I'm sure that after Curley's testimony.......GSch was the recipient in a very one-sided conversation with the Prosecution.....wherein he was "reminded" of the parameters of his "deal".
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Not at all. He posts on 247 and this topic is almost never even mentioned there. I think the mob mentality here has grown over the years and some people just want to hear only the peachy things about PSU and Joe. He was right on a few things and TC brought that out yesterday, yet people are still jumping on him for it. You want to get jive riled up...tell him you're an RU fan and hate PSU.
I think they all failed. I'm not sure how MM can talk about JS and a boy showering together and hearing "sexual sounds" and not believe that is enough info to go to police. Mike was clearly stunned and needed guidance. Telling him to go talk to the football coach was utterly ridiculous.
One thing about Shultz' testimony which, IMO, is not believable. Someone told him "it has been taken care of", meaning it was reported, and he "thinks" it was Spanier who told him this but he is not sure. First of all, the state's theory is the entire universe who was handling this for PSU consisted of 3 people. So either Curley or Spanier would have had to be the one to tell Shultz it had been reported. So if he is not sure it was Spanier, it must have been Curley, right? So if you are the state why not ask Curley directly as he was their witness, did you tell Gary it had been reported? This eliminates all confusion as if Tim says "no", then it must have been Spanier ..... if Shultz is to be believed. But further, all agree (I think) that Curley and Shultz were taking the lead on this and keeping Spanier in the loop. So why would Shultz be out of the loop and Spanier would be telling him that it was reported? This would imply TC and GS were communicating privately and Shultz was not involved, only to be briefed later by Spanier. IMHO, not even remotely credible and this was a very desperate Hail Mary by the prosecution to try to establish some very remote opportunity for the jury to latch onto something to use to convict Spanier.
This is exactly right. Everyone, including Mike, acted like it was strange not sexual/evil. If Mike truly thought it was sexual and evil, then he is either a coward for not doing more, or also a horrendously lousy communicator by not making sure others understood what he saw/heard/thought, or both.
This is what's known as a "fundamental attribution error."
Do you believe Mike McQueary?
I think we can safely count Mike as a horrible communicator. Did you see those emails he sent out to coaches looking for an assistant coaching job? Good grief....
I agree that we should always address each other respectfully. But let's be honest dukie, Mike is not immune to criticism here (on this board or in any other forum). He is not some martyr who was the true hero in all of this. Mike himself has testified that he could have handled the situation in a better fashion. As C/S said yesterday, they could have done the same. Everyone involved in this affair could have done something differently that changed the final outcome. Everyone made mistakes.
The fact is Mike says he witnessed a sexual assault. And he chose not to go right to police. That was his choice. And he alone has to live with it.
I don't think Mike has ever really lied. I think he added to and/or altered his story 10 years after the fact based on pressure from the prosecution to align with the new revelations coming out and help build its case. The prosecution needed to establish that someone actually witnessed Sandusky in a sexual situation with a minor, and Mike was that person. I think Mike believed 10 years later that he tried to report a sexual assault at the time. But sadly I don't think the message got through.
Regardless, after hearing C/S finally speak I don't think that anyone directly involved in this situation should be pointing fingers at anyone else. And I mean anyone, including Paterno. They all had a hand in it.
But none of what they did or didn't do was criminal. Sandusky alone is the criminal.
Sorry but this is just a fabrication. You say that Mike has not lied. You can't prove that. You say that Mike was always direct and didn't use words like I don't know. What about the phrase "I would have said"? Those are weasel words. He should have said I don't recall because if he did then he would not qualify it as "I would have said". You are a revisionist! Mike had lots of inconsistencies in his "stories" which make his testimony highly questionable. Many people including his father have stated on the record opposite statements.
The liar in this case is most certainly Mike based on the evidence to date. Are you going to believe one guy or 6-7 who say otherwise, some of which include his relatives? Stop making stuff up! Are his inconsistencies because he was coerced because he was an accessory after the effect or because he was Sexting or because he was making bets on his own team? Now there is something to investigate.
He needed guidance and his dad failed him for sure (quite a crew they have). But he was a man ffs, not a boy. If CSS slow played it or worse, man the f up and take it above their heads. Or just call the f**king police immediately.
All of this to save Mike's career aspirations. Worked out great, just great.
Yeah, I believe that MM didn't use any sexual terms with Paterno but that he explained it well enough that Joe knew something of a sexual nature occurred.
Choose the facts that fit your beliefs.
And don't sweat it if they don't exist. You can always create them.
What you don't realize is that there is no need for discussion. You think the world is flat, we know it is not. You're free to have your ridiculous opinion, and we are free to make fun of you for it.
