Thinking about it too much was the problem. The brain does funny things.
Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
I'm sure he did. I'm sure things cleared up for him nicely when he was convinced that the AF allegations were true. I wonder if things got especially clear when he realized they knew he had gambled on PSU games in which he played. I also wonder if they became crystal clear when he realized that they knew he had used his university issued phone to sext and send pornographic pictures of himself to a PSU coed, and that he was an adulterer. Maybe there's the rub!
You seem to think that he started this claim of his after the investigation started? Is that what you are saying?
I am not sure what you mean by 'this claim of his'. Which claim and when? Do you think what he described to his dad, Dranov, Joe was the same as what he claimed ten years later when being questioned by the OAG? You cannot possibly believe that.
What I really want is for the bastards who wrote the GJ presentment to be held accountable -- punished severely.
No, I don't
The GJP was merely an opening statement by the prosecution. Local, State, National and International media and reporters were ignorant of that fact. They took it as being the final verdict not the initial claim of some hyped up prosecutor. I agree that our OAG should be punished I'm just not certain of what they should be punished for. This is our system and we elect the idiots that run it.
Nice try, but the same KNOWINGLY FALSE ALLEGATIONS are listed in the Indictment for this count - e.g., that MM eyewitnessed anal rape, sodomy, etc.... MM stated in a Court of Law under oath that this is a lie and that he NEVER TOLD ANYONE that he SAW any such thing or that he could testify to seeing any such thing - IN FACT, MM said under oath in a Court of Law that he NEVER, at any time, saw anything below either parties' waist! This is clearly a case of "Malicious Prosecution" as their self-admitted "star witness" says he NEVER saw any of the things they say he saw and would testify to. BTW, he told the press that the prosecution was intentionally "mischaracterizing" his testimony long before the trial and even said he had an e-mail that he sent to the prosecution to this effect to prove it (MM told the press that he had an e-mail that he sent to the OAG after reading the Presentment that the Indictments were based upon that tells the OAG they had mischaracterized what he said in regards to what he actually witnessed!).
How could JS do that standing up given the size difference? Why wasn't the boy in distress? Or are you saying that molestation was something less like rubbing together?
Regardless, why didn't MM tell his dad or Dranov if he saw JS sexually molesting a boy?
That's the thing people refuse to think about in a logical way. It's an uncomfortable topic to discuss and it must be done delicately so it doesn't come across as crude. The fact is the height difference is a big deal and it's a physical impossibility for "anal rape" to have happened given how MM said the people were positioned. He himself said he never claimed it was "anal rape". From reading other posts I've learned that during trial the prosecution had to position a mannequin on/against a chair to show the jury how it could have happened. I've never seen a locker room shower equipped with a chair.
Well, he clearly started it after he played in Jerry's golf outings.
Here's the rub, MM may well have expressed concerns about what he "thought" was going on based upon what he first HEARD and then saw, but NEVER told anyone he "eyewitnessed" sexual relations between the parties in the shower as the OAG claimed in both their Presentment and Indictment. MM could do all the speculating he wanted as to what was going on in the shower, but as soon as Dr. Dranov would say to him.....Mike, forget about your concerns relative to what you heard, I need to know what you SAW. Did you actually see Sandusky involved in a sexual act with the child? (at which point MM would apparently revert back to.....I didn't actually see that but I'm almost certain that is what was going on based on what I had been hearing....).
This would almost certainly beget further questioning from Dr. Dranov as to what he actually saw, like.......Mike, you have to tell me what you actually saw, not what you "think" was going on. Did you see Sandusky involved in a sex act with the boy? If you saw this, we need to call police immediately, etc..... When MM would repeatedly say, no - I never actually saw a sex act, this is why Dr. Dranov did not call police -- MM's "testimony" is dead on arrival once he admits that he saw no sexual act taking place between the parties and that he in fact never saw anything beyond either parties "upper body" and absolutely nothing below either parties waist. Worse than dead on arrival, he is now an exonerating witness for Sandusky! Speculating that you are certain sex was taking place because of what you heard is not "eyewitnessing" anything especially when you are going to say the diametric opposite relative to what you did see.
