No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"

[PSU2UNC]

Because you loons make the PSU community look bad. You all have infiltrated the BOT and produce embarrassing sound clip that attack victims and make us look like idiots. Whether you believe it or not, you are hurting Penn State.

You don't get to decide who is hurting PSU and who is helping PSU.

The fact that "we" have "infiltrated" the BOT means that the people that actually care about PSU (i.e. care enough to spend 5 minutes voting for BOT) are of similar mindset to those of us you have labeled as delusional. So that ought to tell you something about where you fall in the continuum of having an outlier perspective.

 

[Zenophile]

Because you loons make the PSU community look bad. You all have infiltrated the BOT and produce embarrassing sound clip that attack victims and make us look like idiots. Whether you believe it or not, you are hurting Penn State.

So you've dedicated yourself to saving us from the truth. Very charitable of you.

 

[Mixolydian]

You don't get to decide who is hurting PSU and who is helping PSU.

The fact that "we" have "infiltrated" the BOT means that the people that actually care about PSU (i.e. care enough to spend 5 minutes voting for BOT) are of similar mindset to those of us you have labeled as delusional. So that ought to tell you something about where you fall in the continuum of having an outlier perspective.

Exactly. Because why change when the approach this tool has endorsed has worked out so well for PSU.

 

[marshall23]

Because you loons make the PSU community look bad. You all have infiltrated the BOT and produce embarrassing sound clip that attack victims and make us look like idiots. Whether you believe it or not, you are hurting Penn State.

We make PSU look bad and you are here to be her champion. My hero!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

We make PSU look bad and you are here to be her champion. My hero!

Yea, he and his corrupt BOT and political pals have made PSU looks so good over the past 5 years with their self-serving provably False Narrative.... This douche-bag and his corrupt masters is such a raging piece of human excrement, you couldn't even make up this big a servile POS in a fiction novel.

 

[Zenophile]

We make PSU look bad and you are here to be her champion. My hero!

It still absolutely burns me that in her hour of greatest need, those on whom she relied for leadership chose instead to surrender to fear & public opinion.

 

[Mixolydian]

It still absolutely burns me that in her hour of greatest need, those on whom she relied for leadership chose instead to surrender to fear & public opinion.

So well said!

 

[marshall23]

It still absolutely burns me that in her hour of greatest need, those on whom she relied for leadership chose instead to surrender to fear & public opinion.

I think that may describe about 2 dozen of the "decorative" trustees who were morphing into the proverbial deer in headlights. John Surma was clearly a man with a plan. He was on speed dial with porky Corbett and it wasn't social.

 

[no1lion99]

That is obvious to anyone beyond a complete idiot on a mission. Unfortunately we have a few of those around here. Thankfully very few.

So your working theory is that Mike called Dad, Dranov, Paterno, and had a follow up with Curley and Schultz because he thought 57 year old Jerry was doing non-sexual, non-criminal things late at night in a non-public shower with a young boy that may or may not have included one of Jerry's famous naked bear hugs (Schultz's testimony)? Tell us, what exactly was Mike so upset (again Paterno's testimony) about then? I am sure you have a brilliant theory.

 

[pandaczar12]

Sorry but you are delusional.

Which is troll distraction language for "I can't refute even a small part of your post."

No, the public is outraged because MM let a number of people know that he witnessed suspected CSA and nothing happened to the pedo.

The public is outraged because TV told them to be outraged. Not one person has testified in court that MM told them of suspected CSA, not even his own father. Why do you feel the need to ignore sworn testimony?

You just don't want to accept reality.

You're projecting again.

CSS were found/pled guilty. Im not fighting reality, you are.

CSS were found not guilty of nearly all charges. The jury foreman is on the record saying that Spanier's misdemeanor conviction was a mistake. It will be overturned soon enough. C&S were stupid to plead guilty, as they too would have been eventually cleared. Their testimony is more proof that they were never aware of suspected CSA... no one was.

