McQueray Hearing Cancelled.
- Thread starter pnnylion
- Start date
No, you're wrong (big surprise). The report's complete and has been sitting at the DOE. It's the Title IX investigation that's still ongoing.
And the DOE did its own investigation.
Yeah, and the DOE, according to Bagwell, is refusing to release 54,000 pages of PSU and freeh records that the DOE received as a part of its investigation into the allegations against PSU/admins (Citing an “ongoing law enforcement investigation” into the university’s compliance with the Clery Act, the government said it would withhold 54,000 pages of material compiled by the federal Office of Student Aid, including information gathered by investigators working for Louis J. Freeh.)....... Hmm...I wonder why that would be?? Could it be that those records don't match up to the current narrative created by freeh/PA OAG?
Do you really think these 54,000 pages of records are going to be released when the "ongoing law enforcement investigation" is complete? I don't think so...just another text book stall/delay tactic to get rid of people who are trying to seek public records.
From the Bagwell link above:
"But all of the requested records pertain to the Clery Act review, the department said. They’re being withheld because the records were ”compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records or information could reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing enforcement proceedings.”
It’s unclear why Freeh investigators were providing information to the education department since Penn State claims Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan was acting a university attorney.
The education department’s review of Penn State started in 2011. In a letter to university officials, reviewers sought mounds of information from the university, including a list of all crime reported to Penn State police between 1998 and 2011.
The agency issued a Program Review Report to Penn State for comment in 2013, containing the violations found during the review. But that report remains sealed until the department issues a Final Program Review Report.
That's news to me. The university has its own arresting and investigating authority, yet youre saying that included in Joes responsibilities as football COACH was to also be a police officer and investigator as well?
Wouldn't a responsibility like that require some kind of training? Do you know if Joe was trained to handle such responsibilities?
No he didn't. How about you link the testimony and provide the page # where Schultz said MM reported a sex crime to him to back up you're bull shit claim? If it's that cut and dry it should be easy for you to prove me wrong.
The only thing Schultz said was that he was told about an inappropriate shower/horseplay, and he was asked to speculate on a hypothetical question about what may be inappropriate horseplay in the shower.... and Schultz guessed that in the hypothetical maybe the kid's genitals were grabbed during wrestling in the shower...
just amazing the lies this guy tells like he knows what he's talking about, right??
Paterno was not a campus security authority, CDW is once again stating something as fact when it isn't
Wish I knew which firm he "works" for so I know who not to call when legal advice is needed. Doesn't appear they have high standards when it comes to employment
Understood, just would like for him to explain exactly how joe was part of campus "security".
He's obviously still a paid stooge, so his "firm" can't be too successful. This guy is no lawyer; he's on the BOT payroll. Give him credit, though. There used to be a lot of them here, and he's the last man standing.
So you are saying that if you saw for certain a child being raped you would go to bed and report it to a non-police authority in the morning?
Well, you are not going to get me to say the defense attorneys were competent. Actually the point was that Mike never told Dranov what he saw. Mike's reaction was only from the sounds. And Dranov did say that he is a mandatory reporter.
No, no I'm not. Have you read this full thread to give this any context? FWIW, in December 2011, discovery hadn't yet occurred if that's where you're going with this.
First of all, I think the FTR charges are BS.
But the theory is that the duty is ongoing, so after the law changed, they had a duty to report.
Sometimes he is a mandatory reporter, but not in this case because he didn't learn of it in the course and scope of his employment.
I'd report it to the police.
But Paterno told McQueary, "Mike, you did the right thing. You brought it to me."
Who are you to argue with Joepa?
Everybody understood the score. Beginning with McQueary. Sandusky was too big to fail. The coverup started with McQueary and was carried out by others.
We're all still waiting on that link (with page number) to this testimony which proves the above.....that Schultz thought MM reported a sex crime to him.
I agree with that. But the defense had him on record saying he was a mandatory reporter. A mandatory reporter would report the abuse directly or know the protocol to advise the witness to report it. Neither of those things happened.
Why did Mr. McQueary call Dr. Dranov that night? Was it for his professional or personal opinion?
I recall a post by Phillip in the Valley, a University staff member, several months ago that said the University is expecting a seven-figure fine from the Department of Education for Cleary Act violations. I invite PIV to correct me if I have misremembered his post.
If PIV is accurate, I have no idea why the ED hasn't announced the fine yet, except to speculate that they're waiting for the C/S/S trials to conclude so the fine isn't prejudicial to the trials.
If PIV is accurate, I have no idea why the ED hasn't announced the fine yet, except to speculate that they're waiting for the C/S/S trials to conclude so the fine isn't prejudicial to the trials.
Last edited:
Pages 211, 223, 224. For a guy who spends his time on multiple message boards doing nothing but defend Curley, Schultz and Spanier, you should know this stuff better.
http://media.pennlive.com/midstate_impact/other/Curley-Schultz-Hearing-Transcript.pdf
To be clear, your view is MM, father, Dranov, Paterno conspired either separately or together that weekend to protect Sandusky despite knowing that he just raped a child?
