If he was "flipping out" at the mention of Sandusky's name, how was his mental health, really?
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
If he was "flipping out" at the mention of Sandusky's name, how was his mental health, really?
Thanks. I agree that the names should be released. eventually...
With today's pitchfork and blood mentality, there should be a waiting period to let the mob die down and wither away. When the AP gets a hold of the names and writes their stories, nobody will care anymore.
As for the JoePa & Curley conversation, could it not have just been TC talking to Joe and confirming with Joe what MM had told him. Joe tells Curley that MM never mentioned a 'sexual assault' occuring and Joe confirmed MM only told him that he saw JS and the boy in the shower horsing around (or whatever term you want to use). So Curley, after getting confirmation from Joe that MM did NOT say anything sexual happened and thereby confirming that MM told the same story to Joe as MM told to him and Schultz, therefore comes to the conclusion that DPW does not need to be called.
I am 99.9999999% sure that if Curley calls up Joe and Joe tells him MM said it was sexual, or the Curley tells Joe that MM told Curley/Schultz it was sexual that Joe Paterno would have said goto the police. I see no way on God's green earth that if Joe had even an inkling of it being anything more than 'Jerry being Jerry' that he would not have made that decision and zero chance that Joe says to bury it.
I am 99.9999999% sure that if Curley calls up Joe and Joe tells him MM said it was sexual, or the Curley tells Joe that MM told Curley/Schultz it was sexual that Joe Paterno would have said goto the police. I see no way on God's green earth that if Joe had even an inkling of it being anything more than 'Jerry being Jerry' that he would not have made that decision and zero chance that Joe says to bury it.
Since the thread is moving so fast, I am reposting this for your benefit. From the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing Dec 16th, 2011.
is there any doubt that a "Toxine" person, who accuses JZ of harassing victims, would take the opportunity to influence jurors?
It's not up for debate that JZ harassed victims. He brags about it.
Since the thread is moving so fast, I am reposting this for your benefit. From the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing Dec 16th, 2011.
In fairness, during a conversation like this where the topic came up, would it be unreasonable for Mike to feel like he could bring up the fact that he was so very unhappy about how the matter was being handled, if in fact that is how he felt?
I really want to read Gary's transcript. Based on Ditka's close where she may have "misrepresented" a lot of facts herself, she may have unknowingly (or knowingly) "prepped" Gary to lie.
The question you ask is beyond a head scratcher in the abstract without the transcripts.
What did he do? Rev the engine of his Mustang at local non-believers? Oh wait...
Thanks for providing the facts. I'll still note that to a certain extent, MM may have been reading Joe's mind on what he was actually asking. But without Joe around to answer that, we'll never know.Since the thread is moving so fast, I am reposting this for your benefit. From the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing Dec 16th, 2011.
Serious question. Dead serious.
UncLar: Why were you not a witness?
Yeah, I know you can't force the State to call upon you...... but I can't ask them
, so you're the closest I can get.But, over all these years, with so much of these cases being synthesized from the "what did MM know about Sandusky" herb......
With the State, clearly, knowing that one of the major hurdles was TC/GSch claiming that what THEY heard was "no big deal"
And the State, certainly, knowing that folks like you exist (Hell, I've heard of more than one similar situation myself)....folks who provide context to support Mike - to provide background that would support MIKE's contentions (over TC and GSch's contentions).
Why weren't ANY of you guys ever brought in to provide testimonial support for Mike?
Have you ever pondered that?
Have you ever tried to contact OAG and say - - - - "Here I am"?
Seriously.
Well MM testified twice now that TC called him a few days later to follow up that thet were revoking guest privileges and informing TSM. Therefore MM knew since at least 2001 that TSM was JS' charity. That doesn't square with what you are claiming here.
MM had a perfect chance to express dissatisfaction or ask that MORE be done (other than revoke guest privileges and tell TSM) when TC personally called Mike 4-5 days later to follow up.
JM also had a chance when he was face to face with Schultz a few months later and not one peep from him over the fact JS was never arrested and formaly questioned. Hmmm
Whats the latest on the inappropriate text/pics to female coeds. I'm surprised those haven't surfaced on the interwebs.What's a stretch is how other people have twisted the testimony. From the Curley/Schultz prelim hearing:
Well, (in defense of Talpsu
I think Talpsu was just mixing this football game with other second Mile golf outings (IIRC) that MM reportedly took part in post 2001.
correct. it was some golf tourn I was thinking.
