OT: Jack Raykovitz question
- Thread starter PSU0622
- Start date
Try looking at all four testimonies. You might just find the right one.
Last edited:
No. by definition, there isn't. Rape is sex--any sex--with a non-consenting person. All children are legally non-consensual.
Last edited:
Do you really think I, or anyone on a message board, would respond to something this unfocused?
Well I'm glad to see that we agree on that now. I was a little puzzled when you backed away from your claim that Mike had told people that he saw Sandusky raping a child and they would testify to corroborate that.
I assumed you were bright enough to read the summary on page 2 and be able to scroll down to the page when Mike's testimony starts
but since you did not do that, that indicates to me you already know what you said was BS and you're just being evasive
I never made such a claim and so there was nothing to back away from. If my quote was in your post, people could see that.
Mike testified four times. You have the wrong testimony. Find the right one, wad it up in a little ball, and wash it down with warm milk.
that is his testimony at trial. show me where he said what you claimed he said
Hah! Unfocused? My post was mostly text from JM being cross examined. The only part you had to respond to was the very last paragraph at the bottom asking how JM's 12/16/11 prelim testimony matches MM's 2010 testimony of certain child abuse being reported in 2001.
You cant explain the disconnect so you make a blanket statement that my post was apparently too long for your pea brain to handle and then use that as an excuse to not answer the question, classic!!
WAHHHHH! YOU POSTED THE WRONG TESTIMONY!!
try posting the testimony that exists only in this jabroni's head. LOL
Now I'm confused again. Are you saying that Mike did not see Sandusky raping a child?
I do not know that Mike saw Sandusky "raping a child," since that is something Mike never said he saw. I only know what Mike said he saw, and when finally asked his opinion of that, ventured an opinion of what sex act he thought it was.
In 2001, Mike confined himself to what he saw, not what he thought the sexual acts were. But I realize such nuances are lost on some, who are desperate to hang administrative failings on Mike (the only guy in this mess besides Joe who actually took positive steps).
Last edited:
Wow...you just proved my point. That is the opposite of a nuance. In 2010 MM said he was certain JS was sodomizing a boy and unequivocally reported it as such in 2001. This is called playing revisionist history.
What MM actually saw was a late night inappropriate shower and thats what he reported to C/S in 2001. He never told anyone that he was certain JS was sodomizing/molesting a kid.
And you need to stop avoiding my question.
How can certain child rape be considered a best case worst case scenerio?? This is the way JM in his 12/16/11 testimony characterized what MM told him -- "at least a very inappropriate act" and possibly sexual in nature.
Doest that reflect an inappropriate late night shower (where MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing) or certain child rape?
Comments like this demonstrate you're a duplicitous a-hole, rather than an honest participant in this discussion.
To your first point, why weren't they worried that the boy and his family would go to the authorities? What good would it have done to prevent further episodes when that huge risk loomed and would remain on going?
To your second point, which makes no sense as it is written, what in their communications or personal history led you to such a conclusion? I'll grant you that they were probably happy to extricate PSU from what was really an internal TSM matter, but you're taking a huge leap to even suggest that they didn't care what JS did elsewhere. Back it up with something other than your opinion.
(1) Worried that the boy and his family would go to the authorities? I wouldn't think so.
Regardless of what sex acts (or the lack thereof) you believe took place in the shower, the boy was compliant. He wasn't resisting, he wasn't screaming and if anything, demonstrated complicity. This is a clear signal this wasn't his first rodeo; he and Jerry had a 'relationship.'
It's common knowledge that CSA victims protect their abuser/partners. This situation was more than typical. If the relationship had gone this far, nobody would be doing any reporting; Not the kid and , thus, not the parents. But to be on the safe side, it appears to me they sat tight for nine days before meeting with Mike. If a report surfaced, Mike would be brought inside the walls as a full team member in a thorough, school-sponsored investigation. If no report surfaced, Mike would be indulged, assured the matter would be 'looked into,' but otherwise kept on the outside.
(2) Okay, I'll back off that a bit. Of course they cared; they're human beings. But their behavior indicated (to me) that their first priority was to protect themselves and the school. There was no mention of the kid, no attempt to find out who the kid was, because that would lead to an investigation that could open Pandora's Box. Nobody wanted to do that; nobody confronting the possibility of scandal ever does. Yes, it's all my opinion. Nobody so far has offered anything strong enough to change it.