McQueary, his father and Dranov knew it would be bad for MM's career if he went straight to the police with a report of Sandusky abusing a child. In fact, it would probably end his career as a football coach. And it would have serious ramifications for Penn State. So, they decided to pass the buck by reporting it to Paterno. Paterno passed the buck to Curley and Schultz and round and round it went with nobody taking responsibility. Whether Paterno was actively involved in orchestrating the coverup, we won't know until somebody gets Curley under oath (again).
Clear enough?
Last edited:
Yes - can't disagree more but appreciate the candid response. I hope they all find themselves in a witness chair.
So if he doesn't agree with everything you or pnnylion says then he is a POS or the ever famous penn live troll. Got it now. SMH
Campus security authority: (1) A campus police department or a campus security department of an institution.
(2) Any individual or individuals who have responsibility for campus security but who do not constitute a campus police department or a campus security department under paragraph (1) of this definition, such as an individual who is responsible for monitoring entrance into institutional property.
(3) Any individual or organization specified in an institution's statement of campus security policy as an individual or organization to which students and employees should report criminal offenses.
(4) An official of an institution who has significant responsibility for student and campus activities, including, but not limited to, student housing, student discipline, and campus judicial proceedings. If such an official is a pastoral or professional counselor as defined below, the official is not considered a campus security authority when acting as a pastoral or professional counselor.
Examples of individuals identified by ED as meeting the definition of campus security authority include— • a dean of students who oversees housing, a student center, or extracurricular activities; • a director of athletics or team coach; and • a faculty advisor to a student group. The following individuals were identified by ED as unlikely to fit within the definition of campus security authority: • A faculty member who teaches classes (except when serving as an advisor to a student group) • A physician in a campus health center • A counselor in a counseling center • Clerical staff
Well then if joe, as a coach, has that responsibility, that would also mean that McQueray had that same responsibility.
Yet, the person who witnessed something gets a pass while the person who received a vague description of "something" has to carry the load.
Makes total sense.
What exact testimony are you referring to on those pages?? Care to provide some quotes???
Here's what I found on those pages:
Pg. 211 - Schultz says his recollection of 2001 was that both MM and Joe described what was observed in a very general way. Schultz was then asked if he formed an impression of what type of conduct MIGHT have occurred in the locker room (IOW he was asked to speculate on a hypothetical question/scenario). Schultz says he had the impression it was inappropriate and that the kind of thing he had in his mind, without it being clear-without MM telling him, was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity occurred where JS may have grabbed the boys genitals.
Schultz was then asked if this hypothetical situation would have been considered inappropriate sexual conduct and he replied with "Oh, absolutely. Well, I don't know the definition of sexual, but that's certainly inappropriate for somebody to do."
Pg. 223-224 - When asked "as far as you know, no one from the University investigated the 2002 incident at all?" Schultz replies with "Yeah, as far as I know, the University asked the other agency to follow up as it did in 1998."
Then Schultz is asked the following question towards bottom of page 223 "was it or was it not your impression that he was reporting inappropriate sexual conduct by JS".
Schultz answers with "You know, I don't know what sexual conduct's definition to be, but I told you that my impression was --you know, Jerry was the kind of guy that he regularly kind of like physically wrestled people. He would punch you on the arm, he would slap you on the back. He would grab you and put you in a headlock, etc. That was a fairly common clowning around thing. I had the impression that maybe something like that was going on in the locker room and perhaps in the course of that, that somebody might have grabbed the genitals of the young boy. I had no impression that it was anything more serious than that. That was my impression at the time"
If I missed it, please feel free to point it out, but where in the above summarized/quoted testimony does Schultz say that he thought MM reported a sex crime to him??????
Perhaps you are the one who should know this "stuff" better??
McQueary didn't have significant responsibility for student or campus activities, which is step one in the analysis, so he wasn't a CSA.
McQueary's obligation is based on the fact that he actually saw it.
Can you tell me what these reporting standards were 10 years (2001) prior to what it says in the 2011 handbook. Or maybe 2002, but only Mike would know for sure.
I know some people think joe was a king, but I'm not sure even kings have the ability to travel to the future.
You grabbed this info off of an article written in 2011 which cites the 2011 handbook. would that article have been written if there weren't some additions or significant changes added to the ED? I wouldn't bet on it.
Perhaps if this statute applied in say anywhere from 85-10, then yes you can point the finger all you want.
But wait... The NCAA just published their new reporting standards for athletic departments mimicking, to the T might I add, EXACTLY what joe did. But why would they tell coaches to basically ignore the Clery statute. Can you elaborate on that?
Dude, there's no way you aren't getting paid for this. Nobody cares about these details like you do.
Similar threads
