ADVERTISEMENT

Latest in Paterno v NCAA

As I understand things, the boy in the shower stated in court during the JS trial, that NOTHING happened. And, JS was not convicted of most of acquisitions regarding this boy? If so, why do we even care what MM said, being that this is probably a moot issue?

Also, if this is true, then perhaps a trial would have never happened if this boy came forth before the trial. Would have any of the other kids lawyered up?
 
Aoshiro said:
Your brother was sure that he had seen Sandusky molesting a child and your father-- a medical professional -- blithely accepted it when Schultz told him there was nothing that could be done? He didn't encourage Mike to take it anywhere else?

Bullshit.

It does not pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

Exactly, is he really trying to tell us that Mike told Dr. Dranov and his Father the night of the incident that he "eyewitnessed" explicit sexual assault (e.g., rape) of a minor and they didn't call police?..... And that later his dad asked Schultz when Sandusky was going to be held accountable for rapping the child and Schultz said there was nothing that could be done? I call BULL$HIT because Dr. Dranov claims the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE happened that night - he was ready to call the police and have them come to JM's home, but every time Mike McQueary would begin to talk about "sex in the shower" because of what he heard when he walked in the facility and Dr. Dranov would say - Yea, Mike, I understand - you were convinced that people were having sex in the shower when you heard the noises upon walking into the locker area, but Mike is that what you actually saw when you saw what you saw in the shower.... Dr. Dranov claims that Mike refused to answer that he did eyewitness this affirmatively and more-a-less answered in a negative fashion followed by a "but" which would take them back to what he heard and conjecturing about what was taking place due to what he heard. IOW, Mike repeatedly made it clear that the majority of his concerns were triggered by what he heard and the juxtaposition and proximity of the parties in the shower, but not that he actually saw a sex act -- Mike said the exact same thing in court on cross examination and denied being able to say that he explicitly SAW or EYEWITNESSED a sex act of any kind and NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE HAD EYEWITNESSED such a thing. Dr. Dranov, his Dad, JVP, TC and GS are among the "Anyone's" he spoke with and by his own admission Mike UNEQUIVOCALLY testified to NEVER TELLING ANYONE he saw or eyewitnessed an actual explicit sex act, but he still felt strongly that's what was going on due to what he had HEARD just prior to what he saw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95 and WeR0206
Franklin_Restores_TheTradition said:
Exactly, is he really trying to tell us that Mike told Dr. Dranov and his Father the night of the incident that he "eyewitnessed" explicit sexual assault (e.g., rape) of a minor and they didn't call police?..... And that later his dad asked Schultz when Sandusky was going to be held accountable for rapping the child and Schultz said there was nothing that could be done? I call BULL$HIT because Dr. Dranov claims the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE happened that night - he was ready to call the police and have them come to JM's home, but every time Mike McQueary would begin to talk about "sex in the shower" because of what he heard when he walked in the facility and Dr. Dranov would say - Yea, Mike, I understand - you were convinced that people were having sex in the shower when you heard the noises upon walking into the locker area, but Mike is that what you actually saw when you saw what you saw in the shower.... Dr. Dranov claims that Mike refused to answer that he did eyewitness this affirmatively and more-a-less answered in a negative fashion followed by a "but" which would take them back to what he heard and conjecturing about what was taking place due to what he heard. IOW, Mike repeatedly made it clear that the majority of his concerns were triggered by what he heard and the juxtaposition and proximity of the parties in the shower, but not that he actually saw a sex act -- Mike said the exact same thing in court on cross examination and denied being able to say that he explicitly SAW or EYEWITNESSED a sex act of any kind and NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE HAD EYEWITNESSED such a thing. Dr. Dranov, his Dad, JVP, TC and GS are among the "Anyone's" he spoke with and by his own admission Mike UNEQUIVOCALLY testified to NEVER TELLING ANYONE he saw or eyewitnessed an actual explicit sex act, but he still felt strongly that's what was going on due to what he had HEARD just prior to what he saw.
Click to expand...

