Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
GTACSA said:
It has been discussed, and I can't believe you still haven't learned. Your quote can not possibly mean what you think it means because of my quote. This is VERY simple, but I don't expect you to understand.
Your "point" about defamation was 1) not directed at me, 2) already addressed countless times by countless posters, and most importantly 3) a poor attempt at distraction from the fact that you keep truncating his quote to fit your agenda. An agenda BTW, that keeps the spotlight on the one man who did exactly what he should have, instead of the professionals at DPW/CYS/TSM that failed those teens.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
If he was "not mentally fit to testify", he should neither have been heading up a major D-1 college football team.
You simply can't get both of those (though you want both).
No, you are wrong. I agree with your entire first sentence. Don't lump me in with other people.
GTA - the only attorney who thinks its a good idea when his witness starts contradicting his own testimony without even being cross examined. The only attorney who thinks having his witness testify under oath about where he heard certain terms come from (and Paterno would have). The only attorney who thought Paterno should have been charged with perjury for answering that he had not heard of rumors about Sandusky. Etc.
It's been a while. Are you still trying to make an ass out of Penn Staters genuinely trying to ensure the right people were punished in this sad situation on the meeechigan man board. Disappointing because you're obviously not a dumb guy. By now you should recognize the injustice that was perpetrated on your university, the football program, and some good people.
This narrative was and is a joke based on even what we knew at the time. There were victims of js, and then there was tremendous collateral damage, because folks latched onto a moronic and baseless narrative that blamed football for a child molester because the abuser happened to be an ex coach. Facts and common sense be damned.
I know you're here still stirring the pot but tell me you get this much.
I generally try to steer fairly clear of certain issues - - - because it would be fair for some people to claim "He's biased".....but among all the folks who have been "F'ed over" to some degree or another in this entire affair - and there have been SOOOOO many who have been pilloried - one way or another, MM has also been "used" (I can't think of a better, more descriptive term at the moment) in ways that none of us would envy.
I wish Mike had done some things differently. Hell, I still wish Mike would do some things differently (and Dukie and I have had those conversations)
But some of the ways things have been manipulated - - - that is another in the long list of stuff that should "piss people off".
I wish Mike had done some things differently. Hell, I still wish Mike would do some things differently (and Dukie and I have had those conversations)
But some of the ways things have been manipulated - - - that is another in the long list of stuff that should "piss people off".
You can if you value loyalty over performance. Also, there are many forms of winning.
MM certainly got used by the corrupt OAG/P.O.S Fina, no doubt about it in my mind, however he has himself to blame for that as in I don't know how he couldn't see that changing his story would screw over a lot of people. If he would have just told the same story in 2010 that he told in 2001 he'd never find himself in this mess (he wasn't really sure what JS and the boy were doing b/c he couldn't really see anything but was weirded out by the sounds/positioning and he felt someone at PSU should know about it). For some reason (perhaps with some manipulation/blackmailing by Fina) he changed his story to he was certain JS was sodomizing/molesting a kid and reported it as such.
If that was the case there's no way in hell Dr. D and JM would have told him to sleep on it then tell a football coach the next day as his 2010 version leaves ZERO room for grey area and is 100% a criminal act that needed LE involvement ASAP. The first thing Joe would say to MM would be what the heck are you telling me for you need to to go police ASAP and file a report! If that was the case there's no way in hell MM/JM would just sit idly by and not express dissatisfaction or say MORE needed to be done after seeing JS not getting arrested/questioned when the admins followed up with them. No way MM wouldn't at least file a written statement with UPPD or SOMEBODY, anybody, just to get his story on the record.....but nope...never happened. The only logical explanation for that is he wasn't sure enough about what happened to go on the record in such an official capacity.
Instead MM, JM, Dr. D, Joe/C/S, et al. all treated it as an inappropriate shower/HR issue (yes they did check with counsel to see what their legal requirements where for such an incident), not the 5 alarm fire MM made it out to be in his 2010 statement to OAG.
BINGO! He never told the AG that he "...saw a naked boy, Victim 2, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky." MM has said as much and his actual GJ testimony confirms this. What the OAG did, most likely Fina or with Fina's approval, was to issue a Presentment that was knowingly untrue. Prosecutorial misconduct. The editorial privilege they took with respect to MM's testimony is beyond the pale.
