More from Bruce Heim

[Aoshiro]

I submit the following for consideration:

- McQueary bears witness to something in 2001 that makes him uncomfortable.
- He reports this to Paterno, who notifies Curley and Schultz.
- McQueary then reports it to Curley and Schultz who investigate.
- Curley or/& Schultz report back to McQueary that their investigation did not find anything inappropriate.
- McQueary's perception of the event is adjusted to fit within the context of this information.
- In 2010 (or thereabouts) McQueary is notified of an investigation into Sandusky potentially molesting children.
- McQueary's perception of the 2001 event is readjusted to fit within the context of this new information.

I agree with most of that except:
- McQueary then reports it to Curley and Schultz who investigate.
- Curley or/& Schultz report back to McQueary that their investigation did not find anything inappropriate.

I don't think that C/S ever investigated or told anyone they would investigate.
I think that Schultz consulted Wendell Courtney and Courtney told him that the correct course of action was to report it to The Second Mile. I think that Freeh deliberately omitted this piece of exculpatory information from his report. I think that this is the reason that no one on the anti-Penn State side (AG/Freeh/NCAA) has revealed what Courtney advised Schultz. If Courtney advised Schultz to call the police and/or CYS and Schultz didn't do that, you can bet your last dollar we would know it by now.
I think that Heim and Raykovitz are flat-out lying (to cover their own asses) when they claim that Curley told them that PSU investigated and told them nothing inappropriate happened.
Of course Curley and Schultz thought it was inappropriate behavior. That's why they told Sandusky not to do it anymore and they reported it to his employer. Duh.

 

[PSUFBFAN]

I submit the following for consideration:

- McQueary bears witness to something in 2001 that makes him uncomfortable.
- He reports this to Paterno, who notifies Curley and Schultz.
- McQueary then reports it to Curley and Schultz who investigate.
- Curley or/& Schultz report back to McQueary that their investigation did not find anything inappropriate.
- McQueary's perception of the event is adjusted to fit within the context of this information.
- In 2010 (or thereabouts) McQueary is notified of an investigation into Sandusky potentially molesting children.
- McQueary's perception of the 2001 event is readjusted to fit within the context of this new information.

I think you are pretty darn close to what actually happened. I would add that he also reported it to his dad and Dr Dranov (sp?) and whatever version he told them didn't alarm them to the point where they thought they should get "the authorities" involved (meaning someone other than Joe). Instead, they advised him to tell Joe who then referred him to C&S.

If McQ gave any one of those individuals the version that was described in the grand jury release, I will never believe that all of these individuals (individually and collectively) thought the best course of action was to simply tell Jerry to stay off the campus.

 

[Zenophile]

I'm unsure what motive Curley and Schultz would have for any sort of dishonesty in 2001 to cover up a known sexual abuse incident and to tell MM nothing really happened however. Now of course it could have been that their investigation was flawed and they honestly didn't find anything. This could be either due to their lack of skill in such matters or due to sheer skill of JS to hide in plain sight despite their best efforts.

Given the available evidence, IMHO it seems reasonable to assume that the facts discovered in the 2001 investigation produced an inconclusive result. This is significant (again IMHO) because it would put the investigation at risk of assigning a disproportional importance to, for example, a character witness with the credentials of a Jack Raykovitz.

 

[dwiz]

For the record, I was just thinking that the gambling and personal relationship/co-ed issues COULD explain actions/inactions post 2001. That's all.

I don't envy Mike but I can empathize him for his predicament. I'm not assigning right or wrong to his actions.

If he was manipulated because of those personal problems, then I do assign blame to those who took advantage of his vulnerability because they probably prevented the truth from coming to light from the start.

Mcquearys life is already ruined, they must really have him by the testeverdes if he's going to go on like this forever. If he thinks 4 million bucks is going to make him happy, I doubt it will.

 

[mathprof]

Putting my tinfoil hat back on. Did some wealthy individual put Mike up to these and cover his gambling debts because they wanted to force JoePa out to gain more control of the University because Joe did things the right way and all these scoundrels just wanted more money for themselves and more control on the case cow that was athletics but couldn't do it because Joe still had influence over the athletic department because Curly seemed to be running it pretty well.

