Mikey McQ is my hero

[N&B4PSU]

OK, that wasn't fair... in truth, it was a kinda pathetic lure and not worthy... but I am finding it hard not to beat the crap outta people lately so I resorted to this canard.

Speaking with a local and the subject of how well psu is doing these days and the subject of Mikey boy pops up. My fellow floridian advises me that Mikey is his hero for his tell all novel and he deserves every dollar of compensation.

And rather than punch this witless dolt into tomorrowland... I inquire....

Let me see if i have this straight. A 25 something ATHLETE (and no matter how much we might parse jokes, QB's in Div 1 are athletes) who goes 6'5 and about 240 THINKS (because to this day he sure as shooting ain't sure) he is witnessing some kind of carnal goings on between an older guy and young child in a locker (with no one else aroud)... and this big fing baby is so upset by it that he DOES NOTHING. He leaves that child all alone to fend for himself against a monster. he DOES NOTHING.

He runs to Daddy and his doctor. They're so upset they blow him off. He goes to his coach and the coach, likely against his own best reasoning (and i have long thought Paterno was fearful that this could expose Mikey's psychological problems to outsiders) refers his situation to the guy who oversees the police department.

Who thinks it a bunch of BS.

But I digress. What Man at 6'5 240 allows a child to remain alone with a man perceived to be a pedophile? in the gdamned act?

And this POS is what you refer to as "your hero?"

to which my clueless acquaintance says I am not seeing the big picture.

To which I asked (not so nicely): "He's 6'5 240 and he leaves a child alone with a man he perceives is sexually abusing the child... I think I see the picture quite clearly. Your hero is a stinking coward."

End of pleasantries.

 

[wensilver]

I'll play.

And I know damned well who's reading this thread.

to which my clueless acquaintance says I am not seeing the big picture

Frank Fina is no longer in public office, and he's currently holed up in a Class C office space in Plymouth Meeting. (If you believe that crummy website of his) He's not downtown rubbing elbows with other high profile prosecutors. Franky "Fap" Fina had quietly left the Phila DA's office in a cloud of porn, hate and racism. One well known DA here in this state called him a "vampire".

Fina had no problem suing Kathleen Kane for damage done to his character, yada yada - over the disgusting photos of women being violated that Fina treasured. In fact, one could could say that Fina was a "rape enabler".

Jonelle Eshbach is no longer at the OAG. Did Fina play Good Cop / Bad Cop using Jonelle? It's painfully clear from the Moulton report that our OAG was never going to investigate and charge Second Mile leadership - this was going to be placed on PSU's doorstep - and it was never about "the children". Was Jonelle just the stooge? "And we don't like her tone".

It sure would be nice if a national discussion went on about the unethical conduct in this prosecution by Fina and his fellow porn-addled gunslingers in Tom Corbett's OAG by a regular citizen whose personal life and career aspirations have been completely and utterly destroyed.

I don't know how one does that, given the lawsuits, appeals, rulings and gags. It's a mess, and all over a singular lie of "anal rape in a Penn State shower".

 

[BobPSU92]

This is clearly Joe's fault despite Joe following the law and despite everyone else involved the night of the incident and in Harrisburg years after. It clearly was a cover-up by Joe with assistance from Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to protect Joe and football.

Anyone who believes this is too stupid to live.

 

[bjf1991]

I'll play.

And I know damned well who's reading this thread.


Frank Fina is no longer in public office, and he's currently holed up in a Class C office space in Plymouth Meeting. (If you believe that crummy website of his) He's not downtown rubbing elbows with other high profile prosecutors. Franky "Fap" Fina had quietly left the Phila DA's office in a cloud of porn, hate and racism. One well known DA here in this state called him a "vampire".

Fina had no problem suing Kathleen Kane for damage done to his character, yada yada - over the disgusting photos of women being violated that Fina treasured. In fact, one could could say that Fina was a "rape enabler".

Jonelle Eshbach is no longer in public office. Did Fina play Good Cop / Bad Cop using Jonelle? It's painfully clear from the Moulton report that our OAG was never going to investigate and charge Second Mile leadership - this was going to be placed on PSU's doorstep - and it was never about "the children". Was Jonelle just the stooge? "And we don't like her tone".

It sure would be nice if a national discussion went on about the unethical conduct in this prosecution by Fina and his fellow porn-addled gunslingers in Tom Corbett's OAG by a regular citizen whose personal life and career aspirations have been completely and utterly destroyed.

I don't know how one does that, given the lawsuits, appeals, rulings and gags. It's a mess, and all over a singular lie of "anal rape in a Penn State shower".

Have we found ONE advocate - anywhere - to stand up against the seemingly infinite tide of scumbags, hypocrites, liars, and charlatans?

In the media?
Anywhere in the "justice system"?
In politics?
Within the University?


