McQueray Hearing Cancelled.

[Cruising Route 66]

The state's argument will never hold up in court b/c it makes no logical sense. First of all why would CSS tell TSM ANYTHING at all if they were trying to cover up/enable JS's CSA? Wouldn't that just invite the possibility of JR getting curious and start looking into things? The makes ZERO logical sense.

Makes perfect sense. JR for all intent and purposes worked for JS. Do you think JR was going to rat on the man he owed a living to? TC made JC/TSM co-conspirators in a cover up by asking JR to talk to Jerry and then go no further.

 

[Misder2]

How are those depositions going CR?

 

[mn78psu83]

Because the US constitution doesn't allow laws to be applied retroactively.
I'm not a huge fan of this columnist, but this is a relatively good assessment.

I am shocked and disappointed that anyone would think that any prosecution charging anyone with a crime on the basis of any ex post facto legislative change is okay. We have some here who think that it is.

 

[Misder2]

Makes perfect sense. JR for all intent and purposes worked for JS. Do you think JR was going to rat on the man he owed a living to? TC made JC/TSM co-conspirators in a cover up by asking JR to talk to Jerry and then go no further.

Then explain how they fired him

 

[CDW3333]

Then explain how they fired him

The 2nd Mile had no choice. Sandusky had been indicated by the DPW. They had to let him go.

CR66 does have a good point. Reporting something to somebody who has a conflict of interest (Raykovitz) is like not reporting it at all.

If Curley was serious about reporting McQueary's complaints, he would've done it to the police. He reported it to the 2nd Mile in order to try to pass the buck.

 

[nits74]

You guys that make this kind of argument are either liars or honestly have no idea how the justice system works.

The CSS trial has nothing to do with whether TSM is more or less responsible for what happened than they are. It's a trial in isolation of what CSS did and didn't do, period. The "state's case" in the CSS trial can be strong or weak or whatever; it doesn't matter that you think they should hold TSM more responsible - because TSM isn't part of this trial.

But, why not??

 

[Ephrata Lion]

So TC asked JR to talk to Jerry and "go no further"? That's news to me. Please post a link where that is documented.

 

[WeR0206]

You guys that make this kind of argument are either liars or honestly have no idea how the justice system works.

The CSS trial has nothing to do with whether TSM is more or less responsible for what happened than they are. It's a trial in isolation of what CSS did and didn't do, period. The "state's case" in the CSS trial can be strong or weak or whatever; it doesn't matter that you think they should hold TSM more responsible - because TSM isn't part of this trial.

WTF are you even talking about? TSM was ultimately legally responsible for JS and TSM kids. Because of that, the fact that they were told about 2001 is EXTREMELY relevant to the CSS charges, especially FTR/EWOC -- the FACT that CSS took the information that they had and passed it onto outside counsel and JR the director of TSM/JS's employer blows the FTR/EWOC charges out of the water.

You said it's a trial of what CSS did and didn't do, ok, and some of the things they DID do was inform outside counsel and the director of TSM. The state has NO case with respect to EWOC/FTR.

 

[Raffycorn]

WTF are you even talking about? TSM was ultimately legally responsible for JS and TSM kids. Because of that, the fact that they were told about 2001 is EXTREMELY relevant to the CSS charges, especially FTR/EWOC -- the FACT that CSS took the information that they had and passed it onto outside counsel and JR the director of TSM/JS's employer blows the FTR/EWOC charges out of the water.

You said it's a trial of what CSS did and didn't do, ok, and some of the things they DID do was inform outside counsel and the director of TSM. The state has NO case with respect to EWOC/FTR.

Again, WeR, you claim that CSS "took the information that they had and passed it onto outside counsel and the director of TSM" when the state is actually claiming precisely the opposite - that Curley in particular knew much, much more of the gravity of the incident than he passed on to TSM. That, if proven to be true, is not taking the information that you have and passing it along to The Second Mile. And I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing up passing anything into outside counsel for Failure to Report purposes, as there's nothing that I see in the statute (23 Pa. C. S. § 6319) that would indicate that informing your lawyer would satisfy the reporting requirement.

 

[CDW3333]

But, why not??