That rumor is certainly going around. Wouldn't surprise me ...

 

[myronpsufootball]

That rumor is certainly going around. Wouldn't surprise me ...

Wasn't Joe set to retire anyway, and wouldn't this mysterious powerful person pulling strings know that? And so why would they destroy the program before taking control instead of just waiting 3 more games & taking control of a strong program coming off a pretty good/great year?

That theory makes no sense

 

[mathprof]

Wasn't Joe set to retire anyway, and wouldn't this mysterious powerful person pulling strings know that? And so why would they destroy the program before taking control instead of just waiting 3 more games & taking control of a strong program coming off a pretty good/great year?

That theory makes no sense

On the contrary, the theory is perfectly sensible.

While it is true that Joe had already decided to retire and this person knew, this person - whether the rumor is true or not - had a personal grudge against Paterno and was happy to retire him three games early.

By the way, in case it's not obvious to you, your argument is directly contradicted by the actions of many members of the November 2011 BoT.

 

[wensilver]

Yep. Sorry, but it's always been pretty simple to me. If McQueary saw in 2001 what he claims in 2010/11/12 to have seen and did what he did back in 2001 and moving forward, then he's a coward. If he didn't see in 2001 what he claims in 2010/11/12 to have seen, then he's a liar. I really don't know how there can be any other option. And given the reaction of everyone else in 2001 that he told or that knew about it, including his own father and his father's friend, I think it's pretty clear that what he saw in 2001 was nothing close to what he said he saw in 2010/11/12. Now why his story changed...that's the million dollar question.

Not to belabour the point anymore - we've analyzed the "McQueary episode" to the nth degree. We're all friends here - any female that has ever had sex in the shower with an adult male will tell you there is no "slapping" sound. If you've ever been sodomized, well... that's not the sound you'd be hearing.

Let's go back to Frank Fina & the AG's office.

It think it's been established that a creative use of a Grand Jury here in PA can be used to take out your political foe. We don't like you, we need to get rid of you, this is what we are going to do:

1. Leak about you to the press
2. Make you wildly unpopular in the Court of Public Opinion.
3. Slowly take away your rights
4. Slowly squeeze you of your financial, emotional & social resources
5. Let the court system grind you down into dust.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Given the MO of Frank Fina leaking to the press, and the type of pornography he and his pals found amusing, I am of the opinion that he placed that "anal intercourse" meme as an extra little "oomph" for shits and giggles, not realizing the shitstorm it would create.

His MO was the usual - make this a "controlled burn", which he has done in the past. Place this dumpster fire on PSU's doorstep and assure a high profile, impressive conviction and take out some Admins at PSU in the process. Fina would be known as that guy!

Unfortunately - when Noonan piped up with the "moral" thing and used the name "Paterno" - the high winds in the media fanned this contolled burn into a national firestorm. Jesus Christ - We didn't mean for that to happen! We just wanted to park this dumpster fire on the steps of the University!

They all ran for cover after that. Enter Louis Freeh with his "skill and luck" of finding the "secret emails" and now we can cover our asses for why we allowed Paterno to get torched and finally take out Spanier.

Anyway, that's my opinion and I let Kathleen Kane's office know about it.

 

[Marshall30]

Not to belabour the point anymore - we've analyzed the "McQueary episode" to the nth degree. We're all friends here - any female that has ever had sex in the shower with an adult male will tell you there is no "slapping" sound. If you've ever been sodomized, well... that's not the sound you'd be hearing.

Let's go back to Frank Fina & the AG's office.

It think it's been established that a creative use of a Grand Jury here in PA can be used to take out your political foe. We don't like you, we need to get rid of you, this is what we are going to do:

1. Leak about you to the press
2. Make you wildly unpopular in the Court of Public Opinion.
3. Slowly take away your rights
4. Slowly squeeze you of your financial, emotional & social resources
5. Let the court system grind you down into dust.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Given the MO of Frank Fina leaking to the press, and the type of pornography he and his pals found amusing, I am of the opinion that he placed that "anal intercourse" meme as an extra little "oomph" for shits and giggles, not realizing the shitstorm it would create.

