Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
Joe put MM DIRECTLY in touch with the guy who had oversight of UPPD. If MM wanted to file a police report, based on what he thought was happening that night, don't you think he would have asked Schultz to send a UPPD guy to take a statement from him? Don't you think MM would have asked Curley when he called a few weeks later to follow up why no one from UPPD ever came to get his statement if he felt the admin's response to his report was inadequate?? MM's 2010 version says he was certain a kid was being sodomized yet in 2001 he never even filed a written statement with ANYONE in law enforcement or PSU for that matter. That's why MM has no credibility and would get SHREDDED on the stand by competent counsel. His actions in 2001 don't even remotely line up with his 2010 version of events.
A police report wasn't filed in 2001 because MM didn't want to file one. It's as simple as that. We can speculate as to why....because he wasn't sure enough about what JS and the kid were doing based on his 2 second glimpse through a freaking mirror (in the 12/16/11 prelim MM actually admitted to Roberto he wasn't 100% sure what they were doing which contradicted his 2010 written statement). It's the same reason his dad and Dr. D didn't tell him to call UPPD ASAP that night and instead advised him to tell Joe the next day as if it was an HR/inappropriate shower matter NOT a potential criminal matter.
Last edited:
How is advocating that MM's report should have been forwarded to the police not considering the victims?
What do the other poster's actions have to do with whether Penn State officials should have contacted he police? Here's a hint; nothing.
One thing I know for CERTAIN --- you posted here on the evening of Wednesday 27-June-2012 (10:36 PM EDT). 2 days before the CNN report. Posting a bunch of "hypotheticals" that were instead direct leaks of some of the findings of the Freeh Report.
I'm not wrong on that account. All of the above happened. You have a proven history of being incapable of keeping secrets.
And once men reach middle-age, they typically don't change their behavior.
---------------
"I have some hypothetical questions for all of you. What if, on a very high level, Joe was aware in 98 of the JS investigation? Furthermore, what if JVP initiated JS's separation months before the 98 investigation began, thus confirming that his decision had nothing to do with the investigation? What if Spanier, Schultz and Curley conferred with legal counsel in 2001 as well as with JVP before deciding on a plan of action? I'd like to know your knee-jerk reactions to these hypothetical situations?"
-----------------
Why would a 25+-year-old-man, former D-1A starting QB, NEED someone else to forward HIS eyewitness report for him? Why couldn't he do it? Why wouldn't he do it? How about his father or his father's friend who talked with him immediately following the incident he witnessed? Why couldn't they report it? Why wouldn't they? One possibility is that they were pressured into not saying anything by someone at PSU, although the eyewitness said no one at PSU told him not to say anything. The other obvious possibility is because, at the time, none of them considered it worthy of being reported to the police.
One more possibility is that they were cowardly and decided to pass the buck. Not likely based on the question they posed three times to MM and his subsequent negative response.
It's sad that this is what GTA's side has been reduced to trying to argue. Apparently MM needed Joe/PSU admins to call the police for him in order for him to file a report if he thought one was warranted. It's completely nonsensical. Also when talking directly with Schultz MM bizarrely never asked him to please send a UPPD officer to take his written statement and never said more needed to be done when Curley followed up.
JM actually testified at the 12/16/11 prelim (page 151) re: his follow up meeting with Schultz a few months later:
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, I'm sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature
That's pretty much night and day from - MM was certain a kid was being sodomized (his 2010 version). Since when is child abuse "at least a very inappropriate action" and not a very CRIMINAL action??
JM also never used to following phrases in this meeting with Schultz: anal sex, rape, sodomy, sexual assault, fondling, and he never described the action of JS thrusting his groin into the young boy's rear end.
MM's own testimony in the 12/16/11 prelim stated he wasn't 100% sure what was going on.
What this boils down to is that MM's 2010 version of events is complete and utter revisionist history bullshit (most likely orchastreated by beacon of ethics and integrity Frank porn dog Fina).
JM's above testimony is also most likely why he tried to claim he had no recollection of giving it a mere 6 months later during JS' trial --and the judge bizarrely let him get away with that ridiculous claim.