I'm at a loss




Every day, I like my Dog (and even other folks' dogs ) more.......and People, less.
I imagine you feel the same way about the Ponies, and People


Anyway........Merry Christmas!!

 

[bytir]

What I can't leave behind in all this are the questions throughout that not only go unanswered, but seemingly were never asked. At least not in a meaningful way.

 

[wensilver]

Have we found ONE advocate - anywhere - to stand up against the seemingly infinite tide of scumbags, hypocrites, liars, and charlatans?

In the media?
Nope. Although Dan Wetzel did recently point out how our OAG let a mistruth just sit out there for the public to digest. Would Wetzel speak more on this if asked?
Anywhere in the "justice system"?
Nope. In fact, our own state Victim's Advocate has been awful.
In politics?
Nope. I hold a faint glimmer of hope with Shapiro's new team. We shall see in January.
Within the University?
Most definitely not. They threw everyone under the bus.

 

[bjf1991]

Wetzel?


Name rings a bell..........newspaper guy or sports reporter?

 

[wensilver]

Wetzel?


Name rings a bell..........newspaper guy or sports reporter?

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports

Off topic somewhat - but in following Bears For Leadership Reform, they did an analysis of the cost to Baylor. Read the report here, they use Freeh & Penn State in their analysis:

http://bearsforleadershipreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/HSSK-Report-BLR.pdf

More here on Baylor alumni blowback, calls for BoR transparency, etc - all so familar:
http://www.kcentv.com/news/local/blr-releases-economic-impact-analysis-on-baylor/369596807

Baylor President Starr describes the political maneuvering behind the curtain on the Board of Regents. Sound familiar John Surma? http://www.kwtx.com/content/misc/Farewell-406640625.html?ref=625

This is the stuff that gets lost in the media frenzy.

Now imagine if our state had only taken ownership of their failures, investigated Second Mile and CYS, properly prosecuted the case without that singular lie of "anal rape in a Penn State shower" and what the cost to "Penn State" would have been. This was a crisis birthed out of Harrisburg state offices and it torched regular citizens that should never have been a part of this mess.

Harrisburg rubber stamped a child sex offender and his work with children. Harrisburg continues to punt on their responsibility on that.

 

[moofafoo]

This is clearly Joe's fault despite Joe following the law and despite everyone else involved the night of the incident and in Harrisburg years after. It clearly was a cover-up by Joe with assistance from Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to protect Joe and football.

Anyone who believes this is too stupid to live.

Too stupid to live sums it up. Anyone who believes Joe covered anything up is a moron.

 

[bjf1991]

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports

Off topic somewhat - but in following Bears For Leadership Reform, they did an analysis of the cost to Baylor. Read the report here, they use Freeh & Penn State in their analysis:

http://bearsforleadershipreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/HSSK-Report-BLR.pdf

Now imagine if our state had only taken ownership of their failures, investigated Second Mile and CYS, properly prosecuted the case without that singular lie of "anal rape in a Penn State shower" and what the cost to "Penn State" would have been. This was a crisis birthed out of Harrisburg state offices and torched regular citizens. Harrisburg continues to punt on their responsibilities.

Ah......yeah, that's it

Thanks for the heads-up


BTW - most "non-sports" folks wouldn't know this (and probably even most self-identified "sports folks")

But:
YAHOO sports (despite the goofy sounding name) has been 1,000 better and more successful - and probably more interested - than any other "sports" media group, in covering REAL stories in sports
They have probably broken or developed 10 times the number of true "investigative" stories as ESPN, SportsIllustrated, and all the network and "big name" sports outfits combined (actually maybe "infinity" times as many.......since we are still waiting for any of those other outfits to break their first investigative story )

 

[PennSt8er]

MM is in fact a hero, but in a different way. He managed to squeeze millions out of a big state university in spite of the fact he did nothing to protect the kid. He also managed to bury the rumors that he had habits similar to Anthony Weiner and that maybe he had some gambling problems. If evidence had been produced about those rumors, then he would also have been unhireable and he likely would not have squeezed millions from the huge land grant money churner. That's all pretty heroic.

 

[moofafoo]

Mike is a despicable human being and a poor excuse for a man.

 

[hereforthebeer]

The fallout from this loser's personal failures are really incredible. I despise him.

 

[Bobpsu]

MM is in fact a hero, but in a different way. He managed to squeeze millions out of a big state university in spite of the fact he did nothing to protect the kid. He also managed to bury the rumors that he had habits similar to Anthony Weiner and that maybe he had some gambling problems. If evidence had been produced about those rumors, then he would also have been unhireable and he likely would not have squeezed millions from the huge land grant money churner. That's all pretty heroic.

That is NOT a hero! That is a money grubbing coward!