His MO was the usual - make this a "controlled burn", which he has done in the past. Place this dumpster fire on PSU's doorstep and assure a high profile, impressive conviction and take out some Admins at PSU in the process. Fina would be known as that guy!

Unfortunately - when Noonan piped up with the "moral" thing and used the name "Paterno" - the high winds in the media fanned this contolled burn into a national firestorm. Jesus Christ - We didn't mean for that to happen! We just wanted to park this dumpster fire on the steps of the University!

They all ran for cover after that. Enter Louis Freeh with his "skill and luck" of finding the "secret emails" and now we can cover our asses for why we allowed Paterno to get torched and finally take out Spanier.

Anyway, that's my opinion and I let Kathleen Kane's office know about it.

Yep!

 

[myronpsufootball]

Not to belabour the point anymore - we've analyzed the "McQueary episode" to the nth degree. We're all friends here - any female that has ever had sex in the shower with an adult male will tell you there is no "slapping" sound.

Anyway, that's my opinion and I let Kathleen Kane's office know about it.

I dismiss/ignore the rest of your narrative. I am sure many would disagree about slapping sounds during sex in a shower. To deny that happens is ridiculous. I am a little sorry for you.

 

[demlion]

I dismiss/ignore the rest of your narrative. I am sure many would disagree about slapping sounds during sex in a shower. To deny that happens is ridiculous. I am a little sorry for you.

Wow. Pretentious much? You feel sorry for her, do ya? HAA! Jackass.

 

[Marshall30]

Not to belabour the point anymore - we've analyzed the "McQueary episode" to the nth degree. We're all friends here - any female that has ever had sex in the shower with an adult male will tell you there is no "slapping" sound. If you've ever been sodomized, well... that's not the sound you'd be hearing.

Let's go back to Frank Fina & the AG's office.

It think it's been established that a creative use of a Grand Jury here in PA can be used to take out your political foe. We don't like you, we need to get rid of you, this is what we are going to do:

1. Leak about you to the press
2. Make you wildly unpopular in the Court of Public Opinion.
3. Slowly take away your rights
4. Slowly squeeze you of your financial, emotional & social resources
5. Let the court system grind you down into dust.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Given the MO of Frank Fina leaking to the press, and the type of pornography he and his pals found amusing, I am of the opinion that he placed that "anal intercourse" meme as an extra little "oomph" for shits and giggles, not realizing the shitstorm it would create.

His MO was the usual - make this a "controlled burn", which he has done in the past. Place this dumpster fire on PSU's doorstep and assure a high profile, impressive conviction and take out some Admins at PSU in the process. Fina would be known as that guy!

Unfortunately - when Noonan piped up with the "moral" thing and used the name "Paterno" - the high winds in the media fanned this contolled burn into a national firestorm. Jesus Christ - We didn't mean for that to happen! We just wanted to park this dumpster fire on the steps of the University!

They all ran for cover after that. Enter Louis Freeh with his "skill and luck" of finding the "secret emails" and now we can cover our asses for why we allowed Paterno to get torched and finally take out Spanier.

Anyway, that's my opinion and I let Kathleen Kane's office know about it.

Wen.....are you available for a soap session?

 

[bjf1984]

I dismiss/ignore the rest of your narrative. I am sure many would disagree about slapping sounds during sex in a shower. To deny that happens is ridiculous. I am a little sorry for you.

WOW......I have to amend a previous post.....now that you have gone full-bore douchetard.

You now DO HAVE a contender for Dumbest Post of the Month.

Now.......before YOU get dismissed.......

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Mcquearys life is already ruined, they must really have him by the testeverdes if he's going to go on like this forever. If he thinks 4 million bucks is going to make him happy, I doubt it will.

WOW. Four million dollars would buy a whole bunch of RVs, imho.

 

[demlion]

Wen.....are you available for a soap session?

I am somebody who believes in bystanders making a difference. I wish I could PM you, but I can't. I may be way off here, and Wendy can speak for herself, but dont you think this is kind of inappropriate?

 

[Marshall30]

I am somebody who believes in bystanders making a difference. I wish I could PM you, but I can't. I may be way off here, and Wendy can speak for herself, but dont you think this is kind of inappropriate?

