Latest in Paterno v NCAA

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Wait, what??? Are you freakin' serious? Is there a link to an article about this anywhere? These shitholes need to be exposed for this stuff.

Here is some further elaboration I found on the topic - pretty shocking stuff and pretty scummy of ESPN and Van Natta to reveal the JZ referred source in the article after promising they would not do so! (blowing his cover to corrupt PA LE authorities with significant power to abuse people like Bolton) - see article hotlinked below:

http://www.framingpaterno.com/inside-story-how-espn-muffled-mcqueary-bombshell

 

[indynittany]

....Only real question is why MM hasn't stood up like a man and explained what really happened. This part is still puzzling. His life sucks...he has nothing more to loose...yet he hasn't stood up. This is very curious.....

He still has his whistle blower lawsuit. If he told the truth about what he saw and reported, his case would be moot. $3 million down the drain.

 

[mhentz]

They released the transcript. It's pretty cut and dry unless you wear the official Sandusky truther tinfoil hat.

This has been hashed over for a long time now. A transcript of Joe's GJ testimony has never been publicly released. What has been released that is usually publicly presented as Joe's testimony was prosecuting attorney James Barker reading Joe's GJ testimony into the record at the first Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing. Those may be Joe's words as they were recorded by the Grand Jury but they were not his words as he spoke them. They were his words as James Barker spoke them. There's quite a difference. And there's at least three different failure points were a critical question mark may have been dropped, and at least one of those failure points was in the hands of a guy who had a specifically vested interest in dropping that question mark.....a guy who was part of a crooked AG's office and got fired by that AG's successor.

 

[mhentz]

We have seen the part of the transcript where Paterno said that it was a sexual nature. That's all we need to know.

There's is much more we need to know unless you know all that other stuff we need to know completely sinks your agenda quicker than the Andrea Doria. If you have an anti-Joe bias and agenda and you know that anything other than five of his words removed entirely from context might dispute your agenda than you have no choice but to fall back on something like "Paterno said that it was a sexual nature. That's all we need to know." Be aware that people who rely on that canard ARE more seriously failed and corrupt human beings than even Jerry Sandusky himself.

 

[mhentz]

He doesn't know what you would call it, but he know it was a sexual nature. That right there should have been a trigger for the administration to contact the authorities and let them figure things out. And no, I'm not saying that Paterno should have been that person to make the call.

THEY DID! FOR CRISSAKES THEY DID EXACTLY THAT! That's the crux of this entire discussion in this thread over the last two days.

 

[Marshall30]

THEY DID! FOR CRISSAKES THEY DID EXACTLY THAT! That's the crux of this entire discussion in this thread over the last two days.

Getmyjerk the Penn Live idiot needs to be banned already.

 

[marshall23]

Gary Schultz contacted Wendell Courtney. There is zero chance that he didn't follow the instructions of counsel. Both Schultz and Courtney testified that they believed the agency that handled '98 was informed. Curley met with Raykovitz, in charge of TSM, a mandated reporter and employee of CYS. The Commonwealth currently has Harmon and Courtney muzzled. Freeh carefully excluded parts of Schultz's emails to Harmon. THAT is all one needs to know.

 

[LundyPSU]

wonder what the subsequent Courtney billing sheets indicate. The one included in the Freeh Report stopped at Feb 11

 

[Obliviax]

...Also, its crazy...the sanctions were NOT based on what Schultz did. They were based on this notion that the culture of the football program caused them to "cover it up." This is now proven to not be the case. Even Freeh is walking back his report as an opinion piece.

Curley and Schultz will be exonerated on their own merit. But $200m in penalites were already levied based on an opinion and without any foundation in the football program.

 

[LundyPSU]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ays_he_had_no_inkling_about_sandusky_allegat/

 

[LundyPSU]

...Also, its crazy...the sanctions were NOT based on what Schultz did. They were based on this notion that the culture of the football program caused them to "cover it up." This is now proven to not be the case. Even Freeh is walking back his report as an opinion piece.

Curley and Schultz will be exonerated on their own merit. But $200m in penalites were already levied based on an opinion and without any foundation in the football program.

Most interestingly, the football program (Mike and Joe) actually reported the incident. Seems to me if the football program was trying to cover it up, neither Mike nor Joe would have said a GD thing

 

[PSU2UNC]

What has been released that is usually publicly presented as Joe's testimony was prosecuting attorney James Barker reading Joe's GJ testimony into the record at the first Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing. and at least one of those failure points was in the hands of a guy who had a specifically vested interest in dropping that question mark.....a guy who was part of a crooked AG's office and got fired by that AG's successor.