 

[pandaczar12]

So your working theory is that Mike called Dad, Dranov, Paterno, and had a follow up with Curley and Schultz because he thought 57 year old Jerry was doing non-sexual, non-criminal things late at night in a non-public shower with a young boy that may or may not have included one of Jerry's famous naked bear hugs (Schultz's testimony)? Tell us, what exactly was Mike so upset (again Paterno's testimony) about then? I am sure you have a brilliant theory.

So your working hypothesis (I refuse to misuse the word theory) is that Mike's dad, Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Raykovitz all acted like they never heard of suspected CSA to avoid the good publicity associated with helping to catch a predator, and then lied about it under oath. Do you think they did this all independently (statistically impossible), or was it a coordinated cover up that you believe occurred despite no conspiracy convictions?

 

[no1lion99]

So your working hypothesis (I refuse to misuse the word theory) is that Mike's dad, Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Raykovitz all acted like they never heard of suspected CSA to avoid the good publicity associated with helping to catch a predator, and then lied about it under oath. Do you think they did this all independently (statistically impossible), or was it a coordinated cover up that you believe occurred despite no conspiracy convictions?

You should look in a dictionary and thesaurus once in a while.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

So your working theory is that Mike called Dad, Dranov, Paterno, and had a follow up with Curley and Schultz because he thought 57 year old Jerry was doing non-sexual, non-criminal things late at night in a non-public shower with a young boy that may or may not have included one of Jerry's famous naked bear hugs (Schultz's testimony)? Tell us, what exactly was Mike so upset (again Paterno's testimony) about then? I am sure you have a brilliant theory.

No @sshole, Mike McQueary clearly had some "concerns" about the circumstances of what he experienced that night and Dr. Dranov says that the purpose of their conversation was to discuss the proper handling of those concerns! Dr. Dranov also states that it was decided that the PROPER HANDLING of the concerns was via MM's Employer's HR Protocol for the reporting of suspicious activity in the workplace, because what MM described to his father and Dr. Dranov DID NOT WARRANT a call to the police due to the fact that Mike did not describe seeing anything despite being asked point blank multiple times if he saw something criminal.

Conjecturing and speculating about what "might have been going on" in response to someone asking you what you saw, is not "eyewitnessing" anything and more importantly does not give a basis for the party asking the question to escalate the matter. IN FACT, the more times you refuse to answer the simple, direct and specific question asked, but instead answer with an obtuse, meaningless non-answer, the more you will ERODE your credibility with the other party that you actually saw something and that your concerns were based upon what you saw, rather than emotion and speculation! McQueary's non-answers eroded his credibility with everyone he spoke with directly after the incident in 2001 -- his father and Dr. Dranov recommended NOT CALLING POLICE and to report via HR Protocol for "Suspicious Activity in Workplace", JVP says he wasn't sure what exactly MM witnessed, so forwarded via HR Policy & Procedure, Schultz & Curley say MM wasn't specific and was all over the place in regards to his characterization, etc.... The only people who claim MM was very clear about seeing and eyewitnessing sodomy sexual assault is the OAG and none other than Mike McQueary himself says they are liars in this representation of his testimony and statements both in written e-mail to the OAG after the release of the Presentment and multiple times under oath in a PA Court of Law, including the 30th SWIGJ (MM testified he DID NOT see or eyewitness what the OAG claimed in their 33rd SWIGJ Presentment TO THE 30th SWIGJ - again, MM's actual testimony to the 30th SWIGJ was the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of how the OAG claimed he testified in their INTENTIONALLY Fraudulent 33rd SWIGJ Presentment!).

Laughable to claim that because MM decided to report a locker-room incident via the HR Protocol for reporting "Suspicious Activity in the Workplace" it proves a crime was committed, let alone Anal Rape when MM himself has stated numerous times on the record that he witnessed no such thing and only ever speculated about such things with ANYONE he spoke to!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

So your working hypothesis (I refuse to misuse the word theory) is that Mike's dad, Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Raykovitz all acted like they never heard of suspected CSA to avoid the good publicity associated with helping to catch a predator, and then lied about it under oath. Do you think they did this all independently (statistically impossible), or was it a coordinated cover up that you believe occurred despite no conspiracy convictions?

Yet 3 of them talked about reporting it to DPW,,,,but they didn't suspect anything? You hold that party line tight now, don't ya???? Don't worry though, Dr. Jack said to wear swim trunks as he knew Jerry better. It wasn't a cover up, but sheer stupidity.

 

[getmyjive11]

CSS were charged with multiple very serious felonies and were found/plead guilty to 1 misdemeanor each. A misdemeanor. Like vandalism or pot possession or a DUI. And even those are BS charges.

They were guilty. Rationalize it however you want, the world sees them as guilty.

 

[getmyjive11]

You don't get to decide who is hurting PSU and who is helping PSU.

The fact that "we" have "infiltrated" the BOT means that the people that actually care about PSU (i.e. care enough to spend 5 minutes voting for BOT) are of similar mindset to those of us you have labeled as delusional. So that ought to tell you something about where you fall in the continuum of having an outlier perspective.

You are denying that idiotic statements like the one from Lord hurts PSU??

 

[getmyjive11]

So you've dedicated yourself to saving us from the truth. Very charitable of you.

We already know the 99% of the truth. You can't handle it apparently.

 

[AvgUser]

So your working theory is that Mike called Dad, Dranov, Paterno, and had a follow up with Curley and Schultz because he thought 57 year old Jerry was doing non-sexual, non-criminal things late at night in a non-public shower with a young boy that may or may not have included one of Jerry's famous naked bear hugs (Schultz's testimony)? Tell us, what exactly was Mike so upset (again Paterno's testimony) about then? I am sure you have a brilliant theory.

Easy

Mike first spoke to dad and Dranov. They did not feel that a crime was committed, but advised to go speak to Paterno.

Paterno listened and admitted he did not know how to handle the situation (for a few reasons). JoePa made arrangements for Mike to speak to C&S

Mike spoke to C&S. Again we heard that nothing criminal was conveyed by Mike.

We have heard Mike state that he was satisfied with how matters were handled and that his state of mind w/r/t the ordeal was okay

Actions of all the people Mike spoke to clearly indicate that they treated the situation as an administrative matter (i.e., boundary issues) and nothing more. Nobody, but nobody to whom Mike spoke to in 2001 acted with grave concern that a criminal/CSA activity happened. They just didn;t get that message or impression from the earwitness. C&S indicated that they looked in to the matter but they did not have information to indicate CSA. Easy-peasy

So, why was Mike upset? Who knows. But, if we accept that his heroic deed was only to slam a locker door, then him getting upset can easily be viewed as Mike being Mike and afraid of his own shadow, So, you take his being upset with a grain of salt.

 

[Zenophile]

We already know the 99% of the truth. You can't handle it apparently.

If only we all had been as blessed with the gift of your certainty.

 

[Zenophile]

They were guilty. Rationalize it however you want, the world sees them as guilty.

~> https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threa...-political-hit-job.171686/page-6#post-2746521

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

We already know the 99% of the truth. You can't handle it apparently.

Yea, and none of it lines up with the intentionally fraudulent 33rd SWIGJ Presentment produced by the ever corrupt OAG, but this doesn't bother you in the least - go figure!

 

[no1lion99]

@AvgUser the only kink in your explanation is that Gary took it seriously enough to call a lawyer and was provided the legal advice to report it.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

@AvgUser the only kink in your explanation is that Gary took it seriously enough to call a lawyer and was provided the legal advice to report it.

that is a lie and you know it

 

[PSU2UNC]

They were guilty. Rationalize it however you want, the world sees them as guilty.

So if the 3 administrators were found guilty of spray painting a giant phallus on Old Main would the world be outraged? Because that's the level of crime that Tim and Gary plead guilty to. Graham will have his conviction overturned.