Because there isn't a speck of evidence (Some 31/2 years later) that TSM broke any laws.

There is no equivalent of V6's mother who complained to TSM that her kid was molested by Sandusky. None of the victims testified that anyone at TSM knew about their molestation. There is no equivalent of a MM who reported that he saw molestation to high level administrators. There is no equivalent of Joe Paterno, a high level administrator, who testified that he received a report of Sandusky molesting a kid. There's no evidence that any kids were molested at TSM events or on TSM premises (unlike the 1/2 dozen victims who testified that they were molested on PSU premises). There is no equivalent of the janitor in the V8 case who reported that he saw Sandusky molesting a kid. There are no emails of high level TSM employees considering reporting Sandusky to the authorities but then deciding not to because it wouldn't be humane while recognizing they would be vulnerable if Sandusky keeps up his behavior. There's no evidence that TSM even knew of the '98 incident. There's no evidence that TSM knew about Chambers's letter tagging Sandusky as a probable pedophile in '98. There's no evidence that TSM knew anything about '01 other than a report of horseplay in the shower.

You Joebots should get together and finance an investigation into TSM. Maybe you'll find some evidence of wrong doing. Right now there is none.

 

[WeR0206]

The 2nd Mile had no choice. Sandusky had been indicated by the DPW. They had to let him go.

CR66 does have a good point. Reporting something to somebody who has a conflict of interest (Raykovitz) is like not reporting it at all.

If Curley was serious about reporting McQueary's complaints, he would've done it to the police. He reported it to the 2nd Mile in order to try to pass the buck.

Regrading JR and TSM's supposed COI, this post by 91joe95 in a different thread sums it up perfectly (it doesn't matter if JR had a COI or not he was still required to look into the report from TC):

"Doesn't matter what you theorize, once TC told Raykovicz of a complaint, 2nd Mile's policies required him to suspend all of Sandusky's contact with minors and investigate until completed. He didn't do that. "

You and CR66, as usual, have incredibly weak arguments. First of all, what child care entity didn't have a COI with JS in Centre County? CC CYS did since they subbed out work to TSM. TSM did b/c they were his employers (but that doesn't matter--they are REQUIRED to look into ANY AND ALL incident reports). CC Judges did. Since MM, the one and ONLY witness, didn't feel that what he saw warranted him filing a police report where else exactly should C/S have gone with his ambiguous report? Besides the 2001 incident itself, C/S had to go to TSM anyway to inform them of their new directives for JS--that he wasn't allowed to bring TSM kids onto PSU campus anymore. This should have been a HUGE red flag for JR to get to the bottom of what happened in 2001...but nope! Never happened

You can say that CSS passed the buck, but the buck legally stopped with TSM. CSS were college admins NOT child care experts and had NO control over JS's access to kids. I'd say the child care experts running a state licensed children's charity and the employers of JS (who had DIRECT control over JS's access to kids) were the perfect place for CSS to take their report.

Secondly, you are now trying to argue that TC should have somehow foreseen that JR was going to break the law/TSM policy and not properly look into his incident report...which is absurd..(good luck proving that TC should have been a clairvoyant in court)....or....from CR66's warped mind...TC directed JR to cover up his report (this is based on what evidence exactly??). Umm...ok....how exactly would TC get JR to cover up a report? JR doesn't even work for TC so TC had NO control over what JR did with the info. Again if you're going to cover something up, bringing more people into the loop (Courtney and JR) then asking them to participate is NOT something one would do. Also, if JR was involved in the cover up, why wasn't he EVER charged with any crimes??

I guess it never crossed your minds that if there was a cover up in 2001, it was executed by JR/TSM BOT on their own, without CS's knowledge? What if JR told TC, "thanks for bringing this to our attention, I'll make sure to look into it"....then did absolutely nothing or had a quick convo with JS and then brushed it off, never doing what I highlighted above from 91joe95, which he was REQUIRED to do??

Keep in mind Courtney has stated that he was NEVER told about any child abuse/molestation re: 2001 and if he was, he would have been obligated to report it to LE.

