Curious Lar. If you can, do you remember approximately what year that was? The difficulty in answering that question in itself proves how hard it is to recall things from the past. But I am interested to know when he showed this reaction. Thanks!
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Curious Lar. If you can, do you remember approximately what year that was? The difficulty in answering that question in itself proves how hard it is to recall things from the past. But I am interested to know when he showed this reaction. Thanks!
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 ever did.
Spaces for dramatic effect!!!!
I wonder why that still hasn't occurred.
Probably bc MM had nothing to do with Spanier. Once Silver got MM to say he never spoke to Spanier, MM was irrelevant to Spaniers case.
It was the Curley/Schultz trial that would have put much more focus on MM. Hence another reason the state wanted a plea deal for them (each side had their own reason to accept plea) vs going to trial.
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 ever did.
Spaces for dramatic effect!!!!
I wonder why that still hasn't occurred.
Political correctness. Same reason they couldn't question the "victim" in Spanier's trial.
Whether he said it, or his response implied it is pretty much irrelevant. He had a chance to speak up to the all power Joe Paterno who was asking him about the topic, and didn't. So by all means, argue semantics the rest of the day.
This makes his brothers post this morning all the more damning. Wtf were they protecting him from exactly? His own anger?
Then go to the f**king cops!!!!
Sure. But it doesn't matter what Joe really meant. What matters is that when McQueary responded, it was in regard to his general well being.
Last edited:
It's not all or nothing on this. I'd be willing to bet that some victims are lying. I'd be equally willing to bet that some are not. And I'd be willing to bet that some have been manipulated.
Hopefully, we can all agree that both Joe and Tim gave MM the opportunity to voice his concerns and Mike said nothing.
Wouldn't his general well being be effected by the fact that he was unhappy with how they handled the situation?
Okay, so Mike's not comfortable playing in a golf tournament with Sandusky because he supposedly "knows" that Sandusky raped a child, but yet he is okay with Sandusky roaming free and he (McQueary) never having called police to tell them he witnessed a child be sexually abused.
Don't know. I've never asked him and I won't put words in his mouth, like everyone else does, unless he's said them directly to me, or I have a transcript of him saying it.
I have to agree. If Mike's family had to be there with him in case he got in altercation with Jerry over the incident...for me that means Mike clearly wasn't OK and needed to take the report further.
Well...I would need a few to actually get caught lying or stepping up and admitting to it over what was presented as evidence of them lying. The victim shaming crusade wore thin in a modern society years ago, but some still give it a go. Not saying you in any what there either, but one attention whore who needed to be heard from out west.
Some people are open minded. Hence they don't want to believe all the acusers. There were many accusers, some may have been actual victims. Others may have been charlatans, in which case they made the people of Penn State, the students, employees, alums, and all tax payers victims as well. Not a difficult concept or impossible premise for many to embrace.
That's fine..... but that doesn't explain why he then went back to the same event (with JS coaching again) the next year or to at least 2 of JS' Second Mile golf outings (if the article bplionfan linked is correct).
Fair enough. Thanks for all the info. I continue to struggle with squaring Mike's actions with what he claims he reported, but who knows. Hopefully more facts come out in the future.
If Mike was unhappy with the actions taken by PSU administration, why didn't Senior, Dranov and he have a summit #2? Apparently the dissatisfaction with Curley and Schultz didn't even rise to that level. The 3 formulated a plan based on Mike's eyewitness account. Did any of them feel some level of responsibility to alter the plan if child abuse was witnessed? Either they were satisfied - there was no child abuse- or business connections prevented all from rocking the boat?
Don't know how he would be affected - and I hesitate to say it, neither do you. That's not relevant to this specific discussion. The point that I am making is that people are twisting his words into something that they aren't.
They are asking to re-read Raykovitz testimony!
I wish they had the power to charge him instead.
what nonsense, you silly JoeBot. You act like there was audio evidence of police secretly conspiring with a victim's attorney to manipulate a victim's story.
Since PSU never vetted them, as far as we can tell....
But there are certainly some whose stories do not seem to match up with all of the facts or who have repeatedly changed their stories once money was involved.
It's not shaming but a healthy skepticism--especially as there have been other similar cases where this has been found to be true. I'm specifically thinking about the "repressed memory" theory, for one. I have no problem thinking a victim might have repressed memories, BTW--it's the method used to get at them that is problematic.
MM didn't express dissatisfaction to ANY of the people he trusted to handle his report, so from the admins POV what reason would they have to think the witness wanted more to be done??
JM also didn't express any dissatisfaction when he had a follow up chat with Schultz.
I have yet to see anyone answer this very simple question.
We also have MM on the record saying he could not believe it that the OAG was charging PSU people and that "Tim is a good person. Tim is a good man". How does MM square that with his claim that TC watered down his report of certain child rape?? Makes no sense.
JM also didn't express any dissatisfaction when he had a follow up chat with Schultz.
I have yet to see anyone answer this very simple question.
We also have MM on the record saying he could not believe it that the OAG was charging PSU people and that "Tim is a good person. Tim is a good man". How does MM square that with his claim that TC watered down his report of certain child rape?? Makes no sense.
And what's the BS about coaching Sandusky's involvement with TSM in 2001 as "paid consultant"? Of his own organization.
Curious Lar. If you can, do you remember approximately what year that was? The difficulty in answering that question in itself proves how hard it is to recall things from the past. But I am interested to know when he showed this reaction. Thanks!
Patiently waiting for his answer while he directly answers every other post addressed to him.
So the jury gets to hear how TSM totally disregarded the report and just told Sandusky to wear swimming trunks in the shower next time.
Curious Lar. If you can, do you remember approximately what year that was? The difficulty in answering that question in itself proves how hard it is to recall things from the past. But I am interested to know when he showed this reaction. Thanks!
I have no idea. Maybe somewhere from 2004-2008. I'm reasonably sure it was before McQueary was married, if that pins it down at all. It happened at the Adam's Apple at the Tavern around when, I believe, Mike was dating his future wife who was a waitress there. So, whatever year he got married it would have been maybe a year before that.
Again with the games. Of course no one knows exactly how one particular person Will react, but you can say with a a very high confidence how the vast majority of people will react.
Remember. One of the jury's followup questions to the judge was clarification on the definition of a supervisory role (or something to that effect).
Pennsylvania: Where the OAG/PennLive/Inquirer can charge you with Failure to be Clairvoyant. And get away with it. Oh, and you get to pay state income tax to fund it.
Well good ole Raykovitz testified about telling Jer to wear swim trunks and that he thought he should report it to TSM board but not to child welfare authorities. So if the actual mandated reporter who had DIRECT SUPERVISION over Sandusky's activities did not funnel it up the chain, then how are the 3 admins. criminally responsible. Me thinks the EWOC is more apropos to Mr. Raykovitz than anyone else!
Why? He's come off just fine in all these trials. The juries have constantly believed him. The people who haven't believed him reside on these internet boards.
They are coming back with GUILTY on all counts for Dr. Jack!!!!! Clear as day...wen wins!!!!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting December 2 NitBits - Early Signing Period is here- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley