McQueray Hearing Cancelled.
- Thread starter pnnylion
- Start date
Employees like Resident Assistants and Graduate Assistants that supervise students could be deemed CSAs by their institutions.
That "theory" was already blown to smithereens when Monsignor Lynn's conviction was overturned.
Joe said that? According to who?
If they believed that, the McQueary family is the sole source of any "culture problem" at Penn State.
Thanks for so clearly identifying the source of the problem.
Yeah, right. This is so much fun.
Everybody needs to make a living, so I get it. I'm just somewhat surprised that you haven't been able to find better employment since this all began. Perhaps you prefer an occupation that does not require you to leave the house every day.
This is how I know you're being a disingenuous dolt. The text I quoted in my previous post ended at line 11 of pg 224 . Page 224 Lines 12-18 are the prosecutor and Schultz going over the same stuff again, you know, that part where the state was asking Schultz to speculate on whether a hypothetical scenario in his mind would be considered "inappropriate sexual conduct" or not.
Schultz, again, answers saying that yes it would be inappropriate and sexual if genitals were grabbed (however he didn't know for sure if that happened (grabbing of genitals) or not b/c MM never said so one way or the other --Page 211 Schultz said MM only gave him a general observation). It was basically the prosecutor trying to trap Schultz into admitting he was told by MM that there was inappropriate sexual misconduct via the nature of his questions but if you read Schultz's answers he explains what he was actually told by MM vs. what he had in his mind as a possible scenario to explain MM's report.
Just so there's no confusion, here's the transcript with line numbers
(Pg 223 lines 14-20) "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" (this ends at line 11 of page 224).
Pg 224 (lines 12-25) and ending with Pg 225 (line 7). **Pay special attention to the next to last Q&A (bolded) where Schultz makes it perfectly clear he's saying what he THOUGHT may have happened**
(line 12) Q: Didn't you previously tell us in our interview that you had the impression -- I have it written down -- that this was inappropriate sexual conduct?
A: Again, depending on what you call --I mean, grabbing the genitals of the boy is what I had in mind. Now, is that sexual? Yes.
Q: We can all agree that an adult male under no circumstances other than a doctor should be grabbing the genitals of a young boy?
A: I agree completely with that
Q: And that it doesn't happen accidentally
A: Rather than just agreeing to I thought it was sexual conduct or misconduct, I'm explaining what I really thought might have gone on. You know, you can define that as you want. I'm telling you what I THOUGHT was going on.
Q: Would you agree with me that IF it had been sodomy, that is, anal sex, that would clearly be inappropriate sexual conduct?
A: no doubt.
Last edited:
You have misquoted that testimony in exactly the same way that it has been frequently misquoted by that troll, Sockratease.
Last edited:
You're just butt hurt because I'm right. Paterno told McQueary he did the right thing by telling him.
I believe the GAs actually fall under Title IX reporters at 2nd glance. But, here's the RA mention:
What are some examples of individuals who are CSAs under Clery?
Note: This is not an exhaustive list
• A dean of students who oversees student housing, a student center, or student extracurricular activities
• A director of athletics or a team coach
• An advisor to a student group
• A student resident advisor or assistant or a student who monitors access to dormitories
http://www.usf.edu/administrative-services/university-police/documents/csa-training.pdf
Yes, MM did the right thing by coming to Joe about a late night inappropriate shower between JS and a boy. What did you expect him to say, that MM shouldn't have told anyone at PSU? Come on now...
No way in hell Joe would say MM did the right thing by coming to him FIRST if MM was reporting certain child rape/molestation.
If MM reported certain CSA/molestation Joe would have told him what the heck are you telling me for, you need to call UPPD ASAP. Just like any other rational adult would have.
No way in hell Joe would say MM did the right thing by coming to him FIRST if MM was reporting certain child rape/molestation.
If MM reported certain CSA/molestation Joe would have told him what the heck are you telling me for, you need to call UPPD ASAP. Just like any other rational adult would have.
Last edited:
You are willfully misrepresenting that statement to mean that Joe was implying that it would have been "wrong" for McQueary to take some other action, including calling the police, if warranted. Joe implied no such thing. To anyone with a functioning brain, it is nothing more than a reassurance that Mike was right not to keep whatever he had seen to himself.
There is no point to arguing with these assholes. They won't stop. You can present facts all day long and they will ignore them. They will continue to be wrong because they want to be. It's called trolling.
Your bolded section wouldn't appear to apply to a graduate assistant coach for a football team. I don't believe they have any involvement with the players beyond coaching duties.
Free Jerry. How's that? Now I'm on the same level as you and Ed aka pnnylion. You guys are straight crazy .
Nobody is asking to free Jerry. The fact that you even mention this suggests that you know that you and your pal are on the wrong end of the argument here.
Go home and dust off the Surma Shrine in your basement, and leave us alone. Nobody gives a shit what you think.
Go home and dust off the Surma Shrine in your basement, and leave us alone. Nobody gives a shit what you think.
That's funny. I'll do you one better. How bout I just look the other way on this entire thing? Better?
Being that MM was alone in the building with Jer and victim LATE at night, whose responsibility was it to see that the Lasch Building (institutional property) was locked and secured? We know Jer had a key, but I'm willing to bet Mike did as well. Being Soapy was retired and not an employee, I wouldn't say it was his responsibility. That leaves MM, who at the time was actively involved in fulfilling duties as a representative of Penn State.
That's not how the question was asked or answered. Very simply, he was asked if he was a "mandatory" reporter. He said "yes". That to me tells me he THOUGHT he was a mandated reporter both on the stand, and the night in question. So if he THOUGHT he was a mandated reporter the night in question, whether he was or wasn't, why didn't he report?
Of course you are quoting from the handbook. That didn't exist in 2001. And the Act itself, as written, says nothing about "team coaches" being CSAs in the Regulations.
Had he been less concerned about his career and more concerned about that little boy, we may have had a different outcome here.
Again, a long convoluted thread of nothingness.......with no mention of the one question everybody seems to have forgotten to ask: "Mike, where were you prior to arriving at the locker facility, and how much had you had to drink in those preceding hours?"
We're really getting away from the original point. That has to do with MM's suit vs PSU. The question is did PSU handle MM the same as they did the other coaches that were not retained? If they didn't (and evidence so far indicates this to be the case), then they'd better have a really good reason why. Whatever side of the debate you may be on, this does seem to indicate Penn State's incompetence in handling this specific issue (which begs the question on other issues). The smartest thing to do was to handle everyone exactly the same way--excepting placing MM on leave. That one made sense at the time. Still does, really. The way they are handing out money, I am surprised that PSU hasn't opened the vault for MM too.
Agreed. This one should be cut and dry. Either PSU has legally valid reasons (contracts, agreements) for different treatment or it doesn't. Can't see why anyone with half a brain would take this to trial.........and there may be the rub, on either side.
The regs were issued in 1999, they talk about team coaches.
My understanding is that being placed on leave is at the center of MM's lawsuit. He contends that the security concerns were a mere pretext and he was stigmatized by being treated differently than the other coaches.
Similar threads
