Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
Those 3 subpoenaed are among a select group. They are all part of the 6 of 32 trustees from November 2011 that are still on the board.
Mark H. Dambly
Ira M. Lubert
Paul H. Silvis
Keith W. Eckel
Betsy E. Huber
Keith E. Masser
Board Membership on 11/7/2011
https://web.archive.org/web/20111107055456/http://www.psu.edu/trustees/membership.html
Board membership as of 12/7/2015
https://web.archive.org/web/20151209103251/http://www.psu.edu/trustees/membership.html
-----
The Paternos also served notice on 3/30/2016 about another 14 "Subpoenas to Produce Documents". I wonder if some of those 14 subpoenas are going to former members of the board. Frazier & Peetz perhaps. Among those not formerly on the board, perhaps SITF members and/or Erickson. I know Frazier & Erickson were deposed in Corman, but the Paternos might subpoena them for other information.
3/30/2016, 14 subpoenas requested by Paternos
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA REQUEST FOR SUBPOENAS.pdf
I would think that's obvious but..
There's world of difference between 1) you saying that you personally remember hearing before 2009 about the janitor incident and 2) you saying that someone else is telling you that they have a memory of hearing something before 2009.
The first is your personal recollection of what you heard prior to 2009. The second is someone making some kind of claim about what they heard prior to 2009. Whenever something like this happens there's all kinds of people who crawl out of the woodwork with outrageous "I knew it, I knew it" claims. I guess that it makes them feel important (even though in this case it just makes them look like a-holes).
If you want to tell us that you heard about the janitor incident prior to 2009 and you specifically heard at that time that they saw Sandusky molesting a kid, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I not really interested in the latter case (someone else making some kind of claim of earlier knowledge now). I wouldn't give it any credence at all.
So which is it? Do you personally remember being told prior to 2009 about Sandusky getting caught molesting a kid?
Perhaps - or maybe not - you might share what you know about Calhiun
It might be interesting if it matches up with what I have been told.....and related earlier
Was anything mentioned as to why they did not report the incident? If so, what was said?
Thanks, Misder.... always appreciate your information.
If it went unreported (past the custodial supervisor) it sure as hell wasn't due to some GD idiotic concern over "retribution from the football program"
An absolute rainbow-shitting-unicorn fairy tale
The fact that this nonsense was ever put forward at all is absolutely mind-numbing........until you look at the track record of the OAG attorneys and prosecutors - in which case it becomes par for the course. ;-)
When this is all over, the Paterno's are going to clean up.
I have no clue if it this is related in any way, but the old timers on this board around the time that Rashard Casey was getting screwed over by the Hoboken Police Department in 2001 may remember that I had E-mailed the Hoboken Police Chief about the incident and about how I thought Casey was getting a raw deal. The Police Chief at the time, Carmen LaBruno actually called me at work.
In my E-mail I had left my phone number and mailing address and at the time I lived on Scott AFB. It turns out the Chief used to be in the Air Force, so I guess there was a camaraderie there or something that made him call. After posting about the call I had military guys from the board calling me at work to find out if I was for real or not. In addition to assuring them that I was, I offered my real name and NLC account number in a post as proof. If I was FOS, I would be FOS for the whole world to see.
To get to the point of this post, when the Chief called me, it caught me by surprise and I fumbled for words making my case that Casey was being treated unfairly by the Hoboken PD. The Chief said, "There are things going on up there that you don't know about." At the time it did not mean much, but looking back at things now, I wonder if the Sandusky affair was what he was talking about.
It turns out that I and Joe Pa were right and Rashard Casey collected a nice check from Hoboken in the end.
I know there was a pre-testimony interview for all 4. Joe was 1st & DAs were there. Less than an hour later Curley & Schultz had their pre-testimony interview but no DAs present. About 6 months later Spanier has his pre-testimony interview with DAs once again present (possibly hoping Spanier would throw Curley & Schultz under the bus too).
Got one on the trailer !! Where should I drop it??
All I can think of right now is demlion.
That's not what Joe said he heard Mike say in his testimony. Joe described it as "sexual in nature" a term given to him by the DAs. He wasn't quoting Mike. He clarified it wasn't a quote in his last police interview in Oct 2011.
Exactly, rainbow-shitting-unicorn fairy-tales are the specialty of Tommy-boy Corbutt and his chumbucket crew including Fact-Freeh.... Weird how their "star witness" says the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what they claim in their Presentment and Indictment - Mike McQueary regarding what he saw: I NEVER SAW OR EYEWITNESSED a sex act or even saw the parties below their upper bodies and I NEVER TOLD ANYONE I DID.
Then the Judge allows them to ask McQueary to speculate upon what he thought he might have been witnessing which is completely INADMISSIBLE especially when the same witness POINT BLANK STATES HE DID NOT SEE OR EYEWITNESS WHAT THEY CLAIMED - the Judge allowed the leading questions and speculation without any kind of statement to the jury. Pennsylvania is so corrupt and morally bankrupt it is not even funny.