BTW, in order for MM's statements to have "admissibility" in a Court of Law, he must state unequivocally that he EYEWITNESSED RAPE - as soon as MM said that he did not actually eyewitness rape or even an explicit sex act of any kind (and that he didn't see anything beyond the parties' upper bodies and nothing below the waist), he HIMSELF rendered all his other statements as CONJECTURE based upon what he HEARD PRIOR TO WHAT HE SAW and therefore INADMISSIBLE. IOW, in regards to the "rape charge", Mike McQueary was the "star witness" for the DEFENSE, not the Prosecution! Complete bull$hit to come on here and say Mike was running all over State College and telling anyone who would listen that he eyewitnessed rape (as the Presentment claims) when he did the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE in a Court of Law under oath.....Mike reverted right back to the bull$hit game he played with Dr. Dranov that very night!!! Which was not a report of "eyewitnessing rape" - it was a report of "eyewitnessing" precisely nothing illegal, but CONJECTURING that something illegal "might have been going on", he couldn't say for sure because of his limited and very brief glimpse.....
 
GTACSA said:
I don't understand your point. I brought your attention to GJ testimony of MM that was quite clear as to the sexual nature of what he observed. You said that was 10 years after his observation in 2001. I thought, I guess mistakenly, that your point was that since this testimony was given 10 years later that it somehow undermined the credibility of the testimony.

So what were you saying; that MM just made it all up?
Click to expand...

Sounds to me that MM was being pressured by investigators and he didn't want to be accused of not doing enough. That's why he would have embellished his story by saying that he told C/S it was sexual.

The only other option is that MM held back what he reported to his dad, Dranov & Paterno but spilled his guts to C&S (even though those two say MM gave a similar report to what he gave MM's dad, Dranov, and Paterno).

Which scenario is more believable?
 
Last edited:
Dukie, Schultzie telling your dad that there was nothing else they could go seems to go right along with the idea that Mike told everybody a similar story and the story was passed along to everybody else in the chain of command including legal counsel in Courtney, and they all came to the same conclusion as your dad and Dranov: This is concerning but not reportable. The actions of every single other individual screams that he did not tell them that he saw anything sexual going on.
I've said this a million times since this all came down. You are never wrong to call protective services or the police if you are doing so in good faith. He was a grown man and at any time could have chosen to do so. His own actions say that he did not see anything to be reported to authorities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe, BriCarPSU, TMS1950 and 4 others
MM testified in the CSS 12/16/11 prelim (page 85) that when TC called him a few weeks later to follow up (yes he did follow up with MM contrary to freeh's bullshit claim that no one followed up with MM) to tell him what they've done and decided to do, MM did not dispute or oppose and never said MORE needed to be done.

JM testified at this same hearing (page 155) that during his conversation with Schultz a few MONTHS after the incident, he never expressed dissatisfaction and never asked Schultz to notify the police. Farrell asked JM "Did you in that meeting, did you ask Mr. Schultz to notify the police?" Answer: "No". JM goes on to try and rationalize that by saying since Schultz was the director of the police in that regard he felt he had notified the appropriate person that could take what JM would have deemed to be appropriate action. Umm....what action could Schultz even do? Schultz wasn't an actual police officer. The only thing Schultz could do from his end was tell Harmon to send someone from UPPD to get a formal statement from MM (aka notify the police). That never happened and yet JM/MM seemed to be perfectly ok with that since they never expressed any dissatisfaction to TC/Schultz respectively. Doesn't add up.

This makes absolutely ZERO sense if MM's 2010 version is to be believed...that in 2001 MM was certain JS was sodomizing a kid and he reported that to the admins. You'd think they'd at least express a LITTLE dissatisfaction when the admins followed up right? JS was still accessing kids from TSM freely at that time up until he was indicated in late 2008. MM never once wandered why, after his initial meeting with C/S, no one from UPPD ever came to get his written statement so they could at least start a criminal investigation, find out who he was with, and question JS??? Come on now.