It was a joke.

 

[marshall23]

I don't think MM meant to do JVP any harm. I'm sure even he believed that Joe's role was simply to set up a meeting for MM with Administrators who could listen and take whatever actions deemed appropriate. There is no logical, or legal argument for JVP to have done anything more than he did. Outsiders who don't care to understand that JS was retired at the time and was never a friend of JVP to begin with, be damned.
As for slapping sounds.....if MM heard them, that is proof that there was no sexual activity. Someone is watching way too much porn......and we know who they are!

 

[lionlurker]

Not to belabour the point anymore - we've analyzed the "McQueary episode" to the nth degree. We're all friends here - any female that has ever had sex in the shower with an adult male will tell you there is no "slapping" sound. If you've ever been sodomized, well... that's not the sound you'd be hearing.

I guess it's how you're doing it, but I disagree with your conclusion about the presence of the slapping sounds. They certainly can be achieved when adult males and females are copulating in a shower and/or very wet environment.

Otherwise I don't think I've ever disagreed with anything else you've ever posted.

 

[marshall23]

I guess it's how you're doing it, but I disagree with your conclusion about the presence of the slapping sounds. They certainly can be achieved when adult males and females are copulating in a shower and/or very wet environment.

Otherwise I don't think I've ever disagreed with anything else you've ever posted.

If those sounds were generated by very large man having anal intercourse with a young boy, there would be injuries. I believe MM testified that the boy was "OK."

 

[mhentz]

Mcquearys life is already ruined, they must really have him by the testeverdes if he's going to go on like this forever. If he thinks 4 million bucks is going to make him happy, I doubt it will.

$4 million might not make Mike happy but it'll sure 'n' hell make misery a whole lot easier to take. I hope he gets it. He's been mistreated throughout all this.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

If those sounds were generated by very large man having anal intercourse with a young boy, there would be injuries. I believe MM testified that the boy was "OK."

At least you don't speculate. I didn't realize Dr. Red McQueary examined the boy after slamming his locker. Oh wait he isn't a doctor and never testified to an actual examination. Then again this was all of a decade old memory so maybe he forgot that he was a doctor or examined the boy thoroughly. Forget the shower crap and realize the sick tickle monster is a delusional crazy serial pedophile.

 

[lionlurker]

If those sounds were generated by very large man having anal intercourse with a young boy, there would be injuries. I believe MM testified that the boy was "OK."

Well, I was going to make a comment about how size disparities would perhaps cause one participant to perform with less than maximal vigor, but I couldn't phrase that to my liking. But since you brought it up, that could certainly come into play here.

So to speak.

 

[marshall23]

At least you don't speculate. I didn't realize Dr. Red McQueary examined the boy after slamming his locker. Oh wait he isn't a doctor and never testified to an actual examination. Then again this was all of a decade old memory so maybe he forgot that he was a doctor or examined the boy thoroughly. Forget the shower crap and realize the sick tickle monster is a delusional crazy serial pedophile.

Sorry, I don't know what your issue is. I reread my post. Did I say anything about Sandusky being innocent? I think the shower incident is crucial, since it has been used to indict TC, GS2 and defame JVP.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Sorry, I don't know what your issue is. I reread my post. Did I say anything about Sandusky being innocent? I think the shower incident is crucial, since it has been used to indict TC, GS2 and defame JVP.

Yep, collateral damage occurred because of Jerry. Life is often quite unfair and hopefully they get off assuming they are truly innocent. Then again JZ and company unearthed the missing sex tape so you never know!!!

 

[demlion]

It was a joke.

I know. An inappropriate joke.

 

[Marshall30]

I know. An inappropriate joke.

You'll have that.

 

[demlion]

You'll have that.

Not if we refuse to tolerate it.

 

[robbrunskill]

You'll have that.

How would you feel if someone made that comment to your significant other in a public forum or even in private for that matter? People where I work would face immediate disciplinary action.

 

[Misder2]

How would you feel if someone made that comment to your significant other in a public forum or even in private for that matter? People where I work would face immediate disciplinary action.

I think it's safe to assume that you do not work for Frank Fina and his cohorts.