It strikes me as odd that a prosecutor read the testimony of a witness. When I served on a GJ (not in PA), when transcripts were read aloud (which is common), the prosecutor always read the questions (from the prosecutor) and a juror always read the answers (from the transcribed witness testimony). I assumed this was to prevent the prosecutor from adding inflection or emphasis that would help his case (or from doing something more egregious, like dropping or adding punctuation).

Does anyone know if the way this was done with JVP's testimony is common practice for GJ in PA?

 

[LundyPSU]

It strikes me as odd that a prosecutor read the testimony of a witness. When I served on a GJ (not in PA), when transcripts were read aloud (which is common), the prosecutor always read the questions (from the prosecutor) and a juror always read the answers (from the transcribed witness testimony). I assumed this was to prevent the prosecutor from adding inflection or emphasis that would help his case (or from doing something more egregious, like dropping or adding punctuation).

Does anyone know if the way this was done with JVP's testimony is common practice for GJ in PA?

The testimony was read at the preliminary hearing. It was agreed upon by the defendants given JVP's health and inability to testify.

 

[PSU2UNC]

The testimony was read at the preliminary hearing. It was agreed upon by the defendants given JVP's health and inability to testify.

Ah, right, thanks for the reminder. This wasn't at the GJ.

However, this still seems like a problem (i.e. having a biased party reading witness testimony).

 

[LundyPSU]

Ah, right, thanks for the reminder. This wasn't at the GJ.

However, this still seems like a problem (i.e. having a biased party reading witness testimony).

Not sure if defense counsel had a chance to object to the reading (maybe the reading was fine and it was a transcription issue), but clearly they have a copy of the original transcript. Or maybe its possible that is exactly how JVP said it.

 

[Aoshiro]

We know how they DIDN'T handle it... i.e., by going to authorities. That's the point.

That's what the OAG claims. But we still don't know exactly what they did.

 

[GTACSA]

Ah, right, thanks for the reminder. This wasn't at the GJ.

However, this still seems like a problem (i.e. having a biased party reading witness testimony).

Typically in Pennsylvania court proceedings if a transcript is read into the record the attorney would read the question and another person would read the answer from the stand while the court and counsel for the other side would be following the transcript in order to ensure no errors were made. Another alternative is just to offer the transcript into evidence.

I don't know whether the first procedure is used at PH's.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Most interestingly, the football program (Mike and Joe) actually reported the incident. Seems to me if the football program was trying to cover it up, neither Mike nor Joe would have said a GD thing

Well of course, this is what makes zero sense about the claims of Fact Freeh and the NCAA - so let me get this straight, Mike McQueary and his director supervisor, the only parties involved that were "Football Program" employees endeavored to "cover up" the incident by REPORTING IT according to proper protocol at the time which has been confirmed to STILL BE THE PROPER PROTOCOL under PSU's most recently revised policies & procedures post Nov 2011??? If the "Football Program" was trying to "cover up" the incident, they never would have reported it in the first place and JVP's instructions to MM would have been to tell no one and do nothing - history confirms that JVP told MM to do the exact opposite....tell his allegations to the proper channels and COOPERATE with whatever they tell you we should do. Yea, that's some kind of "cover up" by the "Football Program". Good grief!!!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

The testimony was read at the preliminary hearing. It was agreed upon by the defendants given JVP's health and inability to testify.

Is it standard Judicial practice in Pennsylvania that Prosecutor would read the GJ transcript? That seems rather odd to me to - why wouldn't an agent of the court hearing C/S/S's preliminary hearing, such as somebody in the Court Recorders Office, read the transcripts?

 

[lubrano]

Well, I'm sure glad I started this thread on March 30th about a motion to quash a subpoena...

But since we've moved far afield, let me add my two cents.

First, Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno did not engage in any cover-up or conspiracy.

Second, Mike McQueary never informed Paterno, Schultz or Curley that he witnessed any sexual act because he didn't witness a sexual act.

Third, Spanier, Schultz, Curley are guilty of NO crimes for the manner in which they handled this. NONE

Finally, I'd like to have my vote back with respect to the first round of settlements. Terrible mistake.

 

[Zenophile]

Well, I'm sure glad I started this thread on March 30th about a motion to quash a subpoena...

But since we've moved far afield, let me add my two cents.

First, Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno did not engage in any cover-up or conspiracy.

Second, Mike McQueary never informed Paterno, Schultz or Curley that he witnessed any sexual act because he didn't witness a sexual act.

Third, Spanier, Schultz, Curley are guilty of NO crimes for the manner in which they handled this. NONE

Finally, I'd like to have my vote back with respect to the first round of settlements. Terrible mistake.

 

[lionlurker]

Anthony, to have you state what you just did about MM is I assume the crux of the Paterno lawyers' efforts, and it shows why CSS have been silenced. Let's hope this can be proven, and when it is, let the crucifixions begin.

