More hush money will be paid...
- Thread starter eloracv
- Start date
If a settlement can't be reached and this does go to trial, I don't expect much new information about the Scandal will emerge. This trial will be about McQueary's employment viability after November 2011 and after O'Brien was hired and whether Penn State acted to restrict job opportunities for McQueary. I don't see how the details of the Lasch incident are germaine to McQueary's employment prospects.
Depending on the organization, it might be a hard sell. Just a little bit of one.
Really? I would have pretty serious doubts about the character of a person who purportedly witnessed a child being sexually assaulted and walked away without intervening or calling the police. I would have a pretty hard time imagining myself hiring that person to serve in a capacity where one of their functions is to teach and train young men.
All of which is immaterial wrt McQ's suit vs PSU...........but don't let that stop ya'!
Kinda' like the "logic" that says its less of a crime to murder someone who is a smoker and an IV drug user.........since his life was already more "at risk".
Last edited:
If Mike tries to argue (and I think that he is) that PSU damaged his employment prospects through its treatment of him, then PSU can legitimately respond that Mike's employment prospects have been damaged by other factors, including his behavior on that night in 2001.
My guess is that the comment was meant to be taken more along the lines of:
"......I don't see how the details of the Lasch incident are germaine to McQueary's Employment-related lawsuit vs PSU....."
Which creates an entirely different context.
Sigh. That's not what happened here at all, Mr. "I only read the headlines."
The question is, if MM has no case, why would PSU settle? And if MM has a really strong case, why does he settle?
I imagine neither of the parties want anything resembling the truth to come out.
I fervently hope that MM at some point takes the high ground and tells the whole story. The truth is his reward, and it's his only hope for a happy life, in my opinion.
I imagine neither of the parties want anything resembling the truth to come out.
I fervently hope that MM at some point takes the high ground and tells the whole story. The truth is his reward, and it's his only hope for a happy life, in my opinion.
Could PSU bring up other stuff too, like the alleged pics he texted or the alleged gambling?
We always hear that the AG had this leverage against him and used it to get him to change his story... would be ironic if PSU also used it against him. His best bet would be to come clean about what happened.
I'm all for a trial - - - and the public airing of ANY significant information:
But what NEW AND INFORMATIVE part of the "whole story" (vav MM) do you expect to come out now - - - as a result of MM taking the stand? After he has already been on the stand 3 times? 4 times? More than that?
Now, if we were talking about the mythical CSS trials......that would be something (potentially) different......
If we were talking about having CSS on the stand - addressing these issues.....that would be something different......
If somehow this trial had an "avenue" to crack open the iron curtain surrounding the PSU BOT.....that would be something different.......
But that's not what we are going to see
Alas.
I want to see more and more facts come to light
I want to see more and more of the questions (the ones that are relevant to my concerns) asked
I want to see "debate" (ie examination, cross-examination etc) of key issues and key players in this whole sordid fiasco
But the idea that putting the same guy on the stand- who has already been there numerous times - being asked the same questions about the same topics (and I doubt the conversations will even get as far as where they have gone in the earlier testimonies) is now suddenly going to shed an entirely new light on ANYTHING......I believe is likely wishful thinking.
Kinda' like that fallacy from - what is it now? 2 or 3 years ago? - about how the Paterno et al suit (after Corman "put the ball on the one yard line" LMAO) was going to push the ball into the "end zone of truth".
Right.
When we have folks (PSU Trustees, Officers within PA OAG, etc) who are CHARGED WITH, who have an OBLIGATION TO ask the appropriate questions......they not only DO NOT do that - - they act, consistently, to further bury those questions (and answers).
Not exactly realistic to expect anything to change.....until THAT does.
When you are a witness caught in the middle of a situation EXACTLY like this and being skewered from every side, I'd like to see you step out there before everything is over and "tell the truth" as you say. Your lawyer would tell you you're nuts.
My post was about Baircub being sort of a jerk. You and Aoshiro can nitpick my statements all you want to obscure that point. I'm not going to play the misdirect game.
Not being a jerk... We just fundamentally disagree... I'm not into name calling etc btw...
But I'll say this... If I knew a buddy of mine was in a locker room late at night... And saw a 10 year old son being sexually assaulted ? Or in an uncomfortable situation with an older naked man in a shower...and he did nothing but slam a locker door... I would question him as well.
Over ... I'm out . We each have to live with our own actions. MM will live with what he did or did not do forever...
I feel bad for him in the position he was out in... I did not feel bad for what I personally see as the " right thing" to do in my eyes.
The thing is, it's not as if McQueary was some wimp of a kid, and Jerry was some kind of Mike Tyson character. Gerry was a 60 year old man, of what looks to be about average size and strength for his age, while Mike was 6'5" tall and about 230 pounds. It's not as if he couldn't have walked into that shower and physically restrained Sandusky. Hell at minimum, it's not as if Sandusky was going to kick his behind if he called the cops right there and then, like EVERY OTHER RATIONAL HUMAN ON EARTH would have done.
