That's a complete BS response from Mike. He 'knows' that he saw Sandusky rape a child but he can't remember how long he continued to support the rapist's charity? Pure, unmitigated BS.
Just The Facts About Joe Paterno
- Thread starter bplionfan
- Start date
That's a complete BS response from Mike. He 'knows' that he saw Sandusky rape a child but he can't remember how long he continued to support the rapist's charity? Pure, unmitigated BS.
If this site held the key to kids coming to PSU, none would be there.
What was Joe raked over the coals for....not doing enough. What are you blasting MM for...not doing enough. You can split your hairs how ever you see it...just pointing out a wee bit of hypocrisy there. Have a great day.
This is why I'm a big fan of yours! Cut thru the B.S. And get to the point. Why do you not prosecute mandated reporters and prosecute others on charges that are contorted and questionable at best? You always ask the right questions to make people focus on the key issue. Thanks for staying in the fight.
From day one this has been a political assassination by Tom "Hitler-wannabe" Corbett.
If the law were applied to Corbett and his buddies in office, they would have all been removed immediately because of violating the core provisions contained in their oaths of office. For this to happen..."Court proven" crimes are not necessary - only the significant evidence of misusing the power of their offices. You are right in identifying the OAG proof that this ENTIRE CASE is a joke by exposing the fact that the (controlled) OAG and PA Courts did not charge Dranov and Raykovitz.
If you need further proof of this matter being controlled by Corbett, look at Fina's Public statement on Joe Paterno NOT being involved in a cover-up. Important to note that he mentions the highly engineered "Noonan Edict" : the statement that Paterno followed only the "Minimum standard of the law" but morally should have done more.
This statement delivered by Corbett's personal friend Frank Noonan was "professionally created" to involve Paterno in the negative public image Corbett's Team was creating to the public concerning the deep seated "criminality" of Penn State leadership. It is STILL BEING USED TODAY as a means to "prove" PATERNO covered up for PEDOPHILIA.
This phrase is NOT a common phrase - not a common concept. It CERTAINLY is not what would be publicly stated by an experienced, professional legal investigator ON HIS OWN - someone else made sure that the "Noonan Edict" was included in Fina's admission that Paterno was NOT involved in any kind of cover-up.
BIG QUESTION.....Since when do we have legal behavior being subject to the added LEGAL requirement of "MORALITY"????? MORALITY is a totally personal interpretation - not a legal standard!!! Without collusion within the core personnel in Harrisburg, this statement of the "Noonan Edict" could not have been made. HERE IS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF CRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER in this case!
Last edited:
Here is a good article that breaks down the duty to report for the Sandusky incident
http://www.pennlawfumble.info/duty-to-report.htm
Not really. Paterno got unfairly blasted for not doing enough, that much is true. McQueary gets blasted more for not being honest enough or not being consistent enough, or not being strong enough to stand up to coercion, etc.
Having said that, if he honestly believed he witnessed a child being sexually abused in 2001 and had "done enough" that night, CSS and Paterno would have never had to do anything.
It's been explained pretty clearly several times in this thread why McQueary as the witness is in a MUCH different position than Paterno or any of the others. There is no hypocrisy is that at all.
I wouldn't say it holds the key. But every little thing adds up.
Hope to see a good game.
From Larry Brown Sports by Brooks has been all over this story since the day the grand jury presentment became public. He tweeted on Tuesday that “McQueary played in Sandusky’s annual golf outing in June 2002 AND 2003.”
The Patriot-News cites a 2003 article published in the Centre Daily Times that confirms McQueary attended the 2003 charity golf event.
You can go one of two ways on this. You can take the denial approach and say this corroborates the story that Jerry Sandusky was just horsing around in the shower. Would Mike McQueary really be able to hang out with Jerry Sandusky at a children’s charity event after witnessing him anal rape a young boy?
Or, you can view this as a sign of McQueary being embedded in the cover-up.
The Patriot-News cites a 2003 article published in the Centre Daily Times that confirms McQueary attended the 2003 charity golf event.