Last edited:
J
You see, even this post shows how you start out in one place and then change your stance in a very disingenuous way. I love how now you are espousing they ignore what MM told them and substitute their own story. You know fully well they could not have made the report themselves, even though you implied earlier they could. Everything you blame CSS for, only MM could fulfill. You disgust me with the harm you do to the victims by attacking the people who listened to the experts and did what they were supposed to.
You see, even this post shows how you start out in one place and then change your stance in a very disingenuous way. I love how now you are espousing they ignore what MM told them and substitute their own story. You know fully well they could not have made the report themselves, even though you implied earlier they could. Everything you blame CSS for, only MM could fulfill. You disgust me with the harm you do to the victims by attacking the people who listened to the experts and did what they were supposed to.
Or they were told by Schultz that he had notified the police, and Gricar, himself.
You ought to be indicted for having the information processing skills of a ham sandwich.
First of all if that was the case then why didn't MM testify to that effect? Secondly if that was the case then why didn't MM question why no one from UPPD came to get his written statement (which they would certainly need to do as step 1 in their investigation) or say MORE needed to be done when Joe and Time respectively followed up with him? Or if he felt he was being placated why not just go directly to UPPD himself and file a report, to at the least get it on the record or place an anonymous call to ChildLine?
There were a number of things he could have done if he was dissatisfied with the admins response and yet he did nothing. The simplest explanation for that is he wasn't really sure what JS and the boy were doing and he was perfectly happy with the admins response of confronting JS, revoking his guest privleges, and informing his employer (who had direct control over his access to kids mind you) at TSM.
Last edited:
It was not a police matter in 2001 because the witness, McQ, did not describe one. Please, I am begging you, get it through your skull that not one of at least a dozen grown, educated, responsible persons felt that what was described to them, by the one and only witness, McQ, was a police matter. None of them.
Well, the simplest explanation isn't always the correct one, but.........it usually is.
Sure....that could have happened (And I assume that what you are implying is that Schultz said he made such notifications - but that, in fact he never did. Please correct me if I am "mis-inferring" your contention).
If that is what happened, riddle me this:
Why was there never ANY evidence of such put forward by the Fina Boys?
If you are going to charge someone with Conspiracy, etc etc - - - essentially with perpetrating a "cover up"......why-o-why was NOTHING of the kind presented at the prelims? Or at any other time?
If there was evidence of such an interaction - why was it never presented?
_______________________________________
From the original Prelim (before the additional charges were levied, and before Spanier was charged):
Beemer questioning J McQ.....JMcQ response to question regarding meeting w Schultz:
"I thought he (Schultz) was going to look into it more and do the best to uncover whatever they would find"
If Beemer had any evidence or indication that Schultz had said he notified Police, Gricar etc.....why-o-why wouldn't Beemer have simply followed with "Did Schultz tell you he had contacted Police/Gricar/Law Enforcement?" He didn't - why not?
Later - at the Summer 2012 Prelim (after the Conspiracy charges and charges against GS had been put forward):
JMcQ was NOT EVEN CALLED AS A WITNESS. If there was evidence/indication that Schultz had made false claims to JMcQ that he had referred things to Law Enforcement, and you are trying to establish a prima-facia for Conspiracy and Obstruction - why-o-why did they NOT ONLY not present this evidence at the hearing - - - - but they didn't even CALL THE WITNESS in question - not at all, for the entire 2 day hearing.
Did Beemer and entire Prosecution team just forget to include key witnesses to support their Consp. and Obstr. charges?
Are they THAT absent minded?
_____________________________________
Why was the ENTIRE case instead thrown upon the foundation of sand - limited only to the MM incident and the Baldwin nonsense? NONE of which did anything to support Consp. and Obstr. charges (at best, they could provide prima-facia for Perjury wrt Schultz and Curley)
Who allowed the ENTIRE "slam dunk" case to be put forward on that foundation? Essentially leaving their one and only "building block" hanging out to dry.
Now, if I am sitting in the witness box (metaphorically) which, in this case, is akin to being placed in the pillory and being flogged from all sides.......and the Prosecution isn't even presenting the key evidence they claim to possess to substantiate their charges, I am one righteously pissed off SOB.