I don't believe we should doubt that this was a case of the OAG trying to win at all costs. Who cares what the collateral damage might be? Certainly not former Governor Corbett. No, he was more interested in a petty grievance with Dr. Spanier. But after Joe issued his statement on November 9, 2011, he too had to go as far as the former Governor was concerned.
"Very good, Mike. You're telling us almost word for word what the other witnesses are telling us. This guy follows a pattern. By no means are you alone, you must be the eighth or ninth witness that has told us this exact same thing. Begin recording." Those police???
Have you all seen Making a Murderer? You should watch it. This exact same kind of thing happened to the nephew of the accused killer, who was also prosecuted based on a coerced confession that may not have been true. It's not like this kind of thing doesn't happen. It sure does.
Correct...in his written statement to OAG in 2010 MM said he was certain sodomy was occurring and reported it as such.
Then in his GJ testimony (start on page 20) he said he "saw a boy leaning up against the wall. Jerry is behind him in what appeared to be a sexual position." Upon seeing that he got flustered and left. Then MM said "I'm pretty sure he was sodomizing him, relatively sure". "I did not see actual insertion". This is the part that contradicts the GJP that says he eye witnessed sex. Also his GJ testimony contradicts his written statement b/c if he didn't see insertion how could he be "certain" sodomy was occurring? Doesn't make any sense b/c he was making an assumption and was only "pretty sure, relatively sure" which is NOT certain at all.
Then in his 12/16/11 prelim, while getting questioned by Beemer MM said "they're in a very sexual oriented--very sexual position". "I BELIEVED Jerry was sexually molesting him and having some type of intercourse with him.". He based this belief on the positioning but he didn't see insertion.
Then, in the same hearing, while getting cross examined by Roberto, MM said he wasn't 100% sure what was happening because he couldn't see any privates or hands. This also contradicts his 2010 written statement that he was "certain".
In other words, MM's testimony compared to his 2010 written statement and actions in 2001 doesn't line up and is all over the map. He has no credibility IMO and would get shredded on the stand by competent counsel. He heard some slapping sounds, saw some positioning (but no hands or privates) in a few seconds glimpse in to a freaking mirror then apparently made a bunch of assumptions/beliefs about what was happening based on the positioning he saw and sounds he heard. That's it. JS was most likely hugging a kid in the shower/grooming just like 1998.
That's why, I believe, MM never made a written statement to police or expressed dissatisfaction to Joe/Tim when they followed up and why JM/Dr. D never told him to call the police (he didn't eye witness any criminal act) that night. All the hard "evidence" he had was the slapping sounds and positioning through a few seconds glimpse into a mirror which isn't a whole lot to go on especially against a pillar of the community like JS. The only thing MM knew for sure was the shower was inappropriate and made him feel uncomfortable and that's why they took it to Joe vs. UPPD.
Last edited:
It is my assumption that MM had used that shower previously with a woman. Thus the reason why he assumed before he even saw anyone, sex was going on in the shower. His prior experience or maybe knowing someone else who used the showers for that purpose I believe tainted Mikes perception of what he believed was happening in there.
Yes, I very much agree with this viewpoint - essentially, IMHO, the prosecutor's asked MM leading questions and to SPECULATE based on his "experience" of the entire event -- NOT SOLELY on what he could testify to based ONLY on what he actually saw! The prosecution knows that the only thing which is permissible evidence in a Court of Law is what MM ACTUALLY SAW and that SPECULATION based on what he heard prior to what he saw is INADMISSIBLE! The defense destroyed this charge by prosecutors with one simple question to MM in the courtroom just as you say - Did you SEE and can you testify that you absolutely SAW sexual contact....?.... to which MM absolutely answered - No, I did not see that. I think that is what was going on, but I cannot say that I de facto saw it. I in fact did not see it - in fact, I never saw below the waist of either party....etc....
IOW, prosecutors routinely asked MM to SPECULATE on what he specifically eyewitnessed via what he was thinking prior to whatever he actually eyewitnessed due to what he had HEARD UPON ENTERING THE FACILITY and continued to hear until shortly before he EYEWITNESSED what he eyewitnessed via a momentary glance in a mirror and then directly looking into the shower area after walking over from his locker. They destroyed their own case and then laughably, and repeatedly, claimed that this was MM "testifying" that he SAW "anal rape", "sodomy" and all the other words the OAG used in the "Presentment Statement of Fact" which they knew all along was complete bull$hit as "speculating" based on what you had HEARD is not admissible evidence in a Court of Law and the OAG damn well knew this!