 

[Obliviax]

OK, that wasn't fair... in truth, it was a kinda pathetic lure and not worthy... but I am finding it hard not to beat the crap outta people lately so I resorted to this canard.

Speaking with a local and the subject of how well psu is doing these days and the subject of Mikey boy pops up. My fellow floridian advises me that Mikey is his hero for his tell all novel and he deserves every dollar of compensation.

And rather than punch this witless dolt into tomorrowland... I inquire....

Let me see if i have this straight. A 25 something ATHLETE (and no matter how much we might parse jokes, QB's in Div 1 are athletes) who goes 6'5 and about 240 THINKS (because to this day he sure as shooting ain't sure) he is witnessing some kind of carnal goings on between an older guy and young child in a locker (with no one else aroud)... and this big fing baby is so upset by it that he DOES NOTHING. He leaves that child all alone to fend for himself against a monster. he DOES NOTHING.

He runs to Daddy and his doctor. They're so upset they blow him off. He goes to his coach and the coach, likely against his own best reasoning (and i have long thought Paterno was fearful that this could expose Mikey's psychological problems to outsiders) refers his situation to the guy who oversees the police department.

Who thinks it a bunch of BS.

But I digress. What Man at 6'5 240 allows a child to remain alone with a man perceived to be a pedophile? in the gdamned act?

And this POS is what you refer to as "your hero?"

to which my clueless acquaintance says I am not seeing the big picture.

To which I asked (not so nicely): "He's 6'5 240 and he leaves a child alone with a man he perceives is sexually abusing the child... I think I see the picture quite clearly. Your hero is a stinking coward."

End of pleasantries.

History shows that you are wrong about that night in 2001. Sadly, history shows that most people would have done something similar to what MM did that night (assuming we know the truth). It doesn't have anything to do with MM's size. It is even more understandable when you consider that JS wasn't your average guy hanging around the club. He was an icon, guy on the cover of SI, a bit of a legend (who had a hand in a MNC and invented the zone blitz). No matter what, it had to be an incredible shock.

Fact is, MM's behavior is consistent with investigators. They gave JS the benefit of the doubt. Clearly, MM hadn't heard any "rumors" in 2001. So that flys in the face of the narrative that "they all knew".

I don't understand how, again assuming the truth is out there, that he let JS walk for ten years without being more resolute with Schultz and Curley.

 

[moofafoo]

There is nothing heroic about hiding for 10 years until you have to be hunted down. And then lie about it.

 

[hereforthebeer]

While reaping the spoils (a coaching job) and gallivanting about like a jackass gambling , chasing college chicks, etc.

 

[moofafoo]

Sums up Mike.

 

[PennSt8er]

That is NOT a hero! That is a money grubbing coward!

I wrote in sarcastic font. It's a heroic accomplishment, using a twisted definition of "hero."

 

[bdgan]

OK, that wasn't fair... in truth, it was a kinda pathetic lure and not worthy... but I am finding it hard not to beat the crap outta people lately so I resorted to this canard.

Speaking with a local and the subject of how well psu is doing these days and the subject of Mikey boy pops up. My fellow floridian advises me that Mikey is his hero for his tell all novel and he deserves every dollar of compensation.

And rather than punch this witless dolt into tomorrowland... I inquire....

Let me see if i have this straight. A 25 something ATHLETE (and no matter how much we might parse jokes, QB's in Div 1 are athletes) who goes 6'5 and about 240 THINKS (because to this day he sure as shooting ain't sure) he is witnessing some kind of carnal goings on between an older guy and young child in a locker (with no one else aroud)... and this big fing baby is so upset by it that he DOES NOTHING. He leaves that child all alone to fend for himself against a monster. he DOES NOTHING.

He runs to Daddy and his doctor. They're so upset they blow him off. He goes to his coach and the coach, likely against his own best reasoning (and i have long thought Paterno was fearful that this could expose Mikey's psychological problems to outsiders) refers his situation to the guy who oversees the police department.

Who thinks it a bunch of BS.

But I digress. What Man at 6'5 240 allows a child to remain alone with a man perceived to be a pedophile? in the gdamned act?

And this POS is what you refer to as "your hero?"

to which my clueless acquaintance says I am not seeing the big picture.

To which I asked (not so nicely): "He's 6'5 240 and he leaves a child alone with a man he perceives is sexually abusing the child... I think I see the picture quite clearly. Your hero is a stinking coward."

End of pleasantries.

Don't forget. He was so upset that he went to see his father and Dranov to tell them about it. It's kid of funny that they said MM didn't tell them about anything serious enough to call the police. Interesting! Joe, Curley, and Shultz said pretty much the same thing. Also remember that MM said Paterno was great about the whole thing and that Curley was a good man.

Freeh, NCAA, & media analysis: Everybody lied except for MM's dad and Dranov, and Joe was the biggest villain. In what world does that makes sense?