Dukie, what say you about this?

 

[jjsocrates]

You're another one - - - when someone says "How stupid can you be?", it is NOT meant to be a challenge

To illustrate (for those people too dumb to understand that context matters) same question - 5 different meanings:
How stupid can you be?
How stupid can you be?
How stupid can you be?
How stupid can you be?
How stupid can you be?

People who take words out of context are either mental midgets or they are doing it on purpose for nefarious purposes to prop up a really shaky argument.

They're also probably not bright enough to see the inherent paradox of the following declaration:
"I have never used the phrase 'Purple Monkey Dishwasher' in a sentence."

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

To illustrate (for those people too dumb to understand that context matters) same question - 5 different meanings:
How stupid can you be?
How stupid can you be?
How stupid can you be?
How stupid can you be?
How stupid can you be?

People who take words out of context are either mental midgets or they are doing it on purpose for nefarious purposes to prop up a really shaky argument.

They're also probably not bright enough to see the inherent paradox of the following declaration:
"I have never used the phrase 'Purple Monkey Dishwasher' in a sentence."

Ahhh - The ole "Purple Monkey Dishwasher" lesson from Logic 101. Thanks!

 

[StinkStankStunk]

THAT is the kind of accountability and clarity the PSU BOT (desperately) needs more of

Maybe it's just me, or maybe it is all the exposure we are seeing wrt the "train wreck" national elections........but the ability to squarely evaluate not only one's successes, but also to recognize and correct one's mistakes - - that is an all too rare commodity

Again, we all have our preferences, but I would much rather have someone tell me where they erred - and why - and how they are going to fix/avoid such errors in the future........than to tell me (like Keith Eckel did) that they "Never made a mistake"

In general, my feeling is:
Go ahead and tell me what you did right (though, if I'm paying attention, I probably already know)..... But I put a lot more stock in hearing a critical review of what didn't go so great, and what you're going to do about it

 

[baircub1!]

Well, I'm sure glad I started this thread on March 30th about a motion to quash a subpoena...

But since we've moved far afield, let me add my two cents.

First, Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno did not engage in any cover-up or conspiracy.

Second, Mike McQueary never informed Paterno, Schultz or Curley that he witnessed any sexual act because he didn't witness a sexual act.

Third, Spanier, Schultz, Curley are guilty of NO crimes for the manner in which they handled this. NONE

Finally, I'd like to have my vote back with respect to the first round of settlements. Terrible mistake.

It just baffles me how Erickson had a building named in his honor... Absolutely mind numbing....

 

[LundyPSU]

It just baffles me how Erickson had a building named in his honor... Absolutely mind numbing....

Shouldn't baffle at all. Erickson executed the orders he was given and was a punching bag for alumni while the BOT decision makers stayed in their hideout. Erickson actually went on the alumni tour and took a beating while the BOT hid and never delivered on their promise to do the same.

 

[Adlee73]

Well, I'm sure glad I started this thread on March 30th about a motion to quash a subpoena...

But since we've moved far afield, let me add my two cents.

First, Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno did not engage in any cover-up or conspiracy.

Second, Mike McQueary never informed Paterno, Schultz or Curley that he witnessed any sexual act because he didn't witness a sexual act.

Third, Spanier, Schultz, Curley are guilty of NO crimes for the manner in which they handled this. NONE

Finally, I'd like to have my vote back with respect to the first round of settlements. Terrible mistake.

Anthony, can you find out if there's any stipulation in the old "Friends & Fitness" program agreement between PSU & TSM which stipulates PSU would take responsibility in the safety & well being of the kids brought to the facilities? Do you know who originally approved PSU's participation in the program? Thanks -Adam

 

[Agoodnap]

I think Joe's GJ testimony was read into the record at Sandusky's trial. We have never seen the actual transcript of his GJ testimony.

Is this Joe's testimony or what was read into the record at the trial?
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/transcript-joe-paternos-grand-jury-testimony/

 

[mhentz]

Is this Joe's testimony or what was read into the record at the trial?
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/transcript-joe-paternos-grand-jury-testimony/

that's it.

 

[mhentz]

Well, I'm sure glad I started this thread on March 30th about a motion to quash a subpoena...

But since we've moved far afield, let me add my two cents.

First, Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno did not engage in any cover-up or conspiracy.

Second, Mike McQueary never informed Paterno, Schultz or Curley that he witnessed any sexual act because he didn't witness a sexual act.

Third, Spanier, Schultz, Curley are guilty of NO crimes for the manner in which they handled this. NONE

Finally, I'd like to have my vote back with respect to the first round of settlements. Terrible mistake.