So, in 2001 you have the word of CSS, JR, Dr. D, and WC all saying no child abuse was reported to them-only late night inappropriate shower, then you have MM saying that certain CSA was reported. Joe's GJ testimony is inadmissible. Good luck with that......

 

[Madsol]

Because there isn't a speck of evidence (Some 31/2 years later) that TSM broke any laws.

There is no equivalent of V6's mother who complained to TSM that her kid was molested by Sandusky. None of the victims testified that anyone at TSM knew about their molestation. There is no equivalent of a MM who reported that he saw molestation to high level administrators. There is no equivalent of Joe Paterno, a high level administrator, who testified that he recieved a report of Sandusky molesting a kid. There's no evidence that any kids were molested at TSM events or on TSM premises (unlike the 1/2 dozen victims who testified that they were molested on PSU premises). There is no equivalent of the janitor in the V8 case who reported that he saw Sandusky molesting a kid. There are no emails of high level TSM employees considering reporting Sandusky to the authorities but then deciding not to because it wouldn't be humane while recognizing they would be vulnerable if Sandusky keeps up his behavior. There's no evidence that TSM even knew of the '98 incident. There's no evidence that TSM knew about Chambers's letter tagging Sandusky as a probable pedophile in '98. There's no evidence that TSM knew anything about '01 other than a report of horseplay in the shower.

You Joebots should get together and finance an investigation into TSM. Maybe you'll find some evidence of wrong doing. Right now there is none.

The evidence is all of the abused kids. They all came from TSM. TSM was responsible for them. What safeguards did TSM have in place to ensure something like this didn't happen? What steps did TSM take to protect these kids, not just from Sandusky but from anyone connected to TSM? Did they simply create this perfect environment for pedophiles to abuse kids (kids from dysfunctional homes) and then wash their hands of the whole situation? Are you honestly suggesting that the organization that was the source of every one of Sandusky's victims bears no responbsibility to ensure the safety of those kids? Wow!!

 

[WeR0206]

Again, WeR, you claim that CSS "took the information that they had and passed it onto outside counsel and the director of TSM" when the state is actually claiming precisely the opposite - that Curley in particular knew much, much more of the gravity of the incident than he passed on to TSM. That, if proven to be true, is not taking the information that you have and passing it along to The Second Mile. And I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing up passing anything into outside counsel for Failure to Report purposes, as there's nothing that I see in the statute (23 Pa. C. S. § 6319) that would indicate that informing your lawyer would satisfy the reporting requirement.

Yes, and the state can't prove that TC had MORE info than he passed on to JR, all they have is the word of one man, MM, that is saying otherwise. CSS, Dr. D, WC, and JR have all said they were never told about certain CSA/molestation only a late night inappropriate showerThe state is also ignoring the logic that no one in their right mind, if they were tying to cover up the 2001 incident, would start informing people OUTSIDE of their control about it. Even if they watered down the report, they certainly wouldn't inform the person (JR) who was legally required to look into any and all incident reports re: JS. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. There's a reason why the state doesn't want these cases to go to trial. They are going to get embarrassed.

As I've said before. It doesn't matter what TC told JR. Even if TC told JR that he looked into the incident and it was nothing, once JR was informed of an incident, of ANY kind, JR was legally required to place a protection plan around JS and get to the bottom of it, involving CC CYS/LE if need be.

At the least, JR had the AD of PSU on his doorstep complaining that JS was seen taking a late night inappropriate 1:1 shower with a boy by a GA which made him uncomfortable enough to pass it up the chain. JR was also told that b/c of this behavior, JS wasn't allowed to participate in the TSM's friend fitness program at PSU because C/S revoked JS's guest privileges (hello red flag!!). This should have been PLENTY of cause for JR to place the protection plan around JS and get to the bottom of what the heck happened. But nope, that NEVER happened and JR was allowed to ride off into the sunset...how nice!

I bring up Courtney b/c Courtney said that if he was told about CSA/molestation he would have been required to inform LE.

 

[WeR0206]

Because there isn't a speck of evidence (Some 31/2 years later) that TSM broke any laws.