 

[green2623]

Hero............. Just another word that has been transformed in our modern lexicon. Language and definitions have been restructured in a binary world of opposition.

 

[Bobpsu]

I wrote in sarcastic font. It's a heroic accomplishment, using a twisted definition of "hero."

I missed the font thingy!

 

[WeR0206]

Don't forget. He was so upset that he went to see his father and Dranov to tell them about it. It's kid of funny that they said MM didn't tell them about anything serious enough to call the police. Interesting! Joe, Curley, and Shultz said pretty much the same thing.

Freeh, NCAA, & media analysis: Everybody lied except for MM'd dad and Dranov. In what world does that makes sense?

Yep. He was also so upset that when Curley called him a few weeks later to follow up (a fact that freeh conveniently left out-he claimed no one ever followed up with MM) Mike never expressed any dissatisfaction and never said MORE needed to be done. For a reference see the 12/16/11 prelim where MM is getting cross examined by Roberto. I guess freeh's giant team of investigators failed to read this publicly available testimony? I'd bet they knew and left it out bc it didn't fit their narrative.

=================
From 12/16/11 preliminary for C/S:

Pg. 81: Q: When you met with Mr. Curley, did you say I believe he was having anal intercourse with this boy?
A: I would have not used the words anal intercourse. I would have said extremely sexual act and I think it was intercourse.

Pg. 82: MM states TC told him he would look into it and follow up with him and MM states that TC DID in fact follow up with him. Also, MM can’t remember whether or not TC asked him any clarifying questions during the meeting (freeh decided on his own that MM was never followed up with and no questions were asked of him during his meeting with admins even though MM said TC followed up with him and couldn't remember if Tim asked any questions)

Pg. 85: MM never once saw JS around the program with a child since the 2001 incident. Also, when TC followed up with MM by telephone to tell him this is what we’ve done and what we’ve decided to do, MM did NOT dispute or oppose or say that they needed to do more. (This also contradicts freehs assertions)

========================
When you consider the above it's truly amazing that MM/freeh can claim with a straight face ten years later that the admins didn't do enough.

Also note the language MM used in the above testimony. You see words like "I would have" and "I think it was intercourse", hardly the definitive type statements freeh/MM would have you believe they made. In MM's 2010 statement to OAG he said he was certain sodomy was occurring, that's quite the change up from what I just posted above.

What it all comes down to is MM himself said no one from PSU ever told him to keep quiet and when he spoke to the admins he had nothing other than what he thought was happening, not an eye witness account the current narrative would have you believe. Also apparently MM wasn't sure enough about what he thought was happening to ever file a report with UPPD or ask the admins to send an officer to take his statement, or express dissatisfaction to the admins, or place an anonymous call the childline (an option dranov would have been aware of due to his training). His story simply doesn't add up.

 

[bplionfan]

=================
From 12/16/11 preliminary for C/S:

Pg. 81: Q: When you met with Mr. Curley, did you say I believe he was having anal intercourse with this boy?
A: I would have not used the words anal intercourse. I would have said extremely sexual act and I think it was intercourse.

========================
When you consider the above it's truly amazing that MM/freeh can claim with a straight face ten years later that the admins didn't do enough.

Also note the language MM used in the above testimony. You see words like "I would have" and "I think it was intercourse", hardly the definitive type statements freeh/MM would have you believe they made. In MM's 2010 statement to OAG he said he was certain sodomy was occurring, that's quite the change up from what I just posted above.

What it all comes down to is MM himself said no one from PSU ever told him to keep quiet and when he spoke to the admins he had nothing other than what he thought was happening, not an eye witness account the current narrative would have you believe. Also apparently MM wasn't sure enough about what he thought was happening to ever file a report with UPPD or ask the admins to send an officer to take his statement, or express dissatisfaction to the admins, or place an anonymous call the childline (an option dranov would have been aware of due to his training). His story simply doesn't add up.[/QUOTE]

Well Mike, your Dad disagrees... Mike was sure about what he saw. He said you called home moments after the incident when it was fresh in your mind, and you told him twice you saw nothing of the sort. You said you saw nothing more than JS in a shower with a boy....

John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.

 

[WeR0206]

=================
From 12/16/11 preliminary for C/S:

Pg. 81: Q: When you met with Mr. Curley, did you say I believe he was having anal intercourse with this boy?
A: I would have not used the words anal intercourse. I would have said extremely sexual act and I think it was intercourse.

========================
When you consider the above it's truly amazing that MM/freeh can claim with a straight face ten years later that the admins didn't do enough.

Also note the language MM used in the above testimony. You see words like "I would have" and "I think it was intercourse", hardly the definitive type statements freeh/MM would have you believe they made. In MM's 2010 statement to OAG he said he was certain sodomy was occurring, that's quite the change up from what I just posted above.

