People I haven't heard say that they wish they did more if they had the benefit of hindsight
-Mike McQueary
-John McQueary
-Dr Dranov
-TSM's Jack R
-Mike McQueary
-John McQueary
-Dr Dranov
-TSM's Jack R
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Not so sure about that. It's being said he testified in this trial that he told tim and garry he saw jerry molesting a boy in the shower. If that is a direct quote, then that's a change in his story because up until this point he has always stated "he made it clear" or "would have said" type of thing. If he would have just come out and said it instead of beating around the bush we may not be here. However, now it spills like he is saying he came right out and said it
Nah. I never met Paterno. Walked by him a few times. Again, it means nothing.
Okay, sure.
Not a poor attempt to change the subject at all, I'm tired of posting about it and would rather just read updates on the trial.
Lauro never saw Seascock's report nor the other psychologist's report.
http://deadspin.com/5895607/investi...tant-information-about-jerry-sandusky-in-1998
Think about everything he's stated as fact for years now.... he was basically wrong. Then mix in his odd behavior and you can almost see an episode coming on.
That doesn't mean he didn't modify the story to add the "sexual" and "slapping sounds" ten years after the fact. Again, as I asked dukie, where did Schultz get the "sliding in the shower" description he told Courtney? Seems way too specific to fabricate.
Serious question. Did Jerry still have foster kids living with him through DPW after the 1998 incedent or had he already adopted them?
Just in today's notes there seems to be inconsistency. Not from Mike, but from those he spoke to.
1. I've seen reports today that Mike again stated he didn't report anything sexual to Joe, out of respect for the coach. The AP article however states that Mike stated he made it clear to both Joe and Curley/Shultz it was sexual. I'm not sure which take is true without a transcript.
2. Notes about Dranov's testimony today stated that he said Mike didn't "see" anything, but instead heard sounds and saw the arm grab a boy from behind a wall.
3. Curley said he was never told it was sexual by Mike.
So just from the unofficial reports from today there are massive inconsistencies, which has been common for 6 years. They may not be inconsistencies from Mike directly, but there are inconsistencies as to what others say he told them. And we still don't know what is true because there are no records of any of it.
Sandusky played a dual role as Cash Cow and Trojan Horse. Those who may have suspected the worst may have had the greatest motivation to ignore.
I can't imagine having to deal with cancer and dealing with the idiots in the OAG all at the same time.
@Tom McAndrew, many years ago you said when it's all said and done some people would come out looking better than we thought at the time, and some would look worse. Now that we have guilty pleas from 2 parties, and an looming verdict for Spanier, are you able to elaborate?
If I can find it there is a video of an interview with Mike stating he never told Joe that saw anything sexual happen out of respect for Joe and also that Joe would not even have understood such behavior... I will try to find it. The center piece in all this is Mike.... he has always seemed an unreliable, loose cannon to me.
I was referring specifically to the testimony in this trial only. I'm aware that Mike is on record from prior testimony saying something similar.
JR Heim and Poole all received the report. You need to ask the AG when will they be charged.
That is tricky because it is hard to appear sympathetic when questioning a victim. I sure think someone should have questioned him along the way. Being off by a couple years is one thing when you are 40+ years old, but being off by 3 or more years when you are 12-13 is like 25% of your life. Hard to imagine
WTF does this mean?
As a side note I hope President Trump cuts every last tree down and you go away forever.
Dang when they saw what happened to Joe after speaking those words no wonder. They all realize Joe didn't nothing wrong and got crucified so why would guilty guys risk saying that?
Yes it could be, through Paterno. Schultz testified today that Paterno told him it was "horseplay." So was Paterno lying?
Did Schultz say he told Spanier something special? Makes TC and GS look bad but not Spanier.
And I hope she is impacted by Rick Perry's "rightsizing" of the DOE and its' many contractors.
No way is that even close to being powerful, it is weak. Obviously something bad happened, something went wrong that JS was molesting boys using Penn State facilities to groom his victims. So everyone has regrets in hindsight, but to translate that into bad faith, malice, or any sort of cover-up is vaporous and tortured logic.
I'd be happy to provide assistance.
Just walked by slowly the last time I saw him. That was in the summer of 2011.
...and exactly what Alan Meyers told Sandusky's investigator he was doing.
He may have been told the results of Seasocks report, however. Would have to see his GJ testimony but that may have been a reason he backed off.
I think it makes C/S bad only in the sense of their GJ testimony. Otherwise, they are still basically saying that they didn't think any abuse had occurred.
Were you were skipping your critical thinking class at the time?
Similar threads
