gmj/GTA/Bernie McCue Jr cares about kids . . . if you know what I'm sayin . . .
LTE from former PSU Trustee...
- Thread starter bjf1984
- Start date
gmj/GTA/Bernie McCue Jr cares about kids . . . if you know what I'm sayin . . .
I don't believe we heard what the actual advice was, but they seemingly did follow attorney (Courtney) advice and then followed a plan that I assume was at least partially driven by that advice.
Last edited:
My focus is on PSU and therefore, it is on CSS. Sorry, but when you have a witness telling you that there was a coach emeritus showering with a kid, all alone and when no one else was supposed to be around, you fvcking call the police.
No, Erickson said that Spanier promised that status, not that he was being pushed to do so.
Are you one of the people on here that trashes the victims? What kind is bizzarro world is this???
Why are you so afraid of what Curly and Schultz might have to say?
I absolutely agree with you on this point jive, to a degree. If the person reporting this told you something that was you thought was a crime, you report it to the police. If you saw an adult doing something with a child that you think is abusive in some way to a child, you should report it to the local social services agency (whatever the assortment of letters than entails where you live).
The problem that exists here is that all of the people he was told would be aware of this. Presumably, even he would be aware of this. Not one of these people called an outside entity, including the witness. When questioned about it, the witness claimed to being alright with the way it was handled. So either they all responded to this report from the witness in the same way because they all (including the witness) felt it was not something worthy of reporting outside, or there really was a grand coverup conspiracy that included everybody (including the witness).
Nope. He didn't witness a crime. He witnessed a guy in the shower with a kid after working out. And in his reporting to his dad, dranov and the others no one reacted like he reported a crime. And the kid in the shower indicated nothing happened. That's why this event was reported to those responsible for the kid at second mile.
Ten years later mike claimed something else to cover his ass. If he witnessed a crime then the 30-year old man should have called police. He didn't witness a crime and that's why he went to a football coach. And PSU correctly reported to tsm and told them to keep their kids out of PSU facilities.
Tsm director is a mandated reporter and he did nothing. Neither did the state in 98. That's on them. PSU has been a convenient scapegoat for the corrupt scumbags in Harrisburg. If you trust guys like Frank Fina and Tom Corbett then I have some gorgeous swamp land for you.
I appreciate how you preface your words with what we should expect in the coming sentence. When you said "again with the crazy talk", I was seriously doubting you would actually follow it up with crazy talk, but then you knocked it out the park with "MM witnessed the crime". In the future, you should start you posts with "again with the complete non-sense". I mean most of us know it's coming, but it would still be nice in case some new people join the board.
The problem is, MM didn't tell anyone else he witnessed a crime. Quite simply, if MM witnessed the crime, all blame falls squarely on him for not calling the police, and not conveying the message appropriately to C/S/S, and not expressing dissatisfaction with how C/S/S handled things.
So you could believe this ridiculous version where MM witnessed a crime and told no one until a decade later. OR the more reasonable version where he saw something that made him uncomfortable, but didn't see a crime. Only a decade later when the police came knocking with leverage (gambling, cell phone pics, etc) did his story evolve.
Of course your focus is on PSU. Because you want to make PSU look bad, and focusing on DPW/CYS/TSM doesn't accomplish that. Sure it might help fix the problems that led to JS abusing kids, and prevent future abuse... but why would you care about that?
The OGBoT members with their hands in the cookie jar sold Penn State's reputation to save their own. Their actions are criminal. They know it, Lubrano knows it, and we know it. The power block on the BoT's repeated attempts to avoid discovery and to avoid making the Freeh source documents public indicate that they have something big to hide. Let us see the facts in the source documents instead of telling us to accept Freeh's opinion as fact with no do-overs.
I personally don't believe there was a coverup conspiracy, I think they just screwed up. And what I said in my post is absolutely what they were told. Sandusky in a shower with a boy at a time when no one was supposed to be there. I said nothing about rape or anything else. Just the mere fact that he was in there with the kid at that time should have been enough for CSS to call the police. Let them talk to MM and figure out if anything sinister was going on.
I mean, you are all worried about the report and not the actual actions leading up to the report. Look, the report is garbage, we all know that. The BOT, at best, made a huge mistake by bringing Freeh on board and allowing him to render a decision to the public. That is beyond stupid and I don't blame anyone for being upset about that. But the main problem is how we got to that point, that's CSS's inaction.
Would you stop with the idiocy. Why the hell would I want PSU to look bad? I wish that this fvcking thing never happened. I wish that Paterno would have been able to retire on his own terms along with CSS. That would be fantastic. Unfortunately, that's not reality. I'm not going to sit here and deny, deny, deny, only to look like a loon in the process.
He certainly told Paterno that "something sexual" was occurring. It was clearly more than just "nothing".
Read Dranov's testimony and consider the lack of action by he and John McQueary. The only story about something sexual surfaced after MM had a come to Jesus moment with State Police Investigators.
Regardless of what you said earlier, I said that it was either reported differently than when Mike reported it ten years later or it was a concious coverup. No two ways around it really. Can't be just a screwup because Mike had the information all along. He always had to option to call another authority and he didn't agree with how it was going. So either he saw something then that was not reportable (Of which I would say the standard is extremely low. As long as it is done in good faith a report can always be made) and he changed his story later for some reason or he was part of a grand coverup.
It's really one or the other.
"When questioned about it, the witness claimed to being alright with the way it was handled."
Some like to make this a major point without realizing that there is another side of the coin. If you believe that McQueary's sworn testimony is nothing but lies, then there isn't another side of the coin. But if you believe that he told the truth about what he saw, the explanation for his response is pretty basic.