MM told Dr. Dranov (and his father), immediately following the incident, that he was convinced that people were having sex in the shower from the moment he walked into the facility DUE TO WHAT HE HEARD, NOT WHAT HE SAW. MM had already made up his mind that people were having sex in the shower BEFORE HE SAW ANYTHING - the only thing he didn't know when he went to his locker is who was in the shower. This explains MM's shock-&-horror when he learned who was in the shower via a momentary glimpse in the mirror and then a direct look into the shower area after he walked directly over to see what was going on DESPITE NOT SEEING ANYTHING that he could attest was sexual contact between the parties! (again, he had already decided that this was what was taking place based on what he HEARD, not what he saw). Dr. Dranov told MM multimple times the very night of the incident that police needed to be called, and he needed to make a report, if he saw and EYEWITNESSED a sexual assault, but MM kept telling him not to call police because he only thought that is what was going on based on what he heard, but had not actually eyewitnessed such a thing which is PRECISELY why Dr. Dranov and MM's Father did not call the police - e.g., MM could not make a statement and the accusation that this is what he SAW which is what is required to make the CRIMINAL CHARGE STICK!
Again, the OAG understood this, but went right on polluting the waters by not distinguishing descriptions MM told others based on what he HEARD (SPECULATION and not admissible in a COURT OF LAW) versus what he ACTUALLY SAW and was willing to testify to seeing (otherwise known as giving "eyewitness testimony") which is the only thing that is admissible in a Court of Law. They polluted the waters in regards to their questioning of Dr. Dranov, JM, JP, TC and GS -- when talking to all of these people, it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT as to what MM "speculated" about based on what he "heard"; the ONLY THING that matters is what MM told these parties as to what he specifically SAW and COULD, AND WOULD, TESTIFY TO HAVING SEEN (again, what is known as "eyewitnessing"). And the RECORD is quite clear on this topic, including what MM actually testified to in a COURT OF LAW -- MM has consistently stated that he did not WITNESS, NOR COULD HE TESTIFY TO SEEING, "anal rape"....."sodomy"......"intercourse"......or "sexual contact" of any kind -- MM also testified that he NEVER TOLD ANYONE he had....this despite the prosecution claiming that MM had told them that he had which is why the wrote the Presentment the way they did. IOW, just as you say, MM's ADMISSIBLE testimony (e.g., testimony as to what he SAW, not what he "heard" or what he "thought based on what he heard and saw", etc....) only points to one party in this entire affair INTENTIONALLY and REPEATED LYING and that would be the OAG, not technically MM or his family (e.g., they only "speculated" that something of a "sexual nature" was taking place, but they were being asked to discuss their INADMISSIBLE "speculations" by the prosecution rather than the prosecution sticking to a discussion of what MM told ANYBODY what he actually SAW and EYEWITNESSED, because according to none other than MM in a Court of Law, the prosecution is BOLD-FACED LYING when they say that MM told them he "saw"...."eyewitnessed".....etc...Sandusky sodomizing a boy in the shower [which they repeatedly claim in their Presentment and Indictments] -- MM flatly stated in a Court of Law that not only had never SEEN any such thing, but that he NEVER TOLD ANYONE that he had [e.g., a clear indictment of the OAG's claim to the contrary that MM had told them that he did "eyewitness" such a thing!]).
Might explain why MM was at Lasch that fateful night... and didn't he call his girlfriend on the way home to speak to his father? Was he cancelling a date at Lasch?
His written statement to police???
When I read this, the first question that popped into my head was "Do you mean in 2001 or in 2010?"
Because, of course, we all know that Mike did, in fact, go to the police in 2001, correct? I mean, if what he told the police in 2010 was true - that he witnessed something THAT horrible - then he most certainly would have told the police the exact same thing when he contacted them in 2001.
I mean, Mike wouldn't have just sat on that information for 9 years right? He most certainly would have had the brains and the courage to contact the police in 2001 as soon as he witnessed the incident. Correct?
Its better than his official story...he got really inspired by watching the movie "Rudy"... so he had to run over to Lasch on a Friday night to drop off some brand new sneakers. Because that's usually what I do after watching a really inspiring movie on a weekend...drive into my office.