So, from the admins perspective, the one and only witness and the first person he told about the incident were happy with their response....with that in mind what reason would the admins have to think otherwise? If MM wasn't happy with their response were they supposed to read his freaking mind?
===========================

Side note.....The 12/16/11 prelim is also the same hearing that JM amazingly denied ever being at when questioned about it by Rominger on 6/13/12 during the JS trial. Rominger was specifically going to ask JM about his testimony on page 137 of the 12/16/11 prelim transcript. Let's take a look at what JM said on page 137 of the 12/16/11 prelim shall we....

Page 137 (JM being questioned by Roberto):

Q: What was the nature of the contact?

A: That they were in the--he saw JS in the shower, in the shower area, the shower room with a young boy; and that between the sounds that he observed and the visualization that he saw, that there was something at best inappropriate going on and that it was sexual in nature.

"At best inappropriate"...That doesn't sound like MM was sure about anything if you ask me..if he saw something definitive there'd be no at best, at worst, etc.... MM was SPECULATING at what MAY have been happening based on some slapping sounds and a few seconds glimpse through a shower mirror. Apparently he didn't feel strong enough about what he THOUGHT was happening to even take the basic step of filing a formal police report with UPPD but instead spoke to a football coach and some admins as if it was an HR issue, not a criminal issue. After MM saw JS never get arrested/questioned/etc. he never expressed dissatisfaction or said MORE needed to be done when TC called him to follow up with PSU's action plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pkg5002, TMS1950 and simons96
I'm ready to take up a collection to get Mike a better lawyer. He could break this logjam and be a hero for doing so. His reticence continues to hamper everybody's effort to move on, especially his own. And for what? To avoid a perjury charge? How bad can that be? I don't know and would really like to know. How does it stick when he kept pulling back from a false grand jury presentment?

With all the malfeasance involved in that trial, using the term "of a sexual nature" is nearly perfect proof of Fina's prints. Who talks like that except a prosecutor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates, pkg5002, bytir and 5 others
sarasotan said:
I'm ready to take up a collection to get Mike a better lawyer. He could break this logjam and be a hero for doing so. His reticence continues to hamper everybody's effort to move on, especially his own. And for what? To avoid a perjury charge? How bad can that be? I don't know and would really like to know. How does it stick when he kept pulling back from a false grand jury presentment?

With all the malfeasance involved in that trial, using the term "of a sexual nature" is nearly perfect proof of Fina's prints. Who talks like that except a prosecutor?
Click to expand...

what would Fina know "of a sexual nature"? it's not like he was swapping massive amounts of vulgar and violent porn with his buddies. :eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: pkg5002, wensilver, Marshall30 and 6 others
PSU2UNC said:
A cover up requires at least two major components:

1) Telling everyone who knows about it not to talk about it/report it/tell others

2) Minimize the number of people who know about it (which makes #1 easier).

So let's examine your so called "cover up"

There is zero evidence that anyone at PSU was told not to talk about this or report it. In fact, MM, under oath, testified that at no time was he told to keep quiet about 2001.

Furthermore, rather than keeping this incident quiet, this information was shared with the following people:

1) John McQueary (i.e. Mike didn't cover it up)

2) Dr. Dranov (i.e. John M didn't cover it up)

3) Joe Paterno (Dranov and the McQuearys didn't cover it up)

4) Tim Curley (JVP didn't cover it up)

5) Gary Schultz (TC didn't cover it up)

6) Graham Spanier (Schultz didn't cover it up)

7) Wendell Courtney (Gary Schultz didn't cover it up)

8) Jack Raykovitz (C/S/S didn't cover it up)

(and there may be documented others that were told that I am forgetting about here, but I feel like 8 examples makes my point).