There is no equivalent of V6's mother who complained to TSM that her kid was molested by Sandusky. None of the victims testified that anyone at TSM knew about their molestation. There is no equivalent of a MM who reported that he saw molestation to high level administrators. There is no equivalent of Joe Paterno, a high level administrator, who testified that he received a report of Sandusky molesting a kid. There's no evidence that any kids were molested at TSM events or on TSM premises (unlike the 1/2 dozen victims who testified that they were molested on PSU premises). There is no equivalent of the janitor in the V8 case who reported that he saw Sandusky molesting a kid. There are no emails of high level TSM employees considering reporting Sandusky to the authorities but then deciding not to because it wouldn't be humane while recognizing they would be vulnerable if Sandusky keeps up his behavior. There's no evidence that TSM even knew of the '98 incident. There's no evidence that TSM knew about Chambers's letter tagging Sandusky as a probable pedophile in '98. There's no evidence that TSM knew anything about '01 other than a report of horseplay in the shower.

You Joebots should get together and finance an investigation into TSM. Maybe you'll find some evidence of wrong doing. Right now there is none.

Wow....do you work for TSM or something??

Since CC CYS and Pa DPW were REQUIRED to inform TSM about the 1998 investigation (so that a protection plan could be placed around JS removing him from accessing kids while the investigation was on going), I'm not sure how TSM can claim they were never told about it. If that's the case then some CC CYS/PA DPW workers should be brought up on EWOC charges right? If TSM was told about 1998 there's no excuse for them not placing protection plans around JS in both 1998 and 2001. It also makes TSM's knowledge of JS doing another inappropriate 1:1 shower in 2001 look even worse.

Why didn't TSM after 1998 and 2001 place restrictions on JS's 1:1 access to kids, to a least prevent any more misunderstandings?? Why is PSU liable for all of the abuse after 1998 if TSM was made aware of both 1998 and 2001 incidents?

The state is trying to shield TSM and by extension the state itself from liability by trying to claim that TC changed the story in 2001 and never told JR the full MM story. It's NOT going to work. Even if that was the case, JR and TSM were required to look into it, especially if they knew about 1998 as well.

 

[mdahmus]

Just like "I wish I had done more" versus the actual "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

I thought it was "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I could have done more, but as everybody says, I was legally prohibited from discussing the case with anybody in any way, shape, or form; according to the legal experts on BWI,

WTF are you even talking about? TSM was ultimately legally responsible for JS and TSM kids. Because of that, the fact that they were told about 2001 is EXTREMELY relevant to the CSS charges, especially FTR/EWOC -- the FACT that CSS took the information that they had and passed it onto outside counsel and JR the director of TSM/JS's employer blows the FTR/EWOC charges out of the water.

You said it's a trial of what CSS did and didn't do, ok, and some of the things they DID do was inform outside counsel and the director of TSM. The state has NO case with respect to EWOC/FTR.

Reporting only to TSM is not reporting in any meaningful sense. TSM was vaporized when word finally got out about Sandusky. They had an obvious incentive to do nothing that Curley and Schultz and Spanier were well aware of.

 

[CDW3333]

Yes, and the state can't prove that TC had MORE info than he passed on to JR, all they have is the word of one man, MM, that is saying otherwise. CSS, Dr. D, WC, and JR have all said they were never told about certain CSA/molestation only a late night inappropriate showerThe state is also ignoring the logic that no one in their right mind, if they were tying to cover up the 2001 incident, would start informing people OUTSIDE of their control about it. Even if they watered down the report, they certainly wouldn't inform the person (JR) who was legally required to look into any and all incident reports re: JS. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. There's a reason why the state doesn't want these cases to go to trial. They are going to get embarrassed.

As I've said before. It doesn't matter what TC told JR. Even if TC told JR that he looked into the incident and it was nothing, once JR was informed of an incident, of ANY kind, JR was legally required to place a protection plan around JS and get to the bottom of it, involving CC CYS/LE if need be.

At the least, JR had the AD of PSU on his doorstep complaining that JS was seen taking a late night inappropriate 1:1 shower with a boy by a GA which made him uncomfortable enough to pass it up the chain. JR was also told that b/c of this behavior, JS wasn't allowed to participate in the TSM's friend fitness program at PSU because C/S revoked JS's guest privileges (hello red flag!!). This should have been PLENTY of cause for JR to place the protection plan around JS and get to the bottom of what the heck happened. But nope, that NEVER happened and JR was allowed to ride off into the sunset...how nice!