I work for my dream employer at an entry level position with prospects of moving on up to a big time position. I witness what McQueary testified he saw and I report it to my head of the department and subsequently to the big time players. No one from CYS or the police contact me and my superior asks me if I'm alright with the way it's being handled. (No police or CYS involvement)
I've got two choices; say yes and as a "team player" keep my prospects in tact or say no, press for CYS/police involvement and place my immediate career as well as long term prospects in jeopardy.
My point for your consideration is that his reaction to that question can't be a reason you form your opinion as to the veracity of his testimony. That determination has to be based on other reasons.
This point has been stated so many times over the years that I think people tend to believe it. Fact of the matter- an actual fact, not just something I believe to be true or want to be true- is that Mike had the option all along to call the cabinet. Nothing else precluded him from doing that. He didn't have to press for anything. He, as a citizen who witnessed something, always had the option to report it regardless of what workplace protocol was. He could follow PSU reporting protocol and call authorities.
If he reported a child being raped, Dranov would not have given him the option of being a "team player."
and could have made an anonymous report, and not jeopardized his "team player" status.
The kid said "nothing" happened. And there's a lot of other people, such as Mike's dad and dranov, that also indicated mike said nothing sexual happened.
Look, this is very simple. Mike's not a dumb guy and neither is his dad or dranov. If mike witnessed something sexual then the next step is quite simple. If one witnesses sexual abuse - one calls the police. The last person one would call is a football coach.
The only people who think telling a football coach about a sexual assault is the right move are morons or people with agendas to blame the coach.
Mike was uncomfortable js and the kid were in the shower. I get it. But he didn't see anything. The kid is the ultimate witness to that fact.
Mike had the option to call the cabinet?
My main point was that McQueary's failure to object to the game plan implemented by Penn State leadership doesn't prove that he didn't witness what he testified he witnessed. Of course he had the option to call CYS/police, which in his mind could have ended his advancement prospects at Penn State.
Please stop posting about this until you follow the instructions/advice from early this morning to your alter-ego, get my jive. . . See you in two years when you finally have done enough work, and a lot less talk , to demonstrate that you finally get it.
You and the Jive-talker can set up an offline study group together.I've already addressed that and once again, you're wrong. Read Masser's and Erickson's 2013 statements on settlement. Despite the standard boilerplate in the settlement agreements themselves in which PSU remained silent on wrongdoing rather than actually denying it ("Without the University admitting any wrongdoing . . ."), Mr Potato Head and Sir Rodney the Feckless very clearly conceded liability on PSU's behalf. Their words weren't anywhere near describing a simple business calculation to reduce litigation costs and more to the point, those two never denied wrongdoing by PSU while describing "fair[ness]" to and "harm" suffered by Sandusky's victims. Erickson went so far as to say that giving the victims PSU's money was "the right thing to do" to provide a "just outcome for the victims."
You might be interested to learn that PSU has also settled with V1 and V9, both post-2001 victims and neither of whom testified to any abuse occurring on PSU's campus. The campus ban worked real well in protecting those two kids and absolving PSU from liability, didn't it?
By the way, have you heard that Baldwin advised the University that Sandusky's retirement benefits--including access to PSU facilities--were property rights that could not be unilaterally altered or revoked by PSU?
Did you know that at least one settlement agreement required the victim plaintiff to promise not to sue Sandusky himself in addition to The Second Mile, Wendell Courtney's law firm, Centre County CYS, and the state DPW? If throwing money at the victims was a simple business calculation for PSU and nothing more, why would they give a rat's ass if victims sued Sandusky? Hmmmm . . .
Are you questioning whether or not Mike had the option to call the cabinet (or DCBS or social services)? I'm not sure what the point of that question was.
If Mike was playing games with a child's abuse for his own career advancement (I am not sure what could be more despicable than that) then I would have to assume he would lie about anything else at any other point in time and I would not trust anything at all that that guy ever said.
Just so I make sure I understand this correctly, you think Mike didn't do anything else to protect that kid because he thought it would negatively effect his career possibilities? That's one hell of an indictment if that's where you are going with it.
So you're saying the only eyewitness to a crime where he believed a child was being brutally raped by a 6', 200lb man is not to be judged for not calling the police because he wanted to advance his own career and monetary interests. Got it.
No, my point was that his failure to object to the leadership's decision not to report to CYS/police doesn't prove whether his testimony was truthful as to what he saw.
I did. He said that MM was visibly upset to the point where he couldn't answer the Dr's questions. Odd that he would be that upset over "nothing".
The kid... do you mean the guy that Sandusky's lawyer is saying is the kid? The one who never testified? Sorry, I don't think that holds much water at all.
Why are you only a member here since May 3rd of this year?Please stop posting about this until you follow the instructions/advice from early this morning to your alter-ego, get my jive. . . See you in two years when you finally have done enough work, and a lot less talk , to demonstrate that you finally get it.
So you call Mike a coward, but you believe his testimony?
I don't understand your "cabinet reference."
"Just so I make sure I understand this correctly, you think Mike didn't do anything else to protect that kid because he thought it would negatively effect his career possibilities? That's one hell of an indictment if that's where you are going with it."
I said that one can not use Mike's reaction to the question as to whether he was ok with the non reporting to CYS/police to prove his sworn testimony was false. You are free to come to that conclusion for other reasons but if he went along with it to protect his career then you can see how that would have no relevance to the issue as to the truthfulness of his testimony.
Just so I understand your position based on your last post, do you believe it is impossible that Mike in fact had his career impact his answer?
GTA - 69 likes
gmj - 186 likes
how many of them are this same idiot liking his own tripe??
gmj - 186 likes
how many of them are this same idiot liking his own tripe??
I don't think Mike believes his own testimony
Similar threads