IMHO - which isn't worth spit - I do believe that as a witness (or, at least I hope I would have - if I was unfortunate enough to be in those shoes) I woulda' told Beemer and the rest of the Hee-Haw gang to get their damn cards on the table......or they can deal me out. "Don't use me as your whipping boy"
______________________________________
Why was none of their voluminous, "slam-dunk" evidence of Consp. and Obstr. presented? But, rather, they call Lisa "PR Release" Powers, a couple of Secretaries, and Braden "IT Guy" Cook to the stand.
Ponder me that one Batman.
Last edited:
Impossible to believe that McQueary could have seen the violent rape of a child, told everyone in 2001 exactly what he saw, was told by Schultz that his report had been forwarded to the police, and yet never again wonder why the police had never contacted him or why Sandusky was still walking around a free man. That is not possible.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
One thing I know for CERTAIN --- you posted here on the evening of Wednesday 27-June-2012 (10:36 PM EDT). 2 days before the CNN report. Posting a bunch of "hypotheticals" that were instead direct leaks of some of the findings of the Freeh Report.
I'm not wrong on that account. All of the above happened. You have a proven history of being incapable of keeping secrets. In all fairness to Anthony, I know of at least one secret he was able to keep until it was discovered during his campaign for the Board.But your right and PSU was prepared to make known other circumstances to the judge in a court filing when access to the Freeh work product was being litigated.
And once men reach middle-age, they typically don't change their behavior.
---------------
"I have some hypothetical questions for all of you. What if, on a very high level, Joe was aware in 98 of the JS investigation? Furthermore, what if JVP initiated JS's separation months before the 98 investigation began, thus confirming that his decision had nothing to do with the investigation? What if Spanier, Schultz and Curley conferred with legal counsel in 2001 as well as with JVP before deciding on a plan of action? I'd like to know your knee-jerk reactions to these hypothetical situations?"
-----------------
Also interesting that JM uses the same obtuse words that prosecutors "coached up" his son to use when discussing his initial conversations with Joe and then subsequent conversations with TC & GS......Yea, I'm sure JM had a conversation with GS where he said - I had a long talk with my son directly after the incident and he was adamant that police shouldn't be called because what he saw wasn't criminal - in fact, he isn't even sure precisely what he saw, BUT he did hear things and what he heard seemed very "inappropriate" and you know what he think thinks it might have been "sexual in nature"...... Yea, right, mmmmhhhhhmmmm, LMFAO. Dr. Dranov testified to the SWIGJ that MM never told his father or him that he saw anything concerning that night (and Dranov says he asked him three separate times if he should have the police come over to take a statement and MM said it wasn't necessary because he didn't "see anything" each time!) AND that MM kept going back to what he HEARD and that what he heard, NOT WHAT HE SAW, was very concerning to him and he thought was inappropriate and sounded like people having sex, BUT that was not confirmed when he went over and looked in the shower! (e.g., what MM HEARD was "sexual in nature", not what he saw according to none other than MM himself directly to JM and Dr. Dranov).
The prosecution then attempted to twist these facts in the way they asked JM questions - they had him make a completely obtuse statement about "sexual in nature" when the FACT is that Dr. Dranov testified that MM said he did not see criminal sexual assault and therefore Dr. Dranov should not call police to the house (told him not to call 3 separate times), but rather it was what MM HEARD that was most distressing and concerning to him as he was convinced he was hearing something "sexual in nature" and inappropriate. Obviously, what one HEARS is not admissible in court as eyewitness testimony to criminal sexual assault so the prosecution intentionally bastardized their questioning of MM and JM regarding what MM said. MM never told anyone he SAW something "sexual in nature" in 2001 - he did tell people he thought he HEARD something "sexual in nature", but did not what he SAW (let alone say that he absolutely eyewitnessed criminal sexual assault - which is what he claimed in 2011 at prosecutors behest which is an outright lie relative to the statements he made to his father and Dr. Dranov immediately following the incident in 2001). It is irrelevant if he told people that he thought he HEARD something "sexual in nature", when he subsequently tells the same people that he SAW nothing when he looked into the shower via a brief glance in the mirror or when he walked directly over to the shower and looked in. We are talking about MM describing what he said he SAW in 2001, not what he was concerned about HEARING! And what he told his father, Dr. Dranov, JP, TC and GS that he SAW in 2001 does not line up with his claims of what he saw in 2011 !!!