I bring up Courtney b/c Courtney said that if he was told about CSA/molestation he would have been required to inform LE.

I don't know what CSA/molestation is, but Courtney never said that he would have been obligated to report McQueary's allegations. He said he thought they had been reported. And he said he knew he hadn't reported them because he had no record of reporting them and he would've kept a record.

And where do you get the idea that a lawyer is required to report to LE a communication from a client who believes he may have legal exposure?

 

[LundyPSU]

Regardless of any assumpions about what McQueary exactly said to Joe, acccording to Joe's interview with Sassano, Joe made it very clear that he knew what was happening from what Mike said.

How so? What Joe told Sassano isn't what Mike told him or even what claimed to see (according to Mike)

 

[LundyPSU]

I don't know what CSA/molestation is, but Courtney never said that he would have been obligated to report McQueary's allegations. He said he thought they had been reported. And he said he knew he hadn't reported them because he had no record of reporting them and he would've kept a record.

And where do you get the idea that a lawyer is required to report to LE a communication from a client who believes he may have legal exposure?

Courtney stated that if he were made aware of allegations of abuse, it is his duty to make sure it wa reported. He recalled that it was reported, but not by him since he would have record of it if he had. (although one would think he would have record of it either way)

 

[WeR0206]

I don't know what CSA/molestation is, but Courtney never said that he would have been obligated to report McQueary's allegations. He said he thought they had been reported. And he said he knew he hadn't reported them because he had no record of reporting them and he would've kept a record.

And where do you get the idea that a lawyer is required to report to LE a communication from a client who believes he may have legal exposure?

CSA=child sexual abuse.

You are wrong yet again. From the NY Times article: LINK

But other than that, “at no time, whether in 1998 or in 2002 or any other point in time, was I made aware or did I have knowledge of Jerry Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children,” Courtney said. “Had I had any idea that there was even remotely improper conduct with children on any day since the beginning of time, nothing in the world would have kept me from being absolutely certain that it was reported to the police immediately. That is my duty.”

So, according to Courtney, he was NEVER told about any sex crimes between JS and a boy. This corroborates CSS's side of the story. On one hand you have CSS, WC, Dr. D, and JR all saying they were never told about certain child abuse, only late night inappropriate shower/horseplay/etc. and on the other hand you have MM saying he told CS about certain child abuse/molestation. It's MM's word against 6 people's word. Good luck!!

So, for the state's narrative to make any sense one would have to believe that Schultz downplayed what Joe told TC (who then told Schultz) before speaking to WC that Sunday. What exactly would be the point of consulting counsel and NOT telling them the full story? The advise counsel would give you would be worthless since they aren't privy to all the information.

 

[mdahmus]

So, according to Courtney, he was NEVER told about any sex crimes between JS and a boy. This corroborates CSS's side of the story.

No, it most definitely does not. They chose to meet with Courtney before ever hearing from McQueary. This tends to support the alternate theory that they spoke with Courtney in order to establish a way out of having to report and only spoke to him in general terms.

 

[Madsol]

No, it most definitely does not. They chose to meet with Courtney before ever hearing from McQueary. This tends to support the alternate theory that they spoke with Courtney in order to establish a way out of having to report and only spoke to him in general terms.

What possible sense does that make? How could they have had any assurance that McQueary wouldn't just start blowing the whistle to anybody he could if he didn't think the university's response was appropriate? They didn't even know who the kid in the shower was. How could they have had any assurance that the kid wouldn't go to the media or the police and start screaming bloody murder? They knew McQueary had told Paterno. How could they have had any assurance that Paterno wouldn't have made a big deal of it if their response was too tepid and it warranted a bigger response? This has always been the problem with the cover-up theory; C/S/S had no control over most aspects of this situation to be able to cover it up. McQueary, if you believe what he said when he said no one ever told him to stay quiet; the victim; Paterno; Raykovitz. At least those 4. C/S/S had no control over any of those 4 from going public in a big way yet we're to believe they covered this up and what, just hoped against hope that none of those 4 would spill the beans? Only someone with a desperate agenda could believe such a thing. It's really that simple.