It also makes the perjury charges complete horse$hit because the claims related to the perjury relate to what MM told GS and TC he "SAW" and what he testified to "eyewitnessing" and whether what he testified to "eyewitnessing" was of a "sexual nature" (e.g., whether MM alleged criminal sexual assault). MM has said in a court of law under oath that he has NEVER made any such allegations to ANYONE, EVER - that would support TC's and GS's contention, not harm it. Even if MM speculated with them as to what was going on before he saw anything based on what he heard, as soon as the questioners say, "But you had no idea who was in the shower or what precisely was going on at that point, correct? There could have been some form of horseplay taking place in the shower that would explain the noises you heard, no? You don't know for certain what was going on in there do you and you just said that you did not actually see and witness a sexual act, no?, etc..."
No, there is a strong possibility that MM made such allegations back at the time, but it was equally clear at the time that MM was SPECULATING as to what was going on and what he THOUGHT was going on......but also equally clear that this is NOT WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO ACTUALLY SEEING. When it came to his testimony as to what he ACTUALLY SAW, he said he saw NOTHING in regards to an actual sexual act (again, said he never saw below the parties "upper bodies") in a court of law under oath and if he said the same thing in 2001 to Dr. Dranov, JM, JP, TC and GS this very elegantly explains why a police report was never filed - his testimony was EXCULPATORY toward Sandusky, not the opposite!
I'm not trying to defend the OAG, they knew exactly what they were doing and they played the media to their benefit. You can wipe the floor with them as far as I'm concerned.
It doesn't make any sense to me that anal sex was actually taking place, I don't know how else to put that.
I don't believe he realized, at the time, that that is what he was witnessing. That developed over time.
Nor did MM allege that a chair was present - in fact, he said the height of the boy in question only came up to Sandusky's chest. Since MM could only see from just above Sandusky's waist and up, the boy would have appeared much taller to MM if he were standing on a chair......
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he was convinced he saw CSA until the OAG found him and told him about the AF accusations. Otherwise, he's a coward and a scumbag for sitting on what he saw for almost a decade.
Even though MM's story was vague and assumption filled, the admins still treated it seriously and went above and beyond their legal requirements. They got advice from outside counsel, confronted JS that his behavior was wrong and needed to stop, revoked his guest privileges, and informed TSM. TSM then apparently did absolutely nothing except laugh curley out of their offices and suggest JS wear swim trunks during his late night inappropriate 1:1 showers with kids. And yet the OAG tried to break the constitution by throwing the book at PSU admins while TSM execs rode off into the sunset. This should infuriate everyone especially folks concerned with protecting PA's kids. Fina/Beemer are a disgrace to their profession.
Around this time of year, two or three years ago, I happened to be hitting golf balls at a range next to a guy wearing a PSU jacket. We bullcrapped a bit, hit some shots, tried out a few clubs from the pro shop, had some laughs. We had similar skills so it was fun.
I introduced myself and he told me his name, Charlie Courtney. Yes. Younger brother of Wendell's and also an attorney. We had become sort of friendly, so I did not mind asking him this question: 'Did your brother tell you what Schultz said to him when he called on that Sunday?" Charlie said yes, said that Schultz told Wendell, "Horseplay."
Charlie's a really nice guy, by the way, and a very good golfer.
Last edited:
I am just guessing the list of men enjoying little boys is pretty substantial.
Wait, I thought you said you had similar skills
Nice story. Thanks for sharing. Quite amazing that the OAG completely discounted the fact that Courtney corroborated CSS's version of events. They relied completely on MM and a tortured interpretation of Joe's Non cross examined GJ testimony.
It's no coincidence PSU couldn't waive ACP fast enough so Balwdin could sandbag CSS but refused to do so for Courtney's convo with Schultz so we could all see exactly what Schultz said and exactly what Courtney advised. It's bc if they did it wouldn't support the b.s. False narrarive freeh was trying to perpetuate. If those notes supported the current narrative you can be damned sure freeh would have gleefully included them
I did mention Baldwin to Charlie. I cannot absolutely say that Charlie rolled his eyes (I suppose I could say that if I thought about it too much, haha), but the impression I was left with, even today, is a rolled eyes response (not saying that he rolled his eyes necessarily, just that he might as well have even if he did not, but he might have -- memory you know).
