My opinion has changed. I used to this this was just a screwed up set of cases. No I think it is the biggest clusterf*** imaginable.
McQueary v. Penn State: Has your opinion of Curley, Schultz, or Spanier changed?
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Harmon has been protected by the Commonwealth for some reason.I don't know. It seems like pressing harmon for the details would be the obvious thing to do, but it didn't happen. Why?
TRUST. NO. ONE.
I think you also need to consider the environment of the MM "witnessing". This was in the football building with a communal shower, this was not the first time Sandusky was seen showering with boys (others have testified that they also were in the shower at times when Sandusky had one of his kids there). Next, 1998 the same thing happened (sandusky in shower with a boy) and the local DA determined that no crime had been committed. To me it's relatively easy to assume that this event was "more of the same" and not some unique event.
I think you need to consider the context. The context is that Spanier was the president of one of the country's biggest universities and he had a lot of things to deal with in a day. At this moment in time (Spring 2001) Penn State was racked with racial turmoil. There had been demonstrations and the situation could explode at any time. This was the focus of a huge amount of attention within Old Main. By contrast, there is a report of goofy Jerry engaging in inappropriate conduct. Spanier's lieutenants came up with a plan to deal with it. Spanier trusted them (he had no reason not to) and that was the end of it.
I am assuming that Curley and Schultz only emailed Spanier about issues that they thought he should be apprised of and not every little issue that came up. Referring to a prior episode of Jerry's and Spanier not caring to ask more is significant. If I recall correctly, Spanier has an advanced degree in this field (could be wrong) and was reportedly a victim of abuse if I recall correctly...Revoking Sandusky's right to be on campus with children seems like something that would have piqued Spanier's interest even with other issues boiling.
I don't discount that at all. I just think that you have to balance it with the fact that MM was concerned enough that he felt it necessary to go to his father's house that night and make a report to Joe the next day. You don't do that if you thought it was just innocent horseplay.
There's no doubt in my mind that MM thought whatever he witnessed was somewhat serious. If all he wanted to say was that he thought JS couldn't be horsing around with kids when nobody else was in the facility.... That could have waited until Monday during work hours.
Say, can you tell us where you got fitted for your magical hindsight glasses?
Nothing is hindsight in my analysis, I didn't use any knowledge that was not known at the time. Furthermore, I am not saying that any of this makes the actions by Curley, Spanier, Schultz criminal. I just think that Spanier not caring about a prior incident in this context seems quite odd
As senior administrators Curley and Schultz would've known, at least in a general way, about the State's previous investigation of Sandusky and what it had been for. They would've also known he'd been cleared. But the fact remains that they'd now received a new report, soft or otherwise, from an apparently credible individual, about activity between Sandusky and a young boy, in a locked, limited-access building at (if memory serves) around 10:00 at night. Activity of the same general kind for which he'd previously been investigated. My own feeling is that, because of the nature of the activity and the fact Sandusky already had some history of which they were aware, they should've seen no choice but to act out of an abundance of caution, with a primary view to the protection of innocent children, and to make a report to both DPW and TSM. The fact that Sandusky was no longer their employee or was a community icon should've been seen as secondary in the circumstances. No 20/20 hindsight necessary there. I don't really believe there was any intent to conceal and yes, I do suspect they acted as they did generally for the reasons you mention. But in the positions they held Curley and Schultz were paid not to act in that way, but to make unpleasant choices and act accordingly when necessary.
When it came to their friend and community icon Jerry Sandusky they failed to do so and the rest is irreversible, godawful history.
Last edited:
...and then the state told everyone that this behavior was perfectly normal coach behavior...no big deal...and never even restricted his access to kids after. So now the admins are supposed to know better than the state's child welfare experts when a similar situation comes about a few years later? Please. 2001 wasn't even an allegation of CSA (and neither was 1998), it was an inappropriate shower that made MM uncomfortable. PSU admins took it seriously contacting OUTSIDE counsel and by reporting it to the folks at TSM who were 10000X more qualified to deal with it since they were mandatory reporters employing JS and had direct control over JS' access to kids.