 

[no1lion99]

that is a lie and you know it

No its a fact confirmed by multiple instances of court testimony.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

No its a fact confirmed by multiple instances of court testimony.

wrong again. certainly living up to your twitter nickname lately

I wonder, who rattled your cage to make a run at gmj as "most insane liar on BWI"??

 

[WeR0206]

No its a fact confirmed by multiple instances of court testimony.

No it's not. Courtney said (in addition to confirming nothing SEXUAL was ever reported to him re: 2001) that he advised they COULD report to DPW if they wanted to be prudent but they didn't have to. If you don't know the difference between that and them being told they HAD to report it then I don't know what to tell you.

The fact of the matter is the admins forwarding MM's report to the child care experts and mandatory reporters at TSM should have triggered a report to CC CYS but it didn't. JR's own testimony stated TSM was a proper place for TC to take his concerns/report due to their mission of child protection. That failure is on TSM, not on the admins

 

[AWS1022]

Because you loons make the PSU community look bad. You all have infiltrated the BOT and produce embarrassing sound clip that attack victims and make us look like idiots. Whether you believe it or not, you are hurting Penn State.

And you're doing so much good for PSU. Maybe you could have helped out Duke lacrosse and Richard Jewel. Where were you when they needed you?

 

[no1lion99]

wrong again. certainly living up to your twitter nickname lately

I wonder, who rattled your cage to make a run at gmj as "most insane liar on BWI"??

McQueary Trial testimony at 67:

WC: "I advised him that I thought it would be the smart thing, the prudent thing, to have this reported to the Department of Public Welfare"

No official transcript yet but reports of trial testimony from Spanier trial:

"Courtney noted he advised Schultz to report the case to child welfare officials for an investigation to see if the shower incident was "completely innocent or something other than completely innocent...."

 

[no1lion99]

No it's not. Courtney said (in addition to confirming nothing SEXUAL was ever reported to him re: 2001) that he advised they COULD report to DPW if they wanted to be prudent but they didn't have to. If you don't know the difference between that and them being told they HAD to report it then I don't know what to tell you.

The fact of the matter is the admins forwarding MM's report to the child care experts and mandatory reporters at TSM should have triggered a report to CC CYS but it didn't. JR's own testimony stated TSM was a proper place for TC to take his concerns/report due to their mission of child protection. That failure is on TSM, not on the admins

1. When a lawyer offers you advice its called legal advice. I never said he told them they had a legal duty to follow through. If the incident was so innocent why did GS call a lawyer? Do you generally call a lawyer when you don't think a law was broken?

2.JR isn't a lawyer.

 

[AvgUser]

@AvgUser the only kink in your explanation is that Gary took it seriously enough to call a lawyer and was provided the legal advice to report it.

Courtney used an "IF" in his statement(s) as in "IF something were described to me that was CSA then I would have advised such and such. Sometimes those little words we overlook make all the difference in the world.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Courtney used an "IF" in his statement(s) as in "IF something were described to me that was CSA then I would have advised such and such. Sometimes those little words we overlook make all the difference in the world.

Moron John lives up to his name!

 

[WeR0206]

1. When a lawyer offers you advice its called legal advice. I never said he told them they had a legal duty to follow through. If the incident was so innocent why did GS call a lawyer? Do you generally call a lawyer when you don't think a law was broken?

2.JR isn't a lawyer.

1. I never said the incident was 100% innocent, the admins were obviously concerned by it due to the circumstances, but reaching out to a lawyer about what to do over a late night inappropriate shower that made a GA feel uncomfortable sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It doesn't prove that the incident was a 5 alarm fire. People contact lawyers all the time because they're not sure if a law was broken, IOW, for issues that are in the "grey" area, exactly like the issue reported by MM in 2001.

2. And your point is? JR isn't a lawyer but he was a state licensed psychologist running a state licensed children's charity that had oversight of JS and his access to kids. IOW he was 1000X more qualified to handle MM's vague assumption riddled report vs. college admins. JR's admission that the PSU admins took their concerns to the right place (TSM) isn't insignificant.