So you would have us believe that this was the worst orchestrated cover up in history?

Perhaps it's more believable THAT THERE WAS NO COVER UP.
Click to expand...

Alot of people and media outlets made the error in assuming Curley, Spanier & Schultz were charged by the OAG in covering up the McQueary incident based on their actions in 2001. If that were the case the conspiracy to conceal & obstruction of justice charges would have not been dropped simply due to the inadmissibility of Baldwin's testimony. Those charges were in regards to the 3 men's actions in 2011 during the investigation. That leaves only Freeh to claim that such a cover up took place & he had an 8+ million dollar incentive to claim that. Louis Freeh's yarn is unravelling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe, jjsocrates, pkg5002 and 7 others
Adlee73 said:
Alot of people and media outlets made the error in assuming Curley, Spanier & Schultz were charged by the OAG in covering up the McQueary incident based on their actions in 2001. If that were the case the conspiracy to conceal & obstruction of justice charges would have not been dropped simply due to the inadmissibility of Baldwin's testimony. Those charges were in regards to the 3 men's actions in 2011 during the investigation. That leaves only Freeh to claim that such a cover up took place & he had an 8+ million dollar incentive to claim that. Louis Freeh's yarn is unravelling.
Click to expand...
Many would also suggest that Freeh's life is unraveling...His "departure" from Pepper Hamilton and his kissy face tree event, not to mention certain ongoing law suits...
kiss-1186745_960_720.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and Adlee73
psudukie said:
I never knew of another incident till after presentment other than hearsay late in investigation.

My father I believe is on record of being reassured by Gary that nothing more with Jerry could be done when he brought the subject up weeks after Mike's reporting of the incident.

If am full of shot so be it. I will gladly admit to being wrong, I currently do not believe I am.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't explain why neither you, your dad or Mike didn't report it to authorities if you all were so sure Mike saw a 10yr old boy being raped. When I witnessed a rape I didn't report it to the police because I was 17 & drinking & the offender was the son of the police chief. Instead I reported it to the victim's parents. What was it you 3 feared about going to the authorities? Or did you simply doubt you could prove it at the time?
 
Adlee73 said:
Ironically the Moulton Report starts out with a lecture on Hindsight Bias.
Click to expand...
How true. And sadly, while not exactly the same, most people and the overwhelming majority of the media grossly misinterpreted JVP's "given the benefit of hindsight..." comment. 10 years after the fact allows for a lot of hindsight bias, and misunderstanding what JVP said really shows how stupid the media and others really were/are.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Adlee73, royboy, Ski and 1 other person
Adlee73 said:
Alot of people and media outlets made the error in assuming Curley, Spanier & Schultz were charged by the OAG in covering up the McQueary incident based on their actions in 2001. If that were the case the conspiracy to conceal & obstruction of justice charges would have not been dropped simply due to the inadmissibility of Baldwin's testimony. Those charges were in regards to the 3 men's actions in 2011 during the investigation. That leaves only Freeh to claim that such a cover up took place & he had an 8+ million dollar incentive to claim that. Louis Freeh's yarn is unravelling.
Click to expand...

I know I sound like a broke record, but one thing many "critics" STILL cannot grasp is that the OAG did not claim they even committed a crime in 2001
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adlee73, Marshall30 and 91Joe95
nits74 said:
This is the thing that gets me (coming from both sides) are these type of cryptic posts. Miser, at least, has adequately explained his reason for not getting into detail. Some of these others? I have to question their credibility. And I like Dukie.
Click to expand...

You've been much more diplomatic than I. I've simply told dukie to STFU until he is ready to say something of substance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates, Marshall30 and Ski
Adlee73 said:
Great question: It suggests what was revealed about the incident in 2011 by McQueary is much more than what Joe was told back in 2001.
Click to expand...