"I'm not wrong on that account. All of the above happened. You have a proven history of being incapable of keeping secrets. In all fairness to Anthony, I know of at least one secret he was able to keep until it was discovered during his campaign for the Board. But your right and PSU was prepared to make known other circumstances to the judge in a court filing when access to the Freeh work product was being litigated. "
I am sure the irony of your post escapes you. Douche bag.
But your right and PSU was prepared to make known other circumstances to the judge in a court filing when access to the Freeh work product was being litigated. "I am sure the irony of your post escapes you. Douche bag.
Perhaps you should reread Joe's GJ testimony, the Sassano interview and the Jenkins interview. All those sound like a police matter to me.
goddammit, that was ten years later. Why do these critical details have to be repeated endlessly. I know, you have the bone in your jaws and you won't let go.
Well that is not my position and never has been. MM did not needed permission from anyone to notify the police; never said he did. My position is that if he did not report it, the 4 Penn State employees should have.
I understand how they don't fit your manufactured scenario, but the fact that these words were spoken 10 years later does not mean they were not true. That is what is so mind boggling about your position. In order for it to be true, Joe's sworn testimony and interviews have to contain false information. That's the difference between you and me; I believe Joe told the whole truth and you think he didn't. Joe didn't need friends like you.
Yes, I did post. But having not yet seen or been briefed on the Freeh Report, I posted my hypotheticals. Now of course those hypotheticals were based on my investigative work to that point.
Remember, all BOT members supposedly saw the Report for the first time only when it was issued. Moreover, I did not become a member of the BOT until July 1, 2012.
By the way, when did you get a degree in psychology?
Of this I am certain-- Louis Freeh perpetrated a fraud on the entire nation when he announced in July 12, 2012 that Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Shultz engaged in a coverup.
He has now acknowledged that this was simply his opinion.
So much for an "investigation."
I understand that not all people would insist on the police being notified of a reported sexual assault of a young boy because there is no legal duty to do so. Others may, and do, feel otherwise.
You mean "I don't know what you would call it" and "I don't know exactly what it was"? Or do those words not count as "the whole truth" or fit your agenda?
So if some guy comes to me with a story ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE'S BEHAVIOR, and I tell him that he should report it to the police if he's convinced of criminal activity, but he chooses not to, in your view, I should then report it? That's a good way for someone to smear another person and absolve himself of any responsibility for it.
That has to be one of the most contorted statements I've ever seen you post; and that is saying something.
Where did I say that they should ignore what MM told them and substitute their own story?
Of course they could have made the report themselves by notifying the police of their receipt of a reported sexual assault of a young boy witnessed by MM. Guess what; after the police received that report they almost certainly would have interviewed, drum roll..............; wait for it....... Mike McQueary.
Only the witness could report it, and that would have been MM. Joe sounded like a pretty bad witness for the prosecution. No cross examination and he was already openly stating he didn't know what to call. He got the year wrong. Then you have MM's testimony that he deliberately watered down his story at the time.
Good to see Ken Frazier's personal hand puppet has crawled back out of his hole
For the one thousandth time, CSSP couldn't file a report because they DIDN'T WITNESS ANYTHING. The police would tell them they need to speak to the actual witness. The one and only witness never made a written statement to UPPD and is on the record saying no one from PSU told him to keep quiet, he never expressed dissatisfaction, and never said MORE needed to be done when Joe/Tim followed up with him. With that in mind what reason would the admins/Joe have to think the witness wasn't satisfied or that more needed to be done besides their action plan?? Are they supposed to be mind readers now??
There not being a 2001 police report is 100% on MM and no one else since he was the one and only witness. He was free to file a report with UPPD whenever he wanted and he never did.
Also you can bet your ass that Harmon was told about 2001 on the morning of 2/12/01 (Schultz email to Harmon that freeh just so happened to not show the contents of). Does that qualify as "notifying the police" to you?
If an employee at your company told you what Joe says he was told and what MM says he told Curley, would you report it? I guess not based on your response and that's fine.
"That's a good way for someone to smear another person and absolve himself of any responsibility for it" Do you think that is the reason Penn State didn't report it to the police.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
How convenient that you would leave out this JVP statement: "It was of sexual nature".
Was it a statement, or a question? The surrounding testimony clearly shows it to be a question.