 

[Mixolydian]

So your working theory is that Mike called Dad, Dranov, Paterno, and had a follow up with Curley and Schultz because he thought 57 year old Jerry was doing non-sexual, non-criminal things late at night in a non-public shower with a young boy that may or may not have included one of Jerry's famous naked bear hugs (Schultz's testimony)? Tell us, what exactly was Mike so upset (again Paterno's testimony) about then? I am sure you have a brilliant theory.

My working theory is that he saw Sandusky taking a shower with a young boy, which is inappropriate regardless of what they were doing in the shower (Sandusky was grooming the boy is my theory but no way to be certain). By his own testimony (all versions) he wasn't sure what he saw and focused on the ridiculous slapping sounds story. If he was sure of what witnessed he clearly watered it down for a decade for some unknown reason, perhaps because he thought that was best for his coaching career.

Your theory is that he told all of those decent people that he saw Sandusky doing something sexual ("some form of intercourse") with the boy and none of them took it very seriously. Now that is brilliant. Seriously how do asshats like you and jive get through the day?

 

[PSU Dave]

They were guilty. Rationalize it however you want, the world sees them as guilty.

Which is exactly what you want. I suspect the final chapter hasn't been written.

 

[BobPSU92]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

1. I never said the incident was 100% innocent, the admins were obviously concerned by it due to the circumstances, but reaching out to a lawyer about what to do over a late night inappropriate shower that made a GA feel uncomfortable sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It doesn't prove that the incident was a 5 alarm fire. People contact lawyers all the time because they're not sure if a law was broken, IOW, for issues that are in the "grey" area, exactly like the issue reported by MM in 2001.

2. And your point is? JR isn't a lawyer but he was a state licensed psychologist running a state licensed children's charity that had oversight of JS and his access to kids. IOW he was 1000X more qualified to handle MM's vague assumption riddled report vs. college admins. JR's admission that the PSU admins took their concerns to the right place (TSM) isn't insignificant.

Not to mention that Courtney was PSU's General Counsel in 2001, so Schultz contacting PSU's General Counsel about an Employee's HR Report of Suspicious Activity in the Workplace by a known, former-employee, authorized-user of the Facility is hardly surprising or really meets the OP's description of "reaching out to a lawyer".....LMFAO, speaks volumes about the @sshole OP's intentions.

 

[no1lion99]

My working theory is that he saw Sandusky taking a shower with a young boy, which is inappropriate regardless of what they were doing in the shower (Sandusky was grooming the boy is my theory but no way to be certain). By his own testimony (all versions) he wasn't sure what he saw and focused on the ridiculous slapping sounds story. If he was sure of what witnessed he clearly watered it down for a decade for some unknown reason, perhaps because he thought that was best for his coaching career.

Your theory is that he told all of those decent people that he saw Sandusky doing something sexual ("some form of intercourse") with the boy and none of them took it very seriously. Now that is brilliant. Seriously how do asshats like you and jive get through the day?

No that's not my theory at all because you added your own definition of what you consider "sexual". That's not how experts think of it and that's not what I said. What i have said is that Sandusky was naked with a child in shower. That alone is a red flag to most qualified experts and it wasn't the admins' job to investigate such activity because they aren't experts. Sometimes even experts aren't sure what is going on. But Lo and behold CSS messed it up two ways to sunday.

What I do know is if any of them had reported it as Courtney suggested to one of the two agencies and documented it (like in notes or with a written communication of some sort) then they would all be free men today. Would Jerry have been arrested then? Maybe, maybe not, but that's a separate story.

 

[Mixolydian]

Do you generally call a lawyer when you don't think a law was broken?

You have said countless dumb things in you posts on this topic. Far too many to mention. But this has to rank right at the top of the list.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

good advice. Moron John back to ignore

funny how he always touts how the Paternos distanced themselves from Ziegler

but never mentions how many people have distanced themselves from HIM