If anyone dropped the ball in 2001 it was JR, Heim, and Poole at TSM. That's where the report died. Also MM for failing to ever make a written statement to UPPD/file a police report on the record so that an actual criminal investigation could be started, not an informal admin investigation.
We know that Shultz knew about 1998. I completely agree that the administrators should have acted with an abundance of caution. I think they were very sloppy.
That doesn't mean that they understood MM's report to be sodomy or that they knowingly covered up for JS in order to protect football.
My observation is the state of PA has more dishonest/criminal people in power than any state in our country. Governors, AG's, judges, prosecutors etc etc
Whatever they might've interpreted McQueary's report to mean or not to mean, the nature of the activity which it suggested might have been going on is so destructive to children that reporting to DPW should've been reflexive given the history they already knew about.
Not to mention that, whatever the professional qualifications of the good folks at TSM, they also had an obvious, vested interest in keeping ol' Jer, founder and rainmaker-in-chief of their organization, above reproach so long as they possibly could. Which I suspect is why CEO and mandated-reporter Raykovitz apparently decided that the double-hearsay report he received from PSU concerning Sandusky's activities in the shower with a sub-teen boy in a locked, limited-access building at 10:00 at night did not even merit being taken to his Board for discussion.
No, I honestly don't believe Curley and Schultz were malicious or attempting to cover up anything by acting as they did. Had they wanted to do a coverup, it's doubtful they would've begun by enlarging the circle of those who knew anything had happened. I think they were simply afflicted with a severe case of terminal dumb. Spanier saw the "obvious downside" (his words) to not reporting to DPW right away, and specifically mentioned it in their e-mail back-and-forth. Unfortunately he also decided not to intervene, calling their approach "humane" and adding that they could re-examine the situation "down the road".
The best-laid plans ...
Last edited:
Trying to position MM as a "linchpin" in the Sandusky case is the genesis of so much of the destruction we have seen (probably as much or more destruction to MM than anyone else)
And a blind man can see why / how / and by whom this abortion of portraying MM as a linchpin was constructed - - - - and it sure as hell wasn't MM's doing
It will get coverage. How many people will read the headline Wendy posted and think "another Catholic priest" and not bother to read further? When you can tie in an institution like a university or a church, or even better a football program, it's easier to make claims about coverups and conspiracies which bother people more than the abuse charges.
I read an article recently that said more than 9 percent of kids in public school are abused by teachers or other employees. But since nobody's keeping a tally or tying it back to an institution, people underestimate the amount of abuse happening in public schools and tend to think it's an outlier here or there committing the abuse.
Bingo - agree wholeheartedly, with one caveat. I believe McQueary was reasonably sure what he saw. But I also believe that he minced words when reporting the incident to Curley and Schultz. He thought that he jad conveyed the seriousness of the event without going into graphic detail, but he really hadn't. Unfortunately, both Curley and Schultz knew about the 1998 incident, which McQueary had no way of knowing. So Curley and Schultz were predisposed to think, going into the meeting with McQueary, that this was just another Jerry horsing around in the shower incident. When Mike didn't offer any graphic detail, they simply translated his words into "horsing around". The big mistake made, right then and there, was in not getting McQueary to document what he saw.
I've mentioned this at other times but I'll repeat it here. Long before this story hit the light of day, sometime around 2006 or so, I happen to mention Sandusky's name in McQueary's presence. We were in a public place but that didn't stop McQueary from going into a quick Jerry Sandusky rant saying "F*ck Jerry Sanduskly, f*ck Jerry Sandusky" twice in succession. It seemingly came from nowhere and surprised the sh*t out of me. I just assumed that they had had some run-in when Sandusky was coaching. After blurting those words, McQueary kind of regained his composure but offered no explanation. I just preceded forward with my conversation, which was actually more about the Second Mile than it was Sandusky, and didn't bother to ask him what precipitated his anger.