But then you have to discount Joe's 3 statements on the record. I understand what you are saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adlee73
WeR0206 said:
MM testified in the CSS 12/16/11 prelim (page 85) that when TC called him a few weeks later to follow up (yes he did follow up with MM contrary to freeh's bullshit claim that no one followed up with MM) to tell him what they've done and decided to do, MM did not dispute or oppose and never said MORE needed to be done.

JM testified at this same hearing (page 155) that during his conversation with Schultz a few MONTHS after the incident, he never expressed dissatisfaction and never asked Schultz to notify the police. Farrell asked JM "Did you in that meeting, did you ask Mr. Schultz to notify the police?" Answer: "No". JM goes on to try and rationalize that by saying since Schultz was the director of the police in that regard he felt he had notified the appropriate person that could take what JM would have deemed to be appropriate action. Umm....what action could Schultz even do? Schultz wasn't an actual police officer. The only thing Schultz could do from his end was tell Harmon to send someone from UPPD to get a formal statement from MM (aka notify the police). That never happened and yet JM/MM seemed to be perfectly ok with that since they never expressed any dissatisfaction to TC/Schultz respectively. Doesn't add up.

This makes absolutely ZERO sense if MM's 2010 version is to be believed...that in 2001 MM was certain JS was sodomizing a kid and he reported that to the admins. You'd think they'd at least express a LITTLE dissatisfaction when the admins followed up right? JS was still accessing kids from TSM freely at that time up until he was indicated in late 2008. MM never once wandered why, after his initial meeting with C/S, no one from UPPD ever came to get his written statement so they could at least start a criminal investigation, find out who he was with, and question JS??? Come on now.

So, from the admins perspective, the one and only witness and the first person he told about the incident were happy with their response....with that in mind what reason would the admins have to think otherwise? If MM wasn't happy with their response were they supposed to read his freaking mind?
===========================

Side note.....The 12/16/11 prelim is also the same hearing that JM amazingly denied ever being at when questioned about it by Rominger on 6/13/12 during the JS trial. Rominger was specifically going to ask JM about his testimony on page 137 of the 12/16/11 prelim transcript. Let's take a look at what JM said on page 137 of the 12/16/11 prelim shall we....

Page 137 (JM being questioned by Roberto):

Q: What was the nature of the contact?

A: That they were in the--he saw JS in the shower, in the shower area, the shower room with a young boy; and that between the sounds that he observed and the visualization that he saw, that there was something at best inappropriate going on and that it was sexual in nature.

"At best inappropriate"...That doesn't sound like MM was sure about anything if you ask me..if he saw something definitive there'd be no at best, at worst, etc.... MM was SPECULATING at what MAY have been happening based on some slapping sounds and a few seconds glimpse through a shower mirror. Apparently he didn't feel strong enough about what he THOUGHT was happening to even take the basic step of filing a formal police report with UPPD but instead spoke to a football coach and some admins as if it was an HR issue, not a criminal issue. After MM saw JS never get arrested/questioned/etc. he never expressed dissatisfaction or said MORE needed to be done when TC called him to follow up with PSU's action plan.
Click to expand...

What are the odds that JM used sexual in nature too? it's ambiguous even without Joe's qualifiers, and it's not a commonly used phrase.

Just because someone is closely related, doesn't mean they have some sort of inside knowledge, or that they know the "truth". Sometimes those closest to the situation are intestinally kept in the dark by the involved family member. I knew a single/unmarried girl who to the surprise of everyone, including herself, gave birth to a premature baby. She was very slim and never appeared pregnant, she claimed she had no idea. Years later she admitted to me that she of course knew she was pregnant, and her family still doesn't know the truth. The lie helped the family process the event, and quickly the child became a gift they couldn't imagine life without.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206 and Ski
GTACSA said:
But then you have to discount Joe's 3 statements on the record.
Click to expand...

No you don't, his ambiguous testimony was sufficiently qualified to make it worthless. Plus we've never heard it to verify it's accuracy, and it was never cross examined.