Didn't MM also testify that the boy didn't appear to be in any distress? I think a young boy being raped would be in quite a bit of distress.
Also, wouldn't Sandusky have to be holding the kid a few feet in the air in order to commit anal rape?
He went further than that in Courtroom testimony - he said that he never SAW anything below either party's waist which makes the claims of what MM "eyewitnessed" in both the OAG's Presentment and Indictment a physical impossibility. In addition, MM flatly stated in his Courtroom testimony that not only did he not see anything below either party's waist, let alone eyewitnessing sexual intercourse, but that "HE NEVER TOLD ANYBODY" that he had! Given that the OAG and their investigators are part of "ANYBODY" - there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from that statement, the OAG is lying when they say that MM told them he "saw" and "witnessed" such a thing.
BTW, MM's written statement does not conflict with courtroom testimony given that MM's "certainty" was based on conclusions he drew based on what he HEARD, not on what he saw (it does potentially line-up with precisely what he said to Dr. Dranov though). Confidence based upon what he "heard" combined with what he subsequently saw is not ADMISSIBLE in court, nor does it constitute testifying to "eyewitnessing" sodomy, intercourse, etc.... His written statement in no way conflicts with what he testified to in court INCLUDING that he never told anyone he "saw" what he testified to in court that he absolutely did not see. Again, just because he was 99% certain that sex was taking place based on what he HEARD.....and then subsequently witnessed despite not actually seeing sexual contact of any kind does not make it "admissible" in court. ONLY what MM ACTUALLY "eyewitnessed" is admissible in court regardless of how certain he was as to what was going on based on everything he experienced including what he had heard.
I've always have had a WTF about what he was doing there that night as well. It would have been one thing to say, 'I stayed late to watch some film, and when I was finished...', its another to say it was a Friday night, and I went home and then I went back, that never made sense to me.
Yep...MM said that there was no distress and he hear no cries for help or what not.
Also I agree, it would be physically impossible for intercourse to be happening since MM testified that both were standing upright with their feet on the ground and the kid was about chest height compared to JS. Bizarrely when the prosecution was trying to recreate the shower scene they had to prop up the mannequin on a chair (which obviously doesn't match MM's testimony).....apparently the judge so no issue with this.
Unless of course MM is referring to his confidence level based on what he HEARD combined with what he subsequently saw despite not actually seeing or eyewitnessing "sexual contact" of any kind (he has testified multiple times in a Court of Law that not only did he not see and actual sexual contact, but that he never saw anything below either party's waist AND that he NEVER TOLD anybody he had!). MM has also stated in court (and apparently to Dr. Dranov) that he was 99% certain that there was a sexual encounter taking place in the shower room based on what he heard from the time he walked into the facility up to the point he saw what he saw and learned who was in the shower room (and he has stated multiple times under oath that he did not see and "eyewitness" sexual contact although he was certain at the time that this was what was going on because of what he HEARD). His certainty based on what he heard is still "speculation" and inadmissible" in court regardless if he says he was absolutely positive he recognized the sounds as being sexual in nature.....still 100% INADMISSIBLE. But nowhere in the written statement does he say that is what he EYEWITNESSED or SAW -- just that he was certain that is what was taking place based on the entire experience. Obviously, if you simply write "I eyewitnessed this....." - you don't need to qualify it with something like "I'm certain"....very noteworthy that nowhere in his written statement does he state that he was an "eyewitness" to what the OAG alleged and you can be damn sure the OAG would have included that language (e.g., "eyewitness") to the events due to the legal implications if MM was volunteering to sign up for that statement. MM stopped short of such a statement which is telling in-and-of itself.
Some would suggest the Judge throughout this case was nothing but a mannequin himself...
Good point, but what I was getting at was how could he be certain of anything based only on some sounds and a vague look into a mirror where he only saw their backs/sides and no hands, etc.??
Also, if MM was 99% sure that abuse was happening based on the sounds/positioning he observed that still doesn't line up with his 2001 actions--never filing a written statement to police/asking Schultz why no one from UPPD ever came to get his statement in addition to MM never expressing dissatisfaction or saying MORE needed to be done when he was followed up with. If he was 99% sure he and his dad would have made a big stink of things until they saw JS off the streets. But nope..they all went on with their lives as if everything was A-ok until 9 years later. That tells me MM may of had suspicions, etc. but they weren't strong enough to push for MORE to be done besides confronting JS, revoking guest privileges, and informing TSM.