It wasn't until the Sandusky charges broke that it made any sense. What it did convince me of though is that there was never any doubt in McQueary's mind about what went on in that shower. It wasn't the state coming to him that made him rethink what went on that night. He obviously held the firm opinion that it was a sexual assault long before the investigators contacted him.
Last edited:
Here are the things that don't make sense:
- Physically impossible for JS to have anal Intercourse with a youngster while standing. Also, the kid wasnt in distress. I can believe inappropriate contact, rubbing up against him, etc. but not sodomy.
- Why wouldn't MM have told his dad or Dranov about sex act and why wouldn't they have responded more forcefully?
Unfortunately being cleared of the first "incident" serves two purposes - neither of which bode well for future actions
1) if an abuse case is "unfounded", it's like it never even happened at all
2) and probably more importantly, it serves more as a deterrent to future allegations because it creates a perception that " he works with kids in a very tough environment and of course they are going to act out" type of mentality
Here's the thing, and yes I'm including hindsight bias here- the only thing that could have changed this outcome is if MM had been 100% clear with everyone right from the beginning - no waffling, no "it made me uncomfortable", no "it was bad but I don't want to talk about it"-just clearly stating what he thought he saw....PERIOD!
I'm saying that with a clear acknowledgment that I can't say how I would have reacted in his shoes, but as unfortunate as it may seem, that is the ONLY thing that changes the future outcome
If he was as certain and strong then as he is acting now, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Curley and Schultz getting him to document what he saw might have made the difference too. That was a huge failure on their part. Even if they thought McQueary was just referring to horseplay in the shower, it should have been documented.
I won't say they shouldn't have - but truly it was incumbent on the one and only WITNESS to push this issue in every which way possible.
I'm a documentation freak myself and I hear what you are saying. But going back in time the fact that MM soft-pedaled everything kind of taints all the actions after that. He shouldn't have been wishy washy with his Dad and Dr D, Paterno, nor Curley or Schultz.......that's the only way we aren't having this discussion right now
He was a lowly graduate assistant, thrust by chance into a very difficult position, who went to people he trusted to help him out. They failed him. Once he alerted the PSU administrators, the burden fell on them.
Of FFS. You make it sound it sound like Mike was 12 years old.
If Mike really saw what he now claims it was HIS responsibility to do something about it.
If people didn't understand the gravity of the situation it was HIS responsibility to make sure they understood.
If he thought that his report wasn't handled properly it was HIS responsibility to take his report elsewhere.
But we know that Mike embellished his story, so this is all moot.
Mike is to blame for Mike's woes. He needs to grow up and fess up.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say . . .
Mike saw something that clearly bothered him in 2001, and he followed the guidance of people he trusted. His report made it to the desk of the CEO of Second Mile, where it died a painful death.
At every step of the process at PSU, someone else was informed.
Nobody in 2001 reacted as if MIke reported sexual assault. Not even Mike.
We can speculate WHY he "enhanced" his story once the OAG got their hooks into him, but you have to be patently idiotic to ignore the mountain of evidence that this report was handled properly and thoroughly by Penn State.
And yet, amazingly, MM didn't express one word of dissatisfaction when Curley called him a few weeks later to follow up (with a plan that didn't involve JS being hulled away in cuffs mind you) nor did JM express one word of dissatisfaction to Schultz while they were face to face a few months later....fascinating!
MM was so outraged that he wasn't able to muster one peep to let anyone know at PSU how upset he was with their handling of his supposedly horrific report. That failure is on him and he needs to own it not throw good people under the bus to deflect from his failure/guilt.
Dr D's recent testimony is that what MM said to him that night wasn't bad enough to inform police or child services.