You can go one of two ways on this. You can take the denial approach and say this corroborates the story that Jerry Sandusky was just horsing around in the shower. Would Mike McQueary really be able to hang out with Jerry Sandusky at a children’s charity event after witnessing him anal rape a young boy?
Or, you can view this as a sign of McQueary being embedded in the cover-up.
I really do think you can take a third approach and say that maybe he just likes golf, always had fun at the tournament, and wanted to play in it again.
I don't read much into the "McQueary continued to play in the Second Mile golf tournament...." angle.
Let me ask a hypothetical question to the board on this OP concerning Joe. Let's say Joe Paterno had chosen to retire in say 2005 or even earlier, would this scandal have had the same effect on the football (sanctions etc.) program and Paterno's legacy outside of the Penn State community?
In my opinion, no way.
The dramatic firing of Joe and the media frenzy surrounding it is what helped build the narrative that the football program was to blame.
Well Mike certainly didn't want to admit to it.... So there is that.. Sorry but if you think you witnessed what Mike thinks he did, you go no where near Jerry.
I'm kind of speaking from experience here. Not a direct parallel, but pretty close. Some people just want to forget about those kinds of things and move on, and continue doing the things they enjoy.
Seriously?
Mike McQueary 'knows' that Sandusky raped a boy and he keeps going to a golf tournament to raise money for Sandusky's charity? WTF?
I'm sorry, but to do that you'd have to be the lowest sort of human being.
But if Mike's supporters want to argue that Mike is someone who is completely devoid of any kind of conscience then who am I to stop them?
I don't think McQueary "knows" Sandusky raped a boy. I think the reality is more along the lines of what he told Joe and Schultz and Curley, and less along the lines of the Grand Jury presentment.
I will tell my story I'm likening this to. I was once at a friend's party, and ended up getting bombed, passing out, and spending the night. That night, another guy at the party (I knew him) came into the room I was sleeping in and basically tried to rape me while I slept. This guy is married and has kids, but obviously he's got some issues. Fortunately, I woke up. I had to fight him and another guy who was apparently helping him off. My brother heard the commotion and came in and saw what was going on, and helped stop everything.
My brother and I told my friend (who believed us) and a few other people who were there, including Mr. McRaperson's cousins (they did not believe us...actually they are on the fence, I think). I've never told the guy's wife or other family or any of that, and no one would ever talk to Mr. Rape about it. I've been back to that same friend's house for poker games and such, knowing that Rapey Mcraperson was going to be there, but decided to go anyway. And the matter just isn't discussed.
Now if Rapey McRaperson decides to go on in life and diddle kids, I guess you can call me Mike McQueary. But again, I say blame him, and not me. Or blame Sandusky, not McQueary/Paterno et al.
No.
Because John Surma would not have needed to step over Steve Garban's body to axe Joe in an ill-timed late night press conference ---> Students don't protest ---> no Media conflagration ---> Board may not have panicked & pissed themselves --->focus would've been on the #PSU3---> Freeh never gets hired.
I don't think the NCAA gets their foot in the door because there's not as much public outrage fueling that wave & Freeh isn't hired to get the BoT out of the shits (and he's not auditioning to be the NCAA's new Bitch as well)
Dr. Spanier gets destroyed. Tom Corbett WINS. Kathleen Kane might not have taken office. Frank Fina and his fellow pornslingers WIN.
Us schmucks here in PA remain blissfully unaware of our Judges and their "titty deficits".
Second Mile also WINS.
The Children - the biggest LOSERS. But hey, it was never about "the children" to begin with.
Last edited:
In that scenario, IMHO the media still tries to make the story about Joe. And we'll never know for certain, but I suspect that Joe would still have been synonymous with the University.
I thought this was the board dedicated to everything scandal related. There certainly isn't much of anything else discussed here.
If he played in one in 2001, either they held it in January, or he played after witnessing Sandusky in the shower. Or is he at this point still thinking it happened in 2002? Considering it was such a harrowing, traumatic experience for him, you'd think he'd be able to compartmentalize events in his life as either happening before that or after that.