Forgive my memory lapses, but has anybody ever gotten McQueary (Sr. or Jr.) or Dranov under oath, heard that testimony and simply followed up asking "so based on what you just said, you at no time decided to contact the police...WHY again?"
I mean there can only be three possible answers:
1) "I just lied up here on the stand."
2) "I didn't think we needed to contact the police because we were all cowards."
3) "Well, Joe Paterno was the most powerful man in the state so..."
From memory they said Mike told them nothing about anything sexual. Dranov testified he asked mike 3 times in front of his dad.
Or perhaps, combining "The Socratic Paradox" with "The Socratic Method" their answer might have been:
"I know that I know nothing, do you agree"?
I'm sure MM's side will say that he viewed Schultz as "the police" (even though MM didn't even speak to Schultz until 9 days later which would make no sense if he thought a sex crime was committed against a kid--they could call UPPD ASAP).
In the 12/16/11 prelim Roberto asked MM (see page 76) after Joe said he needed to think and contact some people, if he said "Coach I really appreciate it and I also think we should call the police"
MM responded: "No, I did not"......so...how do you rectify that with his claim he was certain in 2001 a kid was being abused??
However even if MM did consider his talk with Schultz as notifying the police, WHY didn't he ever ask Schultz why no one from UPPD came to get his written statement, which would be step 1 in getting JS off the streets? Why didn't MM or JM express dissatisfaction or say MORE needed to be done when Curley and Schultz respectively followed up with them?
None of it makes any sense if you go by MM's 2010 version.
The bottom line to me is that MM didn't tell his dad or Dranov about something sexual, he used loose language with Joe, and C/S said that MM didn't tell them about anything sexual. And from this we are supposed to believe MM's Dad & Dranov but not believe the PSU administrators. That just doesn't make much sense.
Don't really agree because Dr. Dranov has basically testified this is what MM told him and his father - e.g., that his heightened concerns were based on what he heard, not what he saw (MM said that he not only saw them in mirror momentarily, but that he also walked directly over to shower area and "peaked in".....said both parties were out of shower and getting changed which is why he left without further intervening.).
Pretty apparent that Dr. Dranov told MM that he thought police should be called if he really did witness sexual assault, but what was important was what MM actually saw, not what he thought he heard.....hence Dr. Dranov asking him three separate and distinct times -- Hey Mike, did you actually see him sexually assaulting the boy in any way, because if you did we need to get the police over here....etc.... Dranov was correct in his analysis of the situation, it is pointless for MM to tell police about what he heard if he is going to tell them the same thing he told Dr. Dranov (and stated in court multiple times under oath), "I can not say, or testify to the fact, that I saw and witnessed sexual assault of any kind.". This statement disqualifies everything regardless of whether police are called or not. If all MM can "testify" to is seeing them in the shower together, but cannot state unequivocally that he eyewitnessed criminal sexual assault....his testimony is worthless to the police just as it proved to be worthless in the criminal case in regards to the prosecutions charge of criminal rape in regards to the 2001 incident. MM's beliefs based on what he heard when he walked into the facility are not useful testimony and are worthless because they are inadmissible in court. Only what MM can swear to "eyewitnessing" matters and Dr. Dranov likely knew this; hence, the reason he did not call police.
Dranov properly assessed MM's statements - what he described he saw was worthless as eyewitness testimony so there was no point in calling the police.
Last edited:
I do not know if you are being serious or not but that is a very interesting thought.
His actions don't line up to what EVERY other person in this world would have done had they believed a boy was being sexually abused. He would have gone into the shower for absolute proof, break it up, take the boy, and call the police right then and there. No way does someone walk away and what...bang a locker door if iirc. Just impossible to believe. MM is a large person and at 25 years old was in the absolute prime of his life. It's not in the human nature to walk away in that situation...just not.
I was probably one of the first people to say we should go easy on Mike, but elements of his story are downright creepy.
Think for a second the premise that he was entering the locker room and claims he heard suspicious noises . . . let's assume he thought it was a coach and a lady getting it on.
HE THEN CLAIMS HE WENT RIGHT IN ANYWAY. Think about what that would imply . . .
If I walked into a locker room and heard what I thought were the sounds of some sort of sexual activity, my first thought would be that some person was in there pleasuring themselves, alone. That would be my first thought and I would not proceed further.