What it all comes down to is MM himself said no one from PSU ever told him to keep quiet and when he spoke to the admins he had nothing other than what he thought was happening, not an eye witness account the current narrative would have you believe. Also apparently MM wasn't sure enough about what he thought was happening to ever file a report with UPPD or ask the admins to send an officer to take his statement, or express dissatisfaction to the admins, or place an anonymous call the childline (an option dranov would have been aware of due to his training). His story simply doesn't add up.

Well Mike, your Dad disagrees... Mike was sure about what he saw. He said you called home moments after the incident when it was fresh in your mind, and you told him twice you saw nothing of the sort. You said you saw nothing more than JS in a shower with a boy....

John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.

You bring up an excellent point. Both JM and MM's testimony is all over the place and incongruent. You see a pattern of MM slowly walking back, first in his OAG statement he is certain, then in his testimony you see "I think" and then when you look at JM and Dr D's testimony all they say is MM saw JS and a kid in the shower and you see nothing about MM saying he thought JS was raping a kid (if he did say that then Dr D's most recent testimony that MM's story that night wasn't bad enough to call police or child services makes ZERO sense).

SO you have JM/Dr. d/C/S/S/Joe/Raykovitz all saying the 01 incident was an inappropriate shower that made a psu GA uncomfortable vs. MM's bs revisionist history version sponsored by frank fap fina.

 

[Obliviax]

Again, there's that lack of character thing. So, when the Joe gets fired, when Curley, Schultze and Spanier are indicted, when the program and university are at the business end of a full blown media lynching what do we hear from MM?....crickets, nothing, not a peep.

"Stand up for something, even if it means you stand alone"

I do wish he'd been a little more vocal. At the same time, he was scared to death that the lynch mob in the state of PA would come after him too. Having said that, he came out in support of Joe several times.

 

[WeR0206]

I do wish he'd been a little more vocal. At the same time, he was scared to death that the lynch mob in the state of PA would come after him too. Having said that, he came out in support of Joe several times.

His support of Joe was minimal if you ask me. MM playing revionist history in 2010 by claiming he reported certain child rape or that je thought a kid was getting raped is the whole reason Joe was under fire in the first place. So the very very few bones MM threw Joe (saying Joe was great during the whole time) pale in comparison.

 

[Mixolydian]

I do wish he'd been a little more vocal. At the same time, he was scared to death that the lynch mob in the state of PA would come after him too. Having said that, he came out in support of Joe several times.

He either spit the bit in 2001 or lied/embellished a decade later. There's no in between and no way to pretend he isn't one of the linchpins (among several others) of the whole fubar'd mess.

My bet is on the latter. He saw an inappropriate shower in 2001, and for reasons that are unclear but that have been speculated upon ad infinitum, he lied/embellished on the stand. Hogwash.

 

[bjf1991]

I do wish he'd been a little more vocal. At the same time, he was scared to death that the lynch mob in the state of PA would come after him too. Having said that, he came out in support of Joe several times.

If you recall from the MM v PSU legal proceeding:

MM went to the OAG (Eschbach?) with a "plea" (for lack of a better term) that he (MM) should speak out and "defend himself/tell his side of the story". In fact, he may have also solicited a bit of "support" from them (the OAG folks).....but I couldn't say for sure without reviewing the transcript.

Whomever he communicated w at the OAG office (I think it was Eschbach, but I don't have the transcript handy) was quite adamant that he should not do that.
Incredible and bewildering on the surface - - - - but, "with the benefit of hindsight", clear to understand WHY the OAG would have taken such a stance.


A few things that I think everyone could agree on:

1 - The OAG's pressuring of MM to NOT come forward at that time - - - when this iron was red hot - - - was a horrible disservice to everyone who was in the line of fire (not the least of which was MM....if you followed that trial, I am sure you were shocked at the level of "psycho outrage"), and that silence, AS MUCH AS ANYTHING, fanned the flames of the napalm and kerosene laced dumpster fire (royalties to WS ) that was the media feeding frenzy at the time.

2 - The only folks who benefitted from MM remaining mute were the folks in the OAG.......especially the Presentment Writers and the Press Conference Grandstanders.
In retrospect, it is obvious why they "strongly suggested" (my term, again - I don't have the transcript handy) that MM remain mute.....
and that they (the OAG folks) acted in complete disregard to the damages they knew were being inflicted, and would continue to be inflicted, on so many folks - and particularly to THEIR witness.
They didn't care. They wanted to win.....regardless of the devastation to others.

3 - The "coin-flip moment" there - - - "come forward, make a statement" vs. "don't come forward, allow the media firestorm to run unabated" - - - was one of the handful of huge "decision points" in this entire affair..........where the course of the events that we have seen transpire over the last 5+ years was indelibly cast.