About as good a chance as pnny going after them if they find GS guilty.
Probably right about that.
And I'm not sure we see that much public reaction either way. Most folks outside the PSU community had their minds made up a long time ago. I'd expect a brief flash and back to normal.
I'd have to disagree. Once this is over it's time for the Paterno lawsuit. Far from being back to normal.
Serious question. Dead serious.
UncLar: Why were you not a witness?
Yeah, I know you can't force the State to call upon you...... but I can't ask them
But, over all these years, with so much of these cases being synthesized from the "what did MM know about Sandusky" herb......
With the State, clearly, knowing that one of the major hurdles was TC/GSch claiming that what THEY heard was "no big deal"
And the State, certainly, knowing that folks like you exist (Hell, I've heard of more than one similar situation myself)....folks who provide context to support Mike - to provide background that would support MIKE's contentions (over TC and GSch's contentions).
Why weren't ANY of you guys ever brought in to provide testimonial support for Mike?
Have you ever pondered that?
Have you ever tried to contact OAG and say - - - - "Here I am"?
Seriously.
Did that loon ziegler hijack your account. that is by far the dumbest post you have ever made and over the last week that is pretty hard to top......... you have been barely hang'n on and now you have finally fallen of a cliff.
But Joe didn't ask mike that question. He only wanted to know if he was mentally doing ok. That was sarcasm BTW. I agree with you. Any normal person would have simply replied, "well now that you bring it up Im not too happy with nothing really being done".
He recovered pretty quickly. I was talking to a group of maybe 5-6 of us and referenced Jerry in relation to the Second Mile. Mike gave me two quick loud "F___ Jerry Sandusky" exclamations, then regained his composure, and I just moved on. At the time (somewhere around the mid-aughts), I thought it must have been related to something that happened when he was playing. Then never gave it another thought until this hit the fan.
Since the thread is moving so fast, I am reposting this for your benefit. From the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing Dec 16th, 2011.
OK, so are you implying that Mike wasn't OK with the way C/S/S (PSU) handled the report?
Serious question. Dead serious.
UncLar: Why were you not a witness?
Yeah, I know you can't force the State to call upon you...... but I can't ask them
But, over all these years, with so much of these cases being synthesized from the "what did MM know about Sandusky" herb......
With the State, clearly, knowing that one of the major hurdles was TC/GSch claiming that what THEY heard was "no big deal"
And the State, certainly, knowing that folks like you exist (Hell, I've heard of more than one similar situation myself)....folks who provide context to support Mike - to provide background that would support MIKE's contentions (over TC and GSch's contentions).
Why weren't ANY of you guys ever brought in to provide testimonial support for Mike?
Have you ever pondered that?
Have you ever tried to contact OAG and say - - - - "Here I am"?
Seriously.
How come not one defense team "shredded" MM like the online team has is the better question? If you read this site, you know damn well how easily that would happen...yet it never did.
Spaces for dramatic effect!!!!
I wonder why that still hasn't occurred.
Last edited:
Fine. It's reasonable for you to draw that concludion. It's also reasonable for me and others to disagree. But what is NOT reasonable is for people to change those words to claim that McQueary said he was OK with Curley and Schultz actions. That is something that he never did say and no one should try to claim differently.
Words are not needed.
MM's actions for 10 years indicate he was "okay" with what was done. He worked for Curley and never filed a report on his own.
Sad that you failed to protect the kids. did you, at least, slam your locker? (TIC of course)
Wrong, that is up for debate. JZ may not have harassed victims.
What's not up for debate is that JZ harrassed acusers.
There is a difference ...
But if Mike was not "okay" with what Curley did......what actions on his part show us?
You don't think that would have been helpful? Logical?
I am a bit surprised that you wouldn't welcome - solicit, even - the OAG working to provide more support for Mike.
To each his own
Yes...sane people know Jerry molested his victims. Those praying to a missing statue are upset and hope it was all a bad dream. Hence they don't want to believe the victims.
It was an Easter Seals charity football game run by former State HIgh football players and McQueary testified that he committed to playing in it not knowing that Sandusky was going to be involved. It's no secret that he played in that game.
Similar threads