MM is a liar. There is no way he saw anything of significance and I don't believe he looked in a mirror. Every other person on earth would have walked into the shower the second they saw a young boy with an adult, alone, at night, in a University locker room. Didn't happen. EVERY ONE would have walked in to check on this situation. MM is an effing liar and was most likely manipulated by the scumbags.
I still don't understand why he doesn't stand up, be a man for once in his life, and tell the truth. His life, which currently has to suck, could only improve.
That is one of the key problem I have with MM's testimony. I believe that contemporaneous observations are the most accurate. MM's later recollections could have been influenced by knowing that there were new allegations of CSA against Sandusky. They could have also been influenced by the OAG's tactics including suggestive questioning and leveraging potentially compromising information they had on MM.
He was not witnessing anal rape. Developed over time? WTF does that mean? Maybe it was rape afterall? No anal rape was witnessed by McQ, I do not care what 'developed' over the years.
Sounds to me that you believe the rape story. If so, why?
All of this now makes perfect sense, and in truth, the only one who can right the ship is Mike, if he's willing to be a man and tell the truth. His life is trashed, but there's no reason why he should feel the need to allow the people who used him to get away with it. He cannot win, no matter what, but he'll never have peace so long as he realizes that he is the reason that his university and his coach are the ones that are suffering for his sins.
If he did the right thing and came clean, he would regain at least some of what he has lost. If he does not, he'll be remembered forever for what he is today, and that is not a good thing.
He needs to do the right thing, stand up, and tell the truth about what happened, and let the chips fall where they may. If he was used and he can show it, he may be able to rehabilitate himself. Otherwise, he will never be redeemed.
If he did the right thing and came clean, he would regain at least some of what he has lost. If he does not, he'll be remembered forever for what he is today, and that is not a good thing.
He needs to do the right thing, stand up, and tell the truth about what happened, and let the chips fall where they may. If he was used and he can show it, he may be able to rehabilitate himself. Otherwise, he will never be redeemed.
Agreed. Either MM is a coward (if he really was sure in 2001 a kid was getting abused based on the sounds/positioning and never even so much as filed a written statement to UPPD or expressed dissatisfaction to anyone at PSU when they followed up) or he is a liar who played revisionist history 9 years later thus throwing everyone he told about 01 incident under the bus.
Either way it doesn't make him look very good.
I already said I don't believe the rape story, get over that hump.
The entire story developed over time, it got worse as more things were learned about JS. Blame the OAG if you must but they came into play later, this story festered for a long time.
I dont understand what you are saying. Do you have examples of how the story has festered over time before the OAG came into play?
What do you mean it developed? There is no 'developed'. What Mike told Joe, dad, Dranov etc. is what happened. No develop, no festering. And all that really matters in regard to the C/S/S response is what they were told then, in 2001.
I am really sick of this ten years after testimony crap (and please, this is not a subliminal request for a Ten Years After rock band discussion, though I now wonder what happened to the group ten years before).
I am not sure you are wrong, but if his choices are coward or liar, which in this case means perjurer, you can be damn sure he will settle for coward. There is no chance that he ever backtracks in my opinion. He f'd this whole thing up royally.
I highly recommend, if you can get a copy of the layout of the locker room (including pictures), set in front of you as you read Mike's testimony at Sandusky's trial.
Forgive me, please, misder. I do not mean to be antagonistic toward you. I am just confused and frustrated by some of your responses.
The events between 2001 and 2011 are important. You seem to be of the opinion that MM accurately described what he saw in the locker room to C/S/P (horseplay). You may be correct, I don't know what he told them. From that point going forward, the activity in the locker room turned into a full blown sexual assault. That didn't happen overnight and it didn't happen because of the OAG. It developed over the years as JS activities and proclivities became apparent. It developed.
Why? What will be revealed? I just did a quick google search and didn't come up with anything on the first page (I didn't go deeper). Do you have a layout and pictures?