Joe could have also been referring to McQueary's SPECULATION as to what was going on based on what he heard which would be completely irrelevant, because MM always answered the questions "what precisely did you see? Did you see Sandusky sexually assaulting the boy?" CONSISTENTLY to anybody who asked including Dr. Dranov, his Father, JVP, TC and GS -- Not much of anything and NO, was CONSISTENTLY his answers to those two questions to everybody he spoke with.....the EXACT SAME WAY he answered the questions in a court of law under oath which were the only questions he answered that DID NOT ask him to SPECULATE or give his opinion as to "what did he think was going on".....
Last edited:
Did Houser aka HowardStern not know about 2001 in the mid-2000s? Did he not later chat with you to confirm what he remembered being discussed back then? Or did he contact you in Oct 2010 to talk about JoePa retiring & who would replace him? The answer to this could shed alot of light on things.
I would not be surprised if Misder2 heard rumblings about a janitor or janitors witnessing Sandusky with kids in the showers or going in and out of dorms.
Why wouldn't they? They're around all the time and Sandusky was bringing kids onto the campus on his own, with Second Mile, or for his football camp.
As for the 2001 story developing over time, I would agree with that. It's much akin to lunch room gossip, where a story starts small and mushrooms into something bigger. Instead of a lunch room, this story expanded in chat rooms and on message boards.
Why wouldn't they? They're around all the time and Sandusky was bringing kids onto the campus on his own, with Second Mile, or for his football camp.
As for the 2001 story developing over time, I would agree with that. It's much akin to lunch room gossip, where a story starts small and mushrooms into something bigger. Instead of a lunch room, this story expanded in chat rooms and on message boards.
The actual words that Barker read into the record were (CORRECTION) "it was a sexual nature" -- though there is no evidence in the public realm proving that's what Joe actually said.
I believe Barker may have read it wrong....on purpose.
Last edited:
There is no "of" in the record..."It was a sexual nature". I always thought that was odd phrasing.
I can lay out what I think is the most likely case. When Mike first heard the slapping he thinks sex, it sounds like someone having sex in there. Once he enters the lockerroom expecting to see something sexual he ends up seeing a naked Sandusky behind a boy. Because he expected to see sex & saw Sandusky naked with the boy, he linked the 2. Later when he gets home & Dranov puts him through all that questioning & he realizes he can't say for absolutely sure he saw a sex act, Mike realizes he doesn't have much in regards to proof on Sandusky. I believe Mike's story to Curley & Schultz was careful in making it clear what actually saw & didn't see. Because of this, like Dranov, Curley & Schultz had doubts. When Curley calls Mike after he met with TSM Mike was probably led to assume it was looked into properly. I think it was Curley's conclusion it was horsing around & that idea permeated to the others. I think Mike probably had doubts himself as to what act he actually witnessed but when the OAG called & met with him it was vindication in Mike's mind of his 2001 first impression. So to sum up in Mike's mind it probably started as sex but the then Dranov's questioning laid seeds of doubt & then once OAG came around it was sex again.
I don't think that's a Toyoty pulling that thing!!!All I can think of right now is demlion.
There is a substantive difference between "sexual nature" and "sexual in nature" in describing activity between JS and a young boy? Really?
Lets go with your post and agree arguendo that the DA's gave Joe that phrase and he repeated it during his testimony even though he was never told that by MM..
How many people would testify under oath against a man they had known for over 30 years that they had heard "sexual in nature" used to describe contact between a young boy and that man when in fact he never remembered hearing that reference and only repeated what he was coached to say?
Do you really think that helps Joe?
@rmb297 , Ray, check out Appendix B of the Moulton Report, Madeira's letter to Richard Sheetz. Notice how it lays out how the JS case went from Clinton County CYS, to the Clinton Co. DA to Madeira and then on to the OAG's office. By strange coincidence, that's all laid out in Ganim's March 31st article. Also, just by reading that letter to Sheetz, one might get the impression AF's report was in early 2009. Once again, Ganim's article incorrectly mentions the JS investigation came to light in 2009, just like she also got the year wrong JS "quit" volunteering at CMHS.
Let's assume for a second that Joe's non cross examined testimony is correct, which we can't verify since we have never heard it. Let's assume that we even know what "sexual nature" means to an 84 YO man. Let's also not forget how many times he qualified his statement with "I don't know what you would call it." Joe might have known him for over 30 years, but it is common knowledge he didn't like him. Joe would have had no problem doing the right thing.
"Joe would have had no problem doing the right thing." as in giving sworn testimony against a man he had known for over 30 years but didn't like; testimony not based on his own recollection but rather based on what the police or DA told him; and testimony that could be expected to help obtain a conviction against JS on sexual assault charges perpetrated against a young boy?
Your definition of "doing the right thing" is a bit different than than that normally applied to the phrase.
No, but there is substantive difference between "It was a sexual nature." and "It was a sexual nature?" It is impossible for you to prove that Joe said the former and did not say the latter.
That's complete bull$hit - Joe never qualified whether that description fit MM's endless SPECULATION based on what he HEARD then saw (which is completely irrelevant) OR whether it was specific ONLY to what MM described ACTUALLY SEEING AND EYEWITNESSING which we know that MM has CONSISTENTLY, to everyone he spoke with - including in a court of law under oath - said that he saw NO SEXUAL ACT and NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE DID. More complete bull$hit spin of testimony on your part - how sadly typical.