 

[LundyPSU]

No, it most definitely does not. They chose to meet with Courtney before ever hearing from McQueary. This tends to support the alternate theory that they spoke with Courtney in order to establish a way out of having to report and only spoke to him in general terms.

We only know of a single meeting with Courtney. Freeh did not disclose the time sheet that might have included subsequent meetings

 

[CDW3333]

CSA=child sexual abuse.

You are wrong yet again. From the NY Times article: LINK

But other than that, “at no time, whether in 1998 or in 2002 or any other point in time, was I made aware or did I have knowledge of Jerry Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children,” Courtney said. “Had I had any idea that there was even remotely improper conduct with children on any day since the beginning of time, nothing in the world would have kept me from being absolutely certain that it was reported to the police immediately. That is my duty.”

So, according to Courtney, he was NEVER told about any sex crimes between JS and a boy. This corroborates CSS's side of the story. On one hand you have CSS, WC, Dr. D, and JR all saying they were never told about certain child abuse, only late night inappropriate shower/horseplay/etc. and on the other hand you have MM saying he told CS about certain child abuse/molestation. It's MM's word against 6 people's word. Good luck!!

So, for the state's narrative to make any sense one would have to believe that Schultz downplayed what Joe told TC (who then told Schultz) before speaking to WC that Sunday. What exactly would be the point of consulting counsel and NOT telling them the full story? The advise counsel would give you would be worthless since they aren't privy to all the information.

And yet Courtney is the guy that took the Fifth when Freeh tried to speak with him.

And the idea that a lawyer has an obligation to report to LE when he gets a report that may implicate his client is truly ludicrous.

This is an example of somebody who has something to hide and so he makes an over-the-top statement to try and deflect attention. I see this from dishonest witnesses all the time.

But, thankfully, he is now working with the prosecutors, so I expect we'll get the truth at trial.

 

[CDW3333]

What possible sense does that make? How could they have had any assurance that McQueary wouldn't just start blowing the whistle to anybody he could if he didn't think the university's response was appropriate? They didn't even know who the kid in the shower was. How could they have had any assurance that the kid wouldn't go to the media or the police and start screaming bloody murder? They knew McQueary had told Paterno. How could they have had any assurance that Paterno wouldn't have made a big deal of it if their response was too tepid and it warranted a bigger response? This has always been the problem with the cover-up theory; C/S/S had no control over most aspects of this situation to be able to cover it up. McQueary, if you believe what he said when he said no one ever told him to stay quiet; the victim; Paterno; Raykovitz. At least those 4. C/S/S had no control over any of those 4 from going public in a big way yet we're to believe they covered this up and what, just hoped against hope that none of those 4 would spill the beans? Only someone with a desperate agenda could believe such a thing. It's really that simple.

Hey, they were hoping that a serial pedophile (who have 95% recidivism rates) wouldn't molest any more kids because . . . The whole way the Gang of Three handled this was incredibly stupid as well as criminal.

 

[mn78psu83]

And yet Courtney is the guy that took the Fifth when Freeh tried to speak with him.

Why would Courtney need to take the 5th? He had no legal obligation to speak to Freeh at all.

 

[CDW3333]

And yet Courtney is the guy that took the Fifth when Freeh tried to speak with him.

And the idea that a lawyer has an obligation to report to LE when he gets a report that may implicate his client is truly ludicrous.

This is an example of somebody who has something to hide and so he makes an over-the-top statement to try and deflect attention. I see this from dishonest witnesses all the time.

And read carefully. He didn't say he would report it. He said he would make sure it was reported, whatever that means.

But, thankfully, he is now working with the prosecutors, so I expect we'll get the truth at trial.

 

[Madsol]

Hey, they were hoping that a serial pedophile (who have 95% recidivism rates) wouldn't molest any more kids because . . . The whole way the Gang of Three handled this was incredibly stupid as well as criminal.