The only explanation for this behavior that makes any sense is that MM wasn't sure about anything at the time other than it was inappropriate/made him uncomfortable and he/JM were satisfied with PSU's response of confronting JS, revoking his guest privileges, and informing the experts/mandatory reporters at TSM.
Sorry don't agree with the "lowly grad asst...." stuff - his ROLE was the EYEWITNESS! Whether its fair or not he cannot transfer his responsibility to others.
Also, if I use your analogy you cannot exempt his own Father and Dr D as those who failed him.
Which one of his many versions he has given is being offered at trial? How could he possibly win when his many versions prove him a liar? How could this even get to trial and why shouldn't the shyster lawyer have to pay all attorney fees? There are dozens of public records of Red's lies.
And you put a lot of weight on how upset MM was said to have been. Fine. Subjective as hell, but fine. How upset was he ten days later when he met with Curley and Schultz?
I tend to put more weight on the emails and notes from 2001 which show without a doubt:
1) That Tim's proposed plan change was to include Sandusky among those to be informed, not to exclude anyone. "I am uncomfortable going to everyone (not anyone) other than the person involved." Even if that change was influenced by Tim's discussion with Joe, Freeh's narrative is 100% wrong!
2) Not one of those guys was the least bit concerned that the boy might go to the authorities. Heck, they didn't even bother to find out who or how he was. Without his silence secured, any hope of concealing Sandusky's supposed crimes is pissing into the wind.
Spanier said: "The only downside for us...." It's absolutely impossible for Spanier's only concern to be some potential future incident!
3) There were 3 references to contacting DPW (Schultz's notes after he and Tim met with Joe, Curley's email, and Spanier's email). In each case, it was couched as an option available depending on what Sandusky did in the future, as an if/then scenario.
The bottom line is that these guy were intent on preventing a subsequent incident and not trying to conceal a crime that had been reported to them.
Last edited:
I would respectfully disagree. He wasn't some lowly 18 year old college freshman caught in a situation he didn't know how to handle. He was a 28 year old man, assistant coach, and the only eyewitness.
I think it's fair to criticize how CSS handled this but then you must also criticize.... just as equally...... Raykieovitz (who seems to get a free pass for some unknown reason) as well as MM Sr and Dranov.
But at the end of the day, MM was the only eyewitness. It was his responsibility to call the police and push this matter- no matter what anyone else said or did (especially if the testimony he's giving is accurate).
He should have been on the phone with 911 less than a minute from leaving the locker room. I'm not trying to pick on him but, IMO, he doesn't get to point the finger at CSS for not calling the police when he didn't call the police either.
Last edited:
The lowly graduate assistant was 28 yrs old. He also had advice from his father & Dranov on the night of the incident.
Exactly. He trusted the advice of his dad and Dr. Dranov.
Ergo - he took their advice. Ergo - the advice they gave Mike should stand. Ergo - if you disagree with how the situation turned out - you circle back to Dad and Dr. Dranov.
We either address the problem at the beginning of this chain, or we see it through to the end. It started at the McQueary home and ended on the doorstep of the Second Mile.
You can't just stop midway and go "AHA!"
You and everyone here has no idea what is really going on. I'm certain Mike's actions will be explained soon enough.
You're the one bumping the frat boy's little "like me" post up to the top, just 45 minutes from kickoff on white out Saturday vs ohio State.
That's because he had the bloody slapping sounds in his pea brain. And his pea brain told him that slapping sounds are only ever the result of sex from behind. So he sees two males, thinks slapping sounds, is certain of anal sex (because what else could it be) though he didn't actually see it. Did it ever occur to him that perhaps the slapping sounds were just that, slapping sounds, you know with two hands, what you do after a PSU TD?
And here we are today.
Have you read this? http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2016/10/psu-quarterback-and-coach-mike-mcqueary.html
Scroll to the bottom of the article where all of MM's testimonies are listed in one place. There is a lot of doubt based on his sworn testimony.