I'm ready for a new update. Feed me!

 

[LundyPSU]

Is this Joe's testimony or what was read into the record at the trial?
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/transcript-joe-paternos-grand-jury-testimony/

This is what was read into the record.

 

[Chris92]

We have seen the part of the transcript where .....

1. A trooper lied about not discussing testimony outside the court room.
2. A 2nd trooper lied about not providing info/details about other accusers.
3. One witness couldn't remembering testifying at Grand Jury.

That's all you need to know how unbelievably jacked up this whole mess really is.

 

[Adlee73]

Is this Joe's testimony or what was read into the record at the trial?
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/transcript-joe-paternos-grand-jury-testimony/

You can compare Joe's testimony to McQueary's here:

 

[GTACSA]

You can compare Joe's testimony to McQueary's here:

View embedded media

You omitted these words in quotes: McQueary believed Sandusky was "sexually molesting" the boy and "having sexual intercourse with him" although he "did not see insertion nor was there any verbiage or protest, screaming or yelling."

Just want to keep the record clear as to what McQueary testified.

So in answer to your tweet, the answer could very well be yes.

 

[artsandletters]

You omitted these words in quotes: McQueary believed Sandusky was "sexually molesting" the boy and "having sexual intercourse with him" although he "did not see insertion nor was there any verbiage or protest, screaming or yelling."

Just want to keep the record clear as to what McQueary testified.

So in answer to your tweet, the answer could very well be yes.

That's it. I've had it. Those words of MCQ were spoken ten m'fukin years after the fact you blockhead. STOP IT.

 

[WeR0206]

You omitted these words in quotes: McQueary believed Sandusky was "sexually molesting" the boy and "having sexual intercourse with him" although he "did not see insertion nor was there any verbiage or protest, screaming or yelling."

Just want to keep the record clear as to what McQueary testified.

So in answer to your tweet, the answer could very well be yes.

The only thing people who MM was telling his story to (including UPPD if he ever felt the need to file a written statement with them, which he didn't--gee I wonder why?) would care about would be what MM actually SAW, not what he THOUGHT was happening but what he actually saw happening. JS groomed the entire community for DECADES to think he would be the last person who would ever hurt a kid. For anyone to believe he was abusing a kid someone would need to EYE WITNESS the abuse. Not speculate on it based on some sounds and a 3 second glimpse through a foggy shower mirror.

Just look at Dr. D's line of questioning. MM kept talking about the sounds but all he wanted to know was what MM actually saw...and he never saw any sex acts/molestation, etc. b/c he could only see them from the back and above the waste and couldn't see anyone's hands.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

The only thing people who MM was telling his story to (including UPPD if he ever felt the need to file a written statement with them, which he didn't--gee I wonder why?) would care about would be what MM actually SAW, not what he THOUGHT was happening but what he actually saw happening. JS groomed the entire community for DECADES to think he would be the last person who would ever hurt a kid. For anyone to believe he was abusing a kid someone would need to EYE WITNESS the abuse. Not speculate on it based on some sounds and a 3 second glimpse through a foggy shower mirror.

Just look at Dr. D's line of questioning. MM kept talking about the sounds but all he wanted to know was what MM actually saw...and he never saw any sex acts/molestation, etc. b/c he could only see them from the back and above the waste and couldn't see anyone's hands.

Exactly what MM has consistently told everyone he has spoken with including Dr D, his Father, JVP, TC, GS, the SWIGJ, the OAG and a PA Court of Law under oath. Saying you "believe" that's what was going on but didn't actually see it - especially when it's said 10 years later - is not testifying to eyewitnessing criminal sexual assault. Beyond that, this transcript does NOT INCLUDE MM's statements on cross examination which are specific to only what he saw and render all his prior conjecture INADMISSIBLE.

 

[lubrano]

Can you say rush to judgment?

I can-- and will, over and over and over again.

Garban, Surma, Frazier, Peetz, Strumpf, Hintz, Broadhurst, Masser, Eckel, Schaeffer, Hayes, Huber, Heatherington, Grieg, Meyers, Alexander, Joyner, Suhey, Riley, Jones, Deviney, Arnelle, Lubert, Silvis, Dambly, Khoury, Clemens, DiBerardinis, Tomalis, Allan, Erickson and Corbett all failed us. They will be forever remembered.

To date, only Clemens has apologized.

 

[indynittany]

You omitted these words in quotes: McQueary believed Sandusky was "sexually molesting" the boy and "having sexual intercourse with him" although he "did not see insertion nor was there any verbiage or protest, screaming or yelling."

Just want to keep the record clear as to what McQueary testified.

So in answer to your tweet, the answer could very well be yes.

"in quotes"!!! Whose quotes? Not Mike's!