So that's it. The president of a world-class university, a vice-president of that university and the athletic director of that university are all stupid. It couldn't possibly be that McQueary's story changed dramatically between 2001 and 2010, huh? It has to be that McQueary is accurate and C/S/S are stupid. Got it. As I said above, only someone with a desperate agenda could believe such a thing. It's really that simple.

 

[CDW3333]

So that's it. The president of a world-class university, a vice-president of that university and the athletic director of that university are all stupid. It couldn't possibly be that McQueary's story changed dramatically between 2001 and 2010, huh? It has to be that McQueary is accurate and C/S/S are stupid. Got it.

You mean changed from towel snapping and horseplay to sexual child abuse

Why would Courtney need to take the 5th? He had no legal obligation to speak to Freeh at all.

Penn State probably instructed him to talk with Freeh and a lawyer has an obligation to follow his client's wishes so long as they are legal and don't call for the lawyer to violate any ethical duties.

 

[mn78psu83]

How do we know that Courtney is working with the prosecutors? Courtney and Harmon are obviously key in all of this. I have not been following CSS closely any more.

 

[WeR0206]

You mean changed from towel snapping and horseplay to sexual child abuse

No, the part that MM changed from 2001 to 2010 was his "certainty" that JS was abusing a kid.

IOW MM's 2001 story was : late night inappropriate shower that was over the line and weirded him out but wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing b/c he really couldn't see (aka 2 alarm fire--inappropriate shower/horseplay)......got changed in 2010 to: late night inappropriate shower where MM was "CERTAIN JS was sodomizing the boy" (aka 5 alarm fire --certain child abuse/child rape)

That's a pretty significant change there, and that change would explain the HUGE discrepancies between peoples actions in 2001 and MM's 2010 version of the story.

 

[CDW3333]

How do we know that Courtney is working with the prosecutors? Courtney and Harmon are obviously key in all of this. I have not been following CSS closely any more.

Last September the Defendants filed motions to compel the OAG to provide statements that the prosecutors took from Harmon and Courtney, claiming that they contained exculpatory evidence. The judge denied the motions summarily.

This tells you that Harmon and Courtney are working with the prosecutors and that they do not have favorable things to say about the defendants.

 

[CDW3333]

No, the part that MM changed from 2001 to 2010 was his "certainty" that JS was abusing a kid.

IOW MM's 2001 story was : late night inappropriate shower that was over the line and weirded him out but wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing b/c he really couldn't see (aka 2 alarm fire--inappropriate shower/horseplay)......got changed in 2010 to: "late night inappropriate shower where MM was CERTAIN JS was sodomizing a boy" (aka 5 alarm fire --certain child abuse/child rape)

That's a pretty significant change there, and that change would explain the HUGE discrepancies between peoples actions in 2001 and MM's 2010 version of the story.

A "two-alarm" fire should have been reported to the police, especially given the circumstances (an otherwise deserted building, late at night, a naked boy and a naked Sandusky, close enough to touch) and Sandusky's previous history. Let the cops figure it out, that's what they're paid for.

And what do you mean by "inappropriate shower"?

 

[Madsol]

A "two-alarm" fire should have been reported to the police, especially given the circumstances (an otherwise deserted building, late at night, a naked boy and a naked Sandusky, close enough to touch) and Sandusky's previous history. Let the cops figure it out, that's what they're paid for.

And what do you mean by "inappropriate shower"?

Maybe. So why didn't McQueary call the cops? Why didn't his dad call the cops? Why didn't Dranov call the cops? Nope. Instead, "Sleep on it Mike and call the football coach in the morning." Football culture? Afraid of Paterno? Brain cramp? Or maybe, just maybe, not even a two-alarm fire. Until he heard from some State Policemen in 2010, then the fire quickly grew, at least in McQueary's mind.

 

[WeR0206]

A "two-alarm" fire should have been reported to the police, especially given the circumstances (an otherwise deserted building, late at night, a naked boy and a naked Sandusky, close enough to touch) and Sandusky's previous history. Let the cops figure it out, that's what they're paid for.

And what do you mean by "inappropriate shower"?