I think you should contact Mulder and Scully about this. The truth is out there.
Every time you reply to one of these threads, you contribute to the "problem". So if you want to see these threads disappear, stop posting in them.
The "Public Story" is that Paterno "covered up for Sandusky's Pedophilia OVER A LONG TIME PERIOD - YEARS. Nothing Supports this "Story".
What is supported is CRIMINAL ABUSE IN PA GOVERNMENT. So much hidden activity by the same interconnected group of persons that I am suspicious of even Sandusky's trial (NO, I am not saying he is innocent!!!). As I see it, ALL the evidence in anything to do with this matter is tainted and therefore unreliable. I see too many abuses by the same group of people influencing the basic legal process in PA to believe that Sandusky's trial and conviction exhibits ANY level of reasonable justice.
By now, it is obvious that "The Story" itself is the only real cover-up. Penn State Football and Paterno were targeted by this band of crooked politicians and they used PSU to hide their abuse of power and their money laundering via TSM . Key was to get MM to say anything they wanted in 2011. Controlling his "reporting to Paterno" was key to "The Story" they wanted to sell.
Amazing - Corbett had an MO of discrediting his political opponents by any way possible. I know he was not above doing "investigations" on key persons who were needed to destroy his opponents. Could the certifiably changing story from MM be the result of this kind of "influencing MM's memory"??? Legally that is evidence tampering!!! Not out of Corbett's reported personal profile.
I don't remember MIke's brother doing that. What I do know is that no evidence has ever turned up that McQueary played in a Second Mile tournament after 2001 (like a picture of Mike and his foursome) and that the tournament director testified at Sandusky's trial that McQueary did not play in it.
That's not quite fully accurate, it misses a couple of very important points. One, Lesch did not say that the letter only went to particpants. Plus, not only did he say he didn't remember McQueary playing, he also added that if McQueary had played, he would have remember him. Ergo, McQueary did not play in the tournament despite the defense's attempt to suggest that he did.
Q: The one thing you showed us -- one exhibit, that's Exhibit no. 8 I think, is a letter addressed to Mr McQueary?
A: That's correct, sir.
Q: It's not from him?
A: That's correct, sir.
Q. It's not an acknowlegent that he did play or would play or anything like that. It's just a letter to him, correct.
A. That's correct.
. . .
Q. And these lists that you showed us here from June 21st of 2001>
A. Yes, sir.
Q: Okay. Every single person here you're sure played in the golf tournament
A: That's who was proposed to play in the golf tournament.
Q: Proposed?
A: There would be people who would fall out for health reasons or travel reasons.
Q. Same thing here?
A. Yes, sir.
Q: Okay, we have undated picture, a letter to Mr. McQueary, but not from him with no acknowledged return and a couple of lists of people who may or may not have played in the golf tournament; is that pretty much it
A: Yes
Q. Did they reflect anything about who you know who actually played?
A: I would recall people who would have played. Mr McQueary is not one of them.
Q: He didn't. Thank you very much.
What you remember is irrelevant. He admitted that he played in TSM tournament after the 2001 incident.
Unfortunately that's not the version he gave in the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing.
That's not analogous to the McQueary golf issue.
It would be analogous if your friend came to you and said, "Rapey McRaperson is having a golf tournament to raise money for a home that he's building for runaway boys. Will you enter the tournament?" And you replied, "That sounds swell. Sign me up. I'm happy to support Rapey McRaperson's home for runaway boys."
Mike's testimony at Curley/Schultz prelim:
"I would have said that Jerry was in there in very close proximity to a boy with his arms wrapped around him. I said I heard slapping sounds. I described it was extremely sexual and that some kind of intercourse was going on. ... There's no question in my mind that I conveyed to them that I saw Jerry in the showers and that it was severe acts and that it was wrong and over the line."
Intercourse with a child = rape.