 

[myronpsufootball]

How would you feel if someone made that comment to your significant other in a public forum or even in private for that matter? People where I work would face immediate disciplinary action.

HR would have to take into account that the woman posted intimate details about her own sex life on a public forum. The comment wasn't explicit in any way, and mostly nonsensical if the first post hadn't been made.

If I found out my significant other posted publicly implying that perhaps her love life was not very active/vigorous/noisy, I think I'd be a lot more upset about that than any following comments.

 

[robbrunskill]

HR would have to take into account that the woman posted intimate details about her own sex life on a public forum. The comment wasn't explicit in any way, and mostly nonsensical if the first post hadn't been made.

If I found out my significant other posted publicly implying that perhaps her love life was not very active/vigorous/noisy, I think I'd be a lot more upset about that than any following comments.

I believe Wendy intended her post to be illustrative not provocative

 

[Aoshiro]

$4 million might not make Mike happy but it'll sure 'n' hell make misery a whole lot easier to take. I hope he gets it. He's been mistreated throughout all this.

No sympathy for him until he comes clean. There is no way that he told Curley and Schultz that he was sure Sandusky was screwing a boy in the shower. No. Way.

 

[demlion]

HR would have to take into account that the woman posted intimate details about her own sex life on a public forum. The comment wasn't explicit in any way, and mostly nonsensical if the first post hadn't been made.

If I found out my significant other posted publicly implying that perhaps her love life was not very active/vigorous/noisy, I think I'd be a lot more upset about that than any following comments.

Wow. You are a piece of work.

 

[myronpsufootball]

No sympathy for him until he comes clean. There is no way that he told Curley and Schultz that he was sure Sandusky was screwing a boy in the shower. No. Way.

He's already testified to that. What else does he need to do?

 

[PSUSignore]

If those sounds were generated by very large man having anal intercourse with a young boy, there would be injuries. I believe MM testified that the boy was "OK."

Of course MM said that. He comes off looking even worse if he knew the boy was hurt and did nothing except for slamming his locker door and going home to tell his dad.

 

[Madsol]

Given that the actions of many align with the latter story, this is pretty much where I'm at as well. At least until we know more about conversation particulars between MM and Curley/Schultz which will hopefully (someday) come out at trial. I don't fault MM for not knocking Sandusky's lights out, like some on this board, and I'm not sure if that's why you would consider him a coward. I believe that most wouldn't know how they'd react to a similar situation unless actually experiencing for themselves. I could say I'd do this or I'd do that but I would be being dishonest with myself, I probably don't know what I'd do. But at a bare minimum I feel comfortable saying I'd call 911, and I think most would. But as to exact behaviors given the little nuances like MM's and JS's relationship with PSU football, MM's desire to get a job, MM's relationship with JS, what was actually seen, the fact that JS was always surrounded by Second Mile kids, etc., I can honestly say I don't know how I'd react.



This too sounds feasible. This would beg the question as to what was reported back to MM in 2001 and in 2010 since either has the potential for dishonesty, intentional or not. Given that these sort of investigations are treated with utmost confidentiality given the ramifications to one's reputation if leaked, I'm skeptical anyone would feel obligated to report back to MM though, but it's feasible.

The motive to report additional accusations to MM in 2010 could be to get a star witness on their side for conviction, if they knew MM potentially witnessed a similar incident years earlier.

I'm unsure what motive Curley and Schultz would have for any sort of dishonesty in 2001 to cover up a known sexual abuse incident and to tell MM nothing really happened however. Now of course it could have been that their investigation was flawed and they honestly didn't find anything. This could be either due to their lack of skill in such matters or due to sheer skill of JS to hide in plain sight despite their best efforts.

I've always given McQueary a pass for his immediate reaction. I agree with you in that no one can know for sure how they would react in such a situation, especially given the totality of the circumstances. But as months pass and then years and nothing comes of it? Nothing! I mean, c'mon man, you saw a child being raped (so you say now) and the cops haven't even talked with you about it. And you know exactly who the guy is who did it. What are you waiting for? Because you're worried about your job? Seriously? We're talking about a child being raped! By someone who heads up a children's charity!!! And you were an eye witness!!! And after nearly a decade, you finally spill the beans. Oh, not because your conscience finally got to you but because the cops finally got to you. Wow. Sorry, but that description is the perfect description of a coward in my book. And frankly, that's even with viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to McQueary. If we add in things like him participating in Sandusky's football clinic, golfing in his golf tourney...then that takes him from a coward to a monster. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's merely a coward.