All the circumstances you listed above are EXACTLY why JR was REQUIRED to look into TC's report (they are also the definition of an inappropriate shower--late night one on one with a naked boy, etc.) regardless of whether or not TC told JR that he already looked into it from his end and there was nothing to it. TC was NOT a child abuse expert/investigator so JR should have taken anything from TC regarding his investigation with a grain of salt and done is OWN due diligence.

CS didn't go to the cops b/c THEY DIDN'T WITNESS ANYTHING. If MM wanted to file a police report, nobody was stopping him--he even testified that NO ONE from PSU told him to keep quiet about what he saw. Also, when C/S followed up with JM/MM they never said that they thought the police needed to be involved or that MORE needed to be done or that they were dissatisfied with their action plan (the plan which didn't involve calling UPPD or MM making a written statement to UPPD, etc.).

Did MM, a grown man, really need C/S to tell him that he should call the police about certain child rape, is that the reason why he went to them instead going directly to the UPPD? I don't think so. I think MM went to C/S b/c he wasn't really sure what JS and the boy were doing, but that it was over the line and someone at PSU needed to know about it.

 

[WeR0206]

Last September the Defendants filed motions to compel the OAG to provide statements that the prosecutors took from Harmon and Courtney, claiming that they contained exculpatory evidence. The judge denied the motions summarily.

This tells you that Harmon and Courtney are working with the prosecutors and that they do not have favorable things to say about the defendants.

Ummm...if the defendants thought that statements made by Harmon/Courtney to the OAG contained exculpatory evidence, then how do you come to the conclusion that Harmon/Courtney don't have favorable things to say?? Wouldn't it be the other way around? I'd say that the defendants think Harmon/Courtney's statements to the OAG show the current narrative is complete bullshit and the judge (who is a corrupt scumbag btw) wanted nothing to do with allowing the defendants access to the statements.

Btw, how is it even legal that the OAG has access to statements from Harmon/Courtney (that may or may not contain exculpatory evidence) that the defense team isn't privy to?? Aren't they supposed to share ALL info/evidence??

 

[mdahmus]

What possible sense does that make? How could they have had any assurance that McQueary wouldn't just start blowing the whistle to anybody he could if he didn't think the university's response was appropriate?

Because they waited for a while to see if the kid surfaced; he didn't; so they knew they could pretend to have investigated it and did all they could, and count on MM not wanting to lose his job over it after that. My guess, honestly; this is not one of the areas I feel all that confident about.

 

[LundyPSU]

Last September the Defendants filed motions to compel the OAG to provide statements that the prosecutors took from Harmon and Courtney, claiming that they contained exculpatory evidence. The judge denied the motions summarily.

This tells you that Harmon and Courtney are working with the prosecutors and that they do not have favorable things to say about the defendants.

and how exactly do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Madsol]

Because they waited for a while to see if the kid surfaced; he didn't; so they knew they could pretend to have investigated it and did all they could, and count on MM not wanting to lose his job over it after that. My guess, honestly; this is not one of the areas I feel all that confident about.

And you don't feel confident about it for good reason...because it's pure baloney!! The fact that you can take the hardline position you do and yet admit that the very foundation of the cover-up theory is a bit of a question mark for you tells me all I need to know about you. Agenda.

 

[nits74]

Because they waited for a while to see if the kid surfaced; he didn't; so they knew they could pretend to have investigated it and did all they could, and count on MM not wanting to lose his job over it after that. My guess, honestly; this is not one of the areas I feel all that confident about.

And people like you accuse us of wearing tin foil hats. Geez.

 

[Chris92]

The regs were issued in 1999, they talk about team coaches.

Wouldn't CSAs be notified their institution deems them one and receive annual Clery training?

Because they waited for a while to see if the kid surfaced; he didn't; so they knew they could pretend to have investigated it and did all they could, and count on MM not wanting to lose his job over it after that. My guess, honestly; this is not one of the areas I feel all that confident about.

Lose his job? MM was bypassed for the vacated WR coaching job(Kenny Jackson left) just days after reporting the incident. He was covered by every whistle blower protection known to mankind, from the university as an employee, as a student, the state and the federal government. If MM wasn't satisfied with the response he got to his report in 2001, he could have rightfully owned the university back then.