 

[drblue1977]

=================
From 12/16/11 preliminary for C/S:

Pg. 81: Q: When you met with Mr. Curley, did you say I believe he was having anal intercourse with this boy?
A: I would have not used the words anal intercourse. I would have said extremely sexual act and I think it was intercourse.

========================
When you consider the above it's truly amazing that MM/freeh can claim with a straight face ten years later that the admins didn't do enough.

Also note the language MM used in the above testimony. You see words like "I would have" and "I think it was intercourse", hardly the definitive type statements freeh/MM would have you believe they made. In MM's 2010 statement to OAG he said he was certain sodomy was occurring, that's quite the change up from what I just posted above.

What it all comes down to is MM himself said no one from PSU ever told him to keep quiet and when he spoke to the admins he had nothing other than what he thought was happening, not an eye witness account the current narrative would have you believe. Also apparently MM wasn't sure enough about what he thought was happening to ever file a report with UPPD or ask the admins to send an officer to take his statement, or express dissatisfaction to the admins, or place an anonymous call the childline (an option dranov would have been aware of due to his training). His story simply doesn't add up.

Well Mike, your Dad disagrees... Mike was sure about what he saw. He said you called home moments after the incident when it was fresh in your mind, and you told him twice you saw nothing of the sort. You said you saw nothing more than JS in a shower with a boy....

John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.[/QUOTE]Phone call re-enactment:
Mike: Dad, I just saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy.
John McQ: Mike, were they having anal sex? Did you see any...........penetration? Did you see anything you could verify, sodomy?
Mike: Dad, I didn't see that.
John McQ: Mike, come home my son!
Yeah, I bet my father's first question would involve............. penetration.

 

[bplionfan]

Well Mike, your Dad disagrees... Mike was sure about what he saw. He said you called home moments after the incident when it was fresh in your mind, and you told him twice you saw nothing of the sort. You said you saw nothing more than JS in a shower with a boy....

John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.

Phone call re-enactment:
Mike: Dad, I just saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy.
John McQ: Mike, were they having anal sex? Did you see any...........penetration? Did you see anything you could verify, sodomy?
Mike: Dad, I didn't see that.
John McQ: Mike, come home my son!
Yeah, I bet my father's first question would involve............. penetration.[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you are getting at?

 

[Obliviax]

If you recall from the MM v PSU legal proceeding:

MM went to the OAG (Eschbach?) with a "plea" (for lack of a better term) that he (MM) should speak out and "defend himself/tell his side of the story". In fact, he may have also solicited a bit of "support" from them (the OAG folks).....but I couldn't say for sure without reviewing the transcript.

Whomever he communicated w at the OAG office (I think it was Eschbach, but I don't have the transcript handy) was quite adamant that he should not do that.
Incredible and bewildering on the surface - - - - but, "with the benefit of hindsight", clear to understand WHY the OAG would have taken such a stance.


A few things that I think everyone could agree on:

1 - The OAG's pressuring of MM to NOT come forward at that time - - - when this iron was red hot - - - was a horrible disservice to everyone who was in the line of fire (not the least of which was MM), and AS MUCH AS ANYTHING, fanned the flames of the napalm and kerosene laced dumpster fire (royalties to WS ) that was the media feeding frenzy at the time.

2 - The only folks who benefitted from MM remaining mute were the folks in the OAG.......especially the Presentment Writers and the Press Conference Grandstanders.
In retrospect, it is obvious why they "strongly suggested" (my term, again - I don't have the transcript handy) that MM remain mute.....
and that they (the OAG folks) acted in complete disregard to the damages they knew were being inflicted, and would continue to be inflicted, on so many folks - and particularly to THEIR witness.
They didn't care. They wanted to win.....regardless of the devastation to others.

3 - The "coin-flip moment" there - - - "come forward, make a statement" vs. "don't come forward, allow the media firestorm to run unabated" - - - was one of the handful of huge "decision points" in this entire affair..........where the course of the events that we have seen transpire over the last 5+ years was indelibly cast.

All great points. And in a perfect world, I agree.

MM is clearly at odds with Curley and Schultz. There is a sharp disagreement on what MM may have told them.

But my point is that MM is not all that different from others who have been in similar situations (especially when that person is a person of power). His actions, or inactions, are inside the bell curve to others that have witnessed or come to be aware of sexual predators. Does that make him a hero? Heck no. Does that make him a monster? No.

 

[bjf1991]

All great points. And in a perfect world, I agree.

MM is clearly at odds with Curley and Schultz. There is a sharp disagreement on what MM may have told them.

But my point is that MM is not all that different from others who have been in similar situations (especially when that person is a person of power). His actions, or inactions, are inside the bell curve to others that have witnessed or come to be aware of sexual predators. Does that make him a hero? Heck no. Does that make him a monster? No.

Oh......