This might be the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever posted. You will twist anything to fit your false narrative.
good point. so either he is lying/embellishing AND a lousy communicator, or a number of good men, and entire University/Community, are carpet bombed because he is a lousy communicator. Because it is easier (read more money to be made) to push a narrative that says that a football legend covered up for a pedophile to protect his football program than it is to say "boy, sounds like noone did a good job of understanding or communicating what they were dealing with... let's explore that... maybe victims could be saved". Excellent.
Read the transcript when it comes out. Anytime Curley referenced "Coach" or "Joe" in email - it was Joe Paterno.
I want to thank dukie for his posts on these boards. It's admirable that he is defending McQ. He has been very respectful and informative.
Interesting that you believe this.
Whenever you're ready to expand your worldview, there's a library of information available of things from Joe.
Jive was a Paterno basher long before the scandal. Pretty sure they were here at the time.
To be clear this post is why you have no credibility. You're clearly trying to point to any scintilla of evidence that implicates Paterno in some seedy cover-up. Regardless of what Joe did or did not know, the 1998 incident was investigated by police and determined to be unfounded. A missed opportunity that could have prevented the 2001 incident. You're clearly not interested in helping to solve the real problem.
Exactly:
One - of many - absolutely meaningless items that get masturbated over incessantly.....ala the "JVP - 1998" stupidity orgy.
You have no idea when Paterno realized or was told that it could have been sexual. Very possible it was after he knew Sandusky was being investigated.
Totally agree...there were MANY who failed here. BUT...the blame mainly went against Paterno...Was Joe perfect ? No. Was he equipped to handle something like this or did he REALLY know what was going on? No. Not in my opinion.
You say Mike was clearly stunned and needed guidance. Then why isn't Joe afforded the same support?
I can't imagine what my 70+ year old father born in the 1930's would do if approached with this same info...He would not say " This guy is having anal sex...or this guy is raping a young boy"...he would not.
He would have set something along the lines of horseplay...because he really would not have grasped what was going on.
Heck..much younger men...Mike's dad..Dranov...even they did not REALLY know what to do.
If this happened today...totally different story...education and awareness on child abuse is 20x better then it was just 10-15 years ago.
I'm probably just babbling...there are NO winners here...BUT one man was raked across the coals..his name ( temporarily) was stricken from the record books..he is associated with a pedophile case and not what he did throughout his career...he was singled out as the villain ( the GP really does not know or care about the rest of the characters in this sad affair).
So..is it fair...to keep "blaming the dead guy"?
No...it's not.
I'm not a JoeBot as people like to call Paterno supporters...however I do believe in fairness.
Mike...walks away with a multi million dollar lawsuit based on what is potential "earnings" would have been and a sympathetic jury...Mike...is as guilty as anyone in this case...as are Raykovitz , Curley , Schultz , Corbett , Surma and Coward Old Guard BOT etc etc...
Roxine is such a tireless advocate. When do they cut checks? As soon as it goes to the jury? Or after the predetermined verdict is read?
Yeah, it's silly of my to use the only sworn testimony we have from Paterno. Crazy, I know.
No she is...she's on her way to East Lansing after this trial. See, for Roxine, it's clearly not about her coming to grips with her own horrific experience by laser focusing on tangential players solely at PSU in this sordid affair; quite the contrary! She is a truth-seeking, burn them all kindof advocate, strictly about preventing abuse and corruption wherever it occurs, leaving no stone unturned. What, you thought she had an unhealthy, obsessive interest in PSU and its administrative mishandling of Sandusky vs the broader context of ferreting out abusers? You are clearly mistaken sir! She will be reporting live from East Lansing in short order!
And for this reason, I do not accept posts here stating that Curley and Schultz screwed up in 2001. In retrospect, they have regrets, but based on what they were told in 2001 and what they knew in 2001, I think they believed they were doing the right thing. There was no malice. It's also not as though they kept this to themselves and therefore made the decision on their own. They talked to Spanier, courtney, and raykovitz (the mandated reporter) about it in 2001.
funny. . . Curley only referenced Joe as "coach" once in the emails provided by the Freeh Report. and all we know is he was anxious.
btw, calling BS on Toxine being at the trial.
Yesterday was a watershed moment. Tim Curley stated the following under oath:
- That he did not believe Sandusky was a pedophile in 2001 or in 1998 but did believe he had boundary issues.
- That he genuinely believed & still believes the actions they took in 2001 were appropriate for the facts they had in 2001
- That he is deeply & genuinely remorseful for the missed opportunity that is clear in hindsight.
- That he genuinely believed & still believes the actions they took in 2001 were appropriate for the facts they had in 2001
- That he is deeply & genuinely remorseful for the missed opportunity that is clear in hindsight.
Cherry pick away, my friend.
And it very well may work........the Jury heard it - - - - - and will "hear it" again, over and over in deliberations.......and the Defense never refuted it
Similar threads