 

[myronpsufootball]

I mean, c'mon man, you saw a child being raped (so you say now) and the cops haven't even talked with you about it. And you know exactly who the guy is who did it. What are you waiting for? Because you're worried about your job? Seriously? We're talking about a child being raped! By someone who heads up a children's charity!!! And you were an eye witness!!!

Right on! So the only explanation that makes sense is that he did not see a rape (as he's stated under oath). What's so hard to understand about this?

 

[WeR0206]

I've always given McQueary a pass for his immediate reaction. I agree with you in that no one can know for sure how they would react in such a situation, especially given the totality of the circumstances. But as months pass and then years and nothing comes of it? Nothing! I mean, c'mon man, you saw a child being raped (so you say now) and the cops haven't even talked with you about it. And you know exactly who the guy is who did it. What are you waiting for? Because you're worried about your job? Seriously? We're talking about a child being raped! By someone who heads up a children's charity!!! And you were an eye witness!!! And after nearly a decade, you finally spill the beans. Oh, not because your conscience finally got to you but because the cops finally got to you. Wow. Sorry, but that description is the perfect description of a coward in my book. And frankly, that's even with viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to McQueary. If we add in things like him participating in Sandusky's football clinic, golfing in his golf tourney...then that takes him from a coward to a monster. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's merely a coward.

My view of MM lines up pretty close to what you just wrote.

To me it really comes down to this.......either MM played revisionist history in 2010 thus making no one's actions in 2001 make any sense (and by doing so also threw everyone he told about 2001 under the bus)

Or MM, JM, and Dr. D (a medical doctor mind you) are all terrible people for thinking the proper course of action for certain child rape/moolestation would be to not call the cops ASAP and instead tell a football coach the next morning and NEVER once approach law enforcement to file a report/written statement so they could, you know, start an actual criminal investigation and NEVER once express any dissatisfaction or implore more needed to be done when the PSU admins had follow up conversations with MM and JM and never once even make an anonymous call to ChildLine (if MM really was worried about his career).

Either way doesn't make MM look very good but IMO the first scenario is much more believable.

 

[WeR0206]

Right on! So the only explanation that makes sense is that he did not see a rape (as he's stated under oath). What's so hard to understand about this?

In MM's 2010 written statement to OAG/PSP he said he was certain that sodomy was occurring. He also testified in a similar manner during the GJ proceedings.

The first time he started walking back that he was 100% certain sodomy was occurring was at the 12/16/11 prelim page 72 (re: his conversation with Joe). He said that based on the positions they were in, it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on but he wasn't 100% sure that that's what was going on.

If you can't see how that's night and day different than his 2010 written statement to OAG then I don't know what to tell you.

What it all boils down to is this. MM didn't actually see any rape, abuse, molestation, etc....he only ASSUMED it was happening based on the slapping sounds and the positioning he saw through a 2 second glimpse into a mirror. With that in mind it's no wonder that MM didn't EVER file a written statement to UPPD...he wasn't 100% sure exactly what JS and the kid were doing so he treated it as an HR issue and reported it up the chain instead of treating it as a suspected crime against a child that needs to be reported to law enforcement ASAP.

In this same 12/16/11 prelim testimony MM said he and his dad thought about calling the police that night but decided against it and instead told Joe the next morning. Why on Earth would anyone decide against that course of action if they were CERTAIN a kid was getting sodomized?? MM's 2010 written statement makes no sense and is contradicted by his own testimony at the 12/16/11 prelim.

 

[Aoshiro]

He's already testified to that. What else does he need to do?

McQueary testimony:

"Having some kind of intercourse with him. That's what I believe I saw."

"I would have described that it was extremely sexual and I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on."

Mike McQueary committed perjury and Bruce Beemer suborned perjury.
There is NO WAY that Mike McQueary told anyone in 2001 that Sandusky was screwing a boy in the shower. No. Way.