I didn't - and I wouldn't - touch the "night of" scenarios with a 10 foot pole.

We've heard PLENTY from folks who all "know what they would have done" in that situation........especially from folks who "know what they would have done in that situation" - despite the fact that they don't even know what the situation was

I am ONLY talking about the scenario of November 2011.

Period.

 

[Ranger Dan]

Well, since you asked... I think blaming McQuery is no better than blaming Joe. Just because someone is 6' 5" doesn't make them perceptive to what may be going on or trigger him to spring into action amidst the confusion. While McQuery hasn't been the most consistant witness and maybe could have stopped Sandusky on that same day, it's possible that the same failures/bad decisions within the child welfare/police groups could have take place even if McQuerry called 911 that night.

If there is one truth to come out of this whole mess is that Penn State (players, coaches, & admin) and America as a whole was terribly naive about child predators, how to spot them, and who is to blame.Everyone wants someone to blame beyond Sandusky. Penn Staters blame McQuerry, TSM, BOT, Corbett, etc. People outside the Penn State community blame Joe, Curley, Spanier, and Penn State football. Who knows how much tangential blame each of these persons or groups deserve. Most are not as guilty as others want them to be, but this doesn't satisfy our desire for placing blame. I'm no psychologist, but maybe it's because we are afraid that we could have been in their shoes (not Sandusky's) and their must have been something wrong with them because we would never have let this happen.

 

[bjf1991]

Well, since you asked... I think blaming McQuery is no better than blaming Joe. Just because someone is 6' 5" doesn't make them perceptive to what may be going on or trigger him to spring into action amidst the confusion. While McQuery hasn't been the most consistant witness and maybe could have stopped Sandusky on that same day, it's possible that the same failures/bad decisions within the child welfare/police groups could have take place even if McQuerry called 911 that night.

If there is one truth to come out of this whole mess is that Penn State (players, coaches, & admin) and America as a whole was terribly naive about child predators, how to spot them, and who is to blame.Everyone wants someone to blame beyond Sandusky. Penn Staters blame McQuerry, TSM, BOT, Corbett, etc. People outside the Penn State community blame Joe, Curley, Spanier, and Penn State football. Who knows how much tangential blame each of these persons or groups deserve. Most are not as guilty as others want them to be, but this doesn't satisfy our desire for placing blame. I'm no psychologist, but maybe it's because we are afraid that we could have been in their shoes (not Sandusky's) and their must have been something wrong with them because we would never have let this happen.

It may very well be a "societal problem" that Child Sexual Predators (or whatever the hell one wants to call them) are tough to uncover and expose .
I suppose the experts in that field have written and discussed volumes on that issue.....and I will defer to their expertise.

That said.....while that may be a significant societal issue....


The issues that engulfed (and continue to engulf) PSU are less than 0.0000001% due to the "difficulties in spotting and exposing CSA predators"........

and 99.9999999% due to completely unrelated ailments.

 

[JmmyW]

If you recall from the MM v PSU legal proceeding:

MM went to the OAG (Eschbach?) with a "plea" (for lack of a better term) that he (MM) should speak out and "defend himself/tell his side of the story". In fact, he may have also solicited a bit of "support" from them (the OAG folks).....but I couldn't say for sure without reviewing the transcript.

Whomever he communicated w at the OAG office (I think it was Eschbach, but I don't have the transcript handy) was quite adamant that he should not do that.
Incredible and bewildering on the surface - - - - but, "with the benefit of hindsight", clear to understand WHY the OAG would have taken such a stance.


A few things that I think everyone could agree on:

1 - The OAG's pressuring of MM to NOT come forward at that time - - - when this iron was red hot - - - was a horrible disservice to everyone who was in the line of fire (not the least of which was MM....if you followed that trial, I am sure you were shocked at the level of "psycho outrage"), and that silence, AS MUCH AS ANYTHING, fanned the flames of the napalm and kerosene laced dumpster fire (royalties to WS ) that was the media feeding frenzy at the time.

2 - The only folks who benefitted from MM remaining mute were the folks in the OAG.......especially the Presentment Writers and the Press Conference Grandstanders.
In retrospect, it is obvious why they "strongly suggested" (my term, again - I don't have the transcript handy) that MM remain mute.....
and that they (the OAG folks) acted in complete disregard to the damages they knew were being inflicted, and would continue to be inflicted, on so many folks - and particularly to THEIR witness.
They didn't care. They wanted to win.....regardless of the devastation to others.

3 - The "coin-flip moment" there - - - "come forward, make a statement" vs. "don't come forward, allow the media firestorm to run unabated" - - - was one of the handful of huge "decision points" in this entire affair..........where the course of the events that we have seen transpire over the last 5+ years was indelibly cast.

The email McQueary sent to Eshbach on 11/10/2011 was an exhibit at his trial. Those exhibits were made public yesterday.