What I remember is irrelevant, but what you do is relevant? Why is that? Show me the evidence.
And, as the tournament director testified in the Sandusky trial, there's no letter from McQueary saying "sign me up". But I also happen to think that there could be lots of reasons for McQueary to play. Everyone in this county thought the Second Mile was doing wonderful things for kids. McQueary could have easily thought it was worth doing for the sake of the kids regardless of whether Jerry's name was attached to it or not.
That said, one of the reasons that I believe that he didn't was that I just once happened to drop Sandusky's name around McQueary and he went off on a verbal rampage cursing him. Until the charges came out, I was clueless about why and just assumed that they had had some sort of run in when Mike was playing. I can't imagine him knowingly having anything to do with Sandusky so I believe him when he testified that he didn't play in it.
Dukie did say that his brother played or participated in one or more of JS events after the shower incident. I don't recall which event/events
What I remember is relevant because I'm the person who exchanged messages with Dukie about this particular topic. It's not exactly a big surprise that you don't remember a conversation you didn't participate in.
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/heres-the-real-deal.116949/#post-1792839
Last edited:
I very much appreciate that. Thank you.
The reason that I challenge people to document their statements is very simple. For one, memories are very faulty. Why should I take someone's statement that Mike's brother said he played in the Second Mile at face value when, immediately earlier in the thread, I've watched someone distort documented courtroom testimony? I don't want to hear what you "remember", I want to see documented evidence (which is why I usually support my claims with courtroom testimony or something similar). So thank you.
The second is that this whole controversy has, from Day One, people totally distorting statements made by others, either intentionally or unintentionally. Before I agree with anyone's remembrance of someone else's statement, I want to see it with my own eyes. Again, thanks for posting that - and for the record, I think it supports my follow-up statement that there might be reasons that McQueary would decide to play in the Second Mile tournament that superseded the shower incident.
Let's be clear: There is absolutely no "reason" for any decent human being to support a children's charity after you've caught the head of that charity raping a child. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
You can put all the lipstick in the world on that pig, but it's still a pig.
Bite Me.
You sit down in Florida and haven't a CLUE as what goes on up here in Harrisburg. When you get your ass in front of the people many of us have made an effort to get in front of, then maybe we'll talk.
Buh Bye!
This seems like flawed logic.
Did Joe or Dranov give testimony that conflicted with what MM told prosecutors? No, which is why they weren't charged.
Raykovitz and TSM are a completely different story. They're protected for a reason, almost certainly criminal, I'm just not sure what it is?
I don't doubt Spanier was targeted because of a grudge to some degree. At the same time there is legitimate evidence C/S/S might be guilty of some charges.
JMO.
At the minimum - Dr. Dranov should have been charged. If the OAG was going to charge Curley & Schultz in that November 2011 Presentment, then Dranov should have been included as well.
We've flogged that horse - so please don't get out your crop and try to get it to move. It's dead. It's been long picked over by coyotes and vultures.
Tom Corbett had not only a legal obligation, but also a moral obligation to properly investigate and charge those individuals who were told by Mike McQueary of such a horrific crime.
He didn't. Instead, he choose to have Frank Fina and his fellow gunslingers effectively destroy Mike.
The sooner everyone understands that the Office of Attorney General under Tom Corbett never gave a shit about Mike - and the current one still doesn't give a shit about Mike, nor does it give a rip about you, me and everyone else associated with this - the better.
"It was a calculated risk" - Tom Corbett
I agree that it "was never about the children" and that is the most disturbing facet of this fiasco to me
CSA is troubling enough - bit what is actually rotten to the core is people using CSA as a means to settle a petty personal and political jealously!
I just cannot fathom how someone can do that and truly live with themselves
Now on to Joe
You're also correct in that is was never about Joe
Every single person who tries to put this on Joe has to understand that they cannot reconcile that with it "being about the children"
Because, whether they like it or not putting the focus on Joe takes the focus OFF being about the children
If you make it about the children you also make it about the people that abused the children. That's a no no