Of course you know these facts, you just choose to ignore them because of you are either a moron or you have an agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pkg5002, Marshall30, 1 and 5 others
PortlandLion said:
As I understand things, the boy in the shower stated in court during the JS trial, that NOTHING happened. And, JS was not convicted of most of acquisitions regarding this boy? If so, why do we even care what MM said, being that this is probably a moot issue?

Also, if this is true, then perhaps a trial would have never happened if this boy came forth before the trial. Would have any of the other kids lawyered up?
Click to expand...

You should be immediately banned from posting anything else regarding the Sandusky topic.
 
psudukie said:
I never knew of another incident till after presentment other than hearsay late in investigation.

My father I believe is on record of being reassured by Gary that nothing more with Jerry could be done when he brought the subject up weeks after Mike's reporting of the incident.

If am full of shot so be it. I will gladly admit to being wrong, I currently do not believe I am.
Click to expand...

A doctor and another doctor who is a mandatory reporter aren't aware that an eye witness to child sexual assault can go directly to the police or to a child welfare department?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pkg5002, 91Joe95, MichaelJackSchmidt and 2 others
BobPSU92 said:
You've been much more diplomatic than I. I've simply told dukie to STFU until he is ready to say something of substance.
Click to expand...
Bob, you may be right and maybe I'm being naive, but he seems to be sincere. But yeah, like you I do get tired of the crumbs of "information".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski
PortlandLion said: ↑
As I understand things, the boy in the shower stated in court during the JS trial, that NOTHING happened. And, JS was not convicted of most of acquisitions regarding this boy? If so, why do we even care what MM said, being that this is probably a moot issue?

Also, if this is true, then perhaps a trial would have never happened if this boy came forth before the trial. Would have any of the other kids lawyered up?

no1lion99 said:
You should be immediately banned from posting anything else regarding the Sandusky topic.
Click to expand...

I am just asking a question to those that know more than I for some clarity.
 
PortlandLion said:
PortlandLion said: ↑
As I understand things, the boy in the shower stated in court during the JS trial, that NOTHING happened. And, JS was not convicted of most of acquisitions regarding this boy? If so, why do we even care what MM said, being that this is probably a moot issue?

Also, if this is true, then perhaps a trial would have never happened if this boy came forth before the trial. Would have any of the other kids lawyered up?



I am just asking a question to those that know more than I for some clarity.
Click to expand...
The most important error you're making is that V2, the boy MM saw, never came forward. He never testified at the trial. His only statement on record was given to Sandusky's legal team on the day JVP was fired. You're right that he said at that time that nothing happened. He also said MM lied. But the jury never knew who he was, let alone heard his side of the story.

JS was convicted of 4/5 counts in that case; acquitted on the most serious charge because MM could not swear he witnessed a sexual act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and simons96
nits74 said:
Bob, you may be right and maybe I'm being naive, but he seems to be sincere. But yeah, like you I do get tired of the crumbs of "information".
Click to expand...

Crumbs, at best. It's typically, "I know something you don't. Just wait."

He needs to STFU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: royboy
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

francofan

The Commonwealth's dubious claims in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

Replies
128
Views
12K
Penn State Football
Mixolydian
Mixolydian
francofan

Renewed motion for in camera review of therapy notes

Replies
0
Views
842
Penn State Football
francofan
francofan
ChiTownLion

Freeh responds to Spanier's defamation complaint; Wants Spanier to stick to the facts

Replies
17
Views
3K
Penn State Football
Player2BNamedL8r
Player2BNamedL8r
L

FC: New Ruling in Paterno v. NCAA

Replies
36
Views
5K
Penn State Football
lionlurker
lionlurker
eloracv

John Doe took the Ira Lubert approved settlement but is "too fragile" to testify

Replies
244
Views
19K
Penn State Football
getmyjive11
G
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back