 

[bjf1991]

The email McQueary sent to Eshbach on 11/10/2011 was an exhibit at his trial. Those exhibits were made public yesterday.

View embedded media

View embedded media

TY Jimmy

I shoulda' sent up the "Bat Signal"

 

[bjf1991]

The email McQueary sent to Eshbach on 11/10/2011 was an exhibit at his trial. Those exhibits were made public yesterday.

View embedded media

View embedded media

BTW -

This document includes the transcript of one of the most bizzaro-world situations in the MM v PSU trial - - - - - or ANY of the legal proceedings to date, for that matter (which is saying something - - - - given what we have seen):


If you go to Page 92....line 5 (I don't know how to paste out of that document)....to page 95....line 13


http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/MCQUEARY TRANSCRIPT OF 10 17 16 AM.pdf


That portion of the transcript is Conrad (the PSU attorney) TRYING to ask Eshbach about a statement Corbett made.
Keep in mind, this was the portion of the trial where it was being debated whether or not Spanier's statement (the one supporting Curley and Schultz) was "defamatory" vav MM, and the precipitating cause of MM's "public perception troubles" (for lack of a better term).

Gavin forbid Conrad from "going there" .......as you can read in the transcript.
(the Corbett statement they are discussing - which was made the same week, maybe the same day, as the Spanier press release)



Now - here is (part of) the verbiage of the Corbett statement. Remember...these are CORBETT'S words.....NOT Spanier, or Schultz, or Curley or whomever:

_____________

He (Corbett) made no effort to conceal his disappointment with McQueary, who told no one in law enforcement about what he had supposedly witnessed. “He (MM) met the minimum [legal] obligation of reporting it up — but [he] did not, in my opinion, meet a moral obligation that all of us have,” Corbett said. Then, referring to McQueary’s claim of witnessing Sandusky’s abuse of the child in the university showers, Corbett added: “I think everyone believes that they would go in and break that up.”
In a wide-ranging discussion of the scandal, Corbett — who as Pennsylvania’s attorney general had initiated the state’s investigation of Sandusky in 2009 — did not rule out the possibility of new disclosures and additional criminal action.

Linked from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli.../gIQAKNKdIN_story.html?utm_term=.2df35ab1ab3e



Now - forgetting about the ruling in the MM v PSU case for the moment.......but relative to the "Spanier Statement":


As I said at the time of the trial.........

"If MM had hired Conrad.....and sued PA, the PA OAG, and Corbett for slander (or defamation, or whatever the hell the proper legal term is) he coulda', shoulda' "won" 10X the judgement - - - - - - in a 60 minute trial"

Relatively speaking.....how in the world is it Spanier's statement that is considered "defamatory".......and the Corbett statement isn't even an issue?

No one....NO ONE....could argue that the "Spanier Statement" was AS defamatory towards MM as the statements by Corbett.
Not even in the same ballpark.
Not.....even......close.


Whattayagonnado?

5 years later.......and we are further from any possibility of accountability than we have ever been.......and we are not going in the right direction - in fact, just the opposite

Shake your head.

 

[Ranger Dan]

Remaining silent was, in my opinion, the worst thing he could have done.

MM could have jumped in and stopped it immediately (whatever was going on), and clearly, he could have done a better (sooner, more direct) job of reporting it, and his testimony has been suspect all along, but I don't think you can accuse him of remaining silent.

 

[Nellie R]

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports

Off topic somewhat - but in following Bears For Leadership Reform, they did an analysis of the cost to Baylor. Read the report here, they use Freeh & Penn State in their analysis:

http://bearsforleadershipreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/HSSK-Report-BLR.pdf

More here on Baylor alumni blowback, calls for BoR transparency, etc - all so familar:
http://www.kcentv.com/news/local/blr-releases-economic-impact-analysis-on-baylor/369596807

Baylor President Starr describes the political maneuvering behind the curtain on the Board of Regents. Sound familiar John Surma? http://www.kwtx.com/content/misc/Farewell-406640625.html?ref=625

This is the stuff that gets lost in the media frenzy.

Now imagine if our state had only taken ownership of their failures, investigated Second Mile and CYS, properly prosecuted the case without that singular lie of "anal rape in a Penn State shower" and what the cost to "Penn State" would have been. This was a crisis birthed out of Harrisburg state offices and it torched regular citizens that should never have been a part of this mess.

Harrisburg rubber stamped a child sex offender and his work with children. Harrisburg continues to punt on their responsibility on that.

Oh it doesn't get "lost", b/c I've been contacting all of them since October (some even earlier than that) about it every time they pen a "Baylor Title IX it's all about sports" article, regurgitating the Baylor BOR word for word and ignoring what local station KWTX has turned up since May. They ignore it on purpose b/c a sports scandal sells.