I'll go one further: How does ANYONE who then hears it from Mike, NOT call the cops themselves. When it finally got to Joe, Joe called his friend the cop Gary Schultz, which was the right thing to do. Why didn't ANYONE ELSE do that?
If he saw what he says he saw, then you have a damn good question.
That's the whole thing that makes the entire scenario hard to believe. Mike is/was a giant. Sandusky was an old guy. Mike is apparently not the greatest guy in the world, but no rational human stands by and lets a kid get raped.
Either Mike didn't see anything of the sort, or else he's the biggest coward imaginable. There is no middle ground.
Well, others didn't see anything. They weren't there. One guy was there. It's HIS flippin' job to call the damn cops.
Occam's razor: The simplest explanation is that in 2001 Mike did not tell anyone that he had seen Sandusky sexually molesting a child.
According to Mike, Mike told his Dad. Again, that's according to Mike. I have no idea what his father says on the matter.
Exactly. I don't actually give a shit how many times he changes his story, and he's changed it, what, five times at last count? Any way you slice it, either he lied about seeing anything at all, or, he is a heartless, cruel, piece of shit. I ain't buying the coward thing: The guy towers over Sandusky and Sandusky at that point had begun to resemble a somewhat frail older man.
Eschbach wrote the GJP and included the 'anal rape' phrase; she also said McQ did not use that phrase during his GJ testimony. She testified to this under oath in Sandusky's recent re-trial hearing. Whether or not Fina had a hand in the phrasing was not asked. Speculation is that he did.
Fina was clearly aware of the inclusion of that language in advance of the "release" of the Presentment.
BTW, oral arguments tomorrow on Pre-Trial motions in C/S/S in Dauphin County at 9:30 am.
Judge has ordered everyone to be seated by 8:25 am.
Judge has ordered everyone to be seated by 8:25 am.
Neither Dad nor Dranov have testified that Mike told them that night in 2001 that he witnessed a sexual assault.
Right. But Mike testified that HE DID tell his father, is this correct?
I am throwing out the idea that he didn't witness a sexual assault. According to his testimony, he did in fact witness a sexual assault.
McQueary sued Penn State in October 2012, saying his treatment by the university caused lost earnings as well as "distress, anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment." He said that Penn State discriminated against him for cooperating with the Jerry Sandusky criminal investigation, delayed severance payments and did not allow him to reapply for a position in 2012.
If Penn State treated him differently from the other fired coaches due to his role in The Sandusky case, there may be some validity to his whistleblower case as the laws provide him certain protections. I personally don't think it's a strong case, but he has an argument nontheless.
According to Mike's December 2011 preliminary hearing testimony this is what he told his Dad:
"I said I just saw Coach Sandusky in the showers with a boy and what I saw was wrong and sexual and I needed some advice quickly."
Now at the time Mike placed that call, Sandusky was purportedly still in the building with the boy. So what does John McQueary advise Mike to do? According to Mike his dad told him to come home. So the McQuearys are a bunch of dirtbags who think that it's OK to leave a child with an adult who's sexually abusing him, or Mike is a liar.
What a joke. I had a better chance of joining O'Brien's staff than McQ did. And I sure as hell have a brighter future in football than he does.
He got paid off on his contract. He's not eligible for additional severance, retirement, emeritus, or Penn State Medals. He should use some of his severance to get a dye job (he can ask Joel Myers
for a referral) and then GTFO.
I am not trying to defend Mike, but I don't think that is the point. The point is, was he treated differently than the other fired coaches?
The legal point is if they delayed making the severance payments to him but did not delay in making severance payments to the other fired coaches, he was treated differently. The other things aren't relevant. It becomes a discrimination against the whistleblower argument.
His life is ruined and penn state WILL pay him. Why wouldn't he go for the cash here? Fake accusers from 40 years ago got $300,000 for showing up. He'll get more than the $4 million he's asking for, and a non-disclosure agreement. Like when PMI gave Penn State $2 million and a non-disclosure agreement. Penn State paid what, like $98 million that PMI wouldn't cover just so they could have non-disclosure and have a "happy amicable agreement" press release. PMI doesn't care about press releases, they got to keep their money.
Yes, they took away his car, his cell phone (with pictures included!) and paid him his severance later than the other coaches. It was a moronic move by penn state, but the university is lead by morons, so not unexpected. Mike will get paid.
Then Eschbach lied in the Presentment. Would that not be prosecutorial misconduct?
That, and some other key points (e.g. pre-trial meeting at the Hilton Gardens which included the judge and attorneys on both sides to negotiate bail), are what the Sandusky attorneys are claiming. Those are the areas of concern that lead some to believe that a new trial is not out of the question.
The judge also wants Aaron Meyers and Sarah Ganim to testify in the next hearing. Wants... insists on.... however it is phrased, it sounds like those two will be on the stand under oath at some point soon.
He just has to argue PSU retaliated, which is not a high hurdle at all.
They also removed him from his job in Nov. 2011, not when FLO (I love that nickname, BTW) came on board.
