, that he then did tell Curley and Schultz that he did witness sexual conduct. Also nowhere in there did he say he saw Jerry pressed up against the boy or in a sexual position with the boy like you are describing. You didn’t witness penetration or ANYTHING ELSE. Anything else would surely entail describing pressing on the boy in a sexual manner, right? You don't see a problem with that?
But, but, but, but........ there were those SOUNDS!!!!!! There is no other explanation for those sounds but anal sex between a man and a young boy. Mike is 1000% sure he HEARD sex.
It was pretty easy for jurors to interpret that email as Spanier knowing not reporting JS could be a potential problem for PSU. It is literally the first thing that comes to mind when reading that email, whether it's true or not. It needed an explanation and the jurors didn't get it.
Agreed. That's been the contrived context for the message in that email since its release.
I have to agree with this. There is a nefarious interpretation as well as a benign interpretation to that email. Unfortunately the only way to explain it was to put Spanier on the stand. They weighed the risks based on the pathetically weak case put on by the prosecution. Many will say they made the wrong call, but it's hard to know where the verdict(s) would have come down had they put Spanier on the stand and subjected him to cross. Coming out with a single misdemeanor and a chance for reversal on appeal...it could have been much worse. Based on the one juror's comments this jury had a component that wanted to find him guilty of something, facts be damned.
My educated guess is the Spanier's counsel realized they had lost the jury on the EWC charge (while good on the conspiracy charge) and decided not to present any defense for the appeal record. In reality it's not a terrible strategy for Spanier because the count was just a misdemeanor charge. The judges only decide legal rather than factual issues, so Spanier's testimony would have been of little value (and subject him to cross).
Here's some interesting reading, especially given the timing - hit the hotlinks below:
Here's another - que the laugh-track in regards to these charlatans lecturing on corruption. Weird how all of them are lawyers turned public officials turned gluttons at the sow feeder, eh?:
I agree as well.. the problem though is that it was presented to all of us for years as having that interpretation. If it was presented for years in a different way, we would most likely have a different interpretation. For me, I need more to convict.. it's not the smoking gun.. heck, I look back at previous emails or posts on message boards and can't figure out what I was trying to say at times. But the email was damning the way it was presented. Thought the defense would have to address it by having Spanier speak.
An acquittal would have required unanimity as well. As I have said before, it was an obvious "compromise verdict."