Regardless of what sex acts (or the lack thereof) you believe took place in the shower, the boy was compliant. He wasn't resisting, he wasn't screaming and if anything, demonstrated complicity. This is a clear signal this wasn't his first rodeo; he and Jerry had a 'relationship.'
It's common knowledge that CSA victims protect their abuser/partners. This situation was more than typical. If the relationship had gone this far, nobody would be doing any reporting; Not the kid and , thus, not the parents. But to be on the safe side, it appears to me they sat tight for nine days before meeting with Mike. If a report surfaced, Mike would be brought inside the walls as a full team member in a thorough, school-sponsored investigation. If no report surfaced, Mike would be indulged, assured the matter would be 'looked into,' but otherwise kept on the outside.
(2) Okay, I'll back off that a bit. Of course they cared; they're human beings. But their behavior indicated (to me) that their first priority was to protect themselves and the school. There was no mention of the kid, no attempt to find out who the kid was, because that would lead to an investigation that could open Pandora's Box. Nobody wanted to do that; nobody confronting the possibility of scandal ever does. Yes, it's all my opinion. Nobody so far has offered anything strong enough to change it.
Last edited:
now it is thanks to Jim Clemente, who has mostly been ignored. but not back in 2001.
If you pay attention, you notice one thing Mike does consistently well. He answers only the questions asked. When he is asked , "What did you see," he describes the physical reality of what he saw, body positioning, etc. He does not elaborate until he is asked for his opinion on what he was looking at. "I was sure he was having some kind of intercourse with the boy."
Can you show me where you think he committed perjury?
It's been understood since CSA laws were enacted that abused children rarely report their abusers. I don't think Clemente invented the concept.
This isn't a question of whether I think Mike committed perjury. This is about what you represented Mike's testimony to be. You said, "In 2001, Mike confined himself to what he saw, not what he thought the sexual acts were."
But that's not not what Mike testified. Mike clearly testified that he told Curley that "I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on."
How many people are going to step forward to corroborate that in 2001, Mike told them that he "thought that some kind of intercourse was going on" between Sandusky and a child, and not one of them was concerned enough to think that they ought to contact either the police or some kind of child welfare agency? Good luck with that.
I guess I'm not understanding your complaint.
There are worlds of difference between what you see (fact), and what you think that picture means or is (opinion). What you see can be illusory. You can see what looks like a child sodomizing a child, but that doesn't make it a fact. And you're iresponsible if you state it as such. And that was Mike's dilemma. Does he hang a school icon over what it looks like? No, but he damnwell knows what he saw, which is what he says he confined himself to when reporting to Joe, and later C&S. I'm sure he would have ventured his opinion if anybody asked, just as he did in testimony. I'm sure he did it under less officious circumstances.
You seem like a pretty bright guy. I don't understand why you're having trouble with these distinctions.
Promise?
You don't argue. You don't discuss. You simply hurl personal insults at those who don't agree with your opinions.
Your statement is not correct. McQueary testified that he told Curley,"I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on."
See Page 34, lines 15-19.
around and around he goes....Igor doesn't know WTF he's talking about. He still hasn't explained JM's 12/16/11 prelim testimony (testimony from the same hearing you linked above).
JM's testimony in the 12/16/11 prelim hearing completely destroy's the state's case and contradicts MM's own testimony from page 34 -- that MM reported certain child abuse to C/S in 2001.
he is definitely Nittany9er/littlelionman. did the same thing on TOS, same BS arguments, same misdirection, constantly shifted his "facts" when proven wrong, etc . . .
Mike didn't say "I saw some kind of intercourse going on (fact)." He said "I thought" I saw some kind of intercourse going on (opinion)." What part of "I thought" is creating a problem for you?
Mike testified he told C&S what he told Joe (the facts). And he added what he thought it possibly was (his opinion). He wasn't under oath. WTH does this have to do with perjury?
Your inability to differentiate between fact and opinion, and what is said under oath and what is not, has you terribly confused.
I'll be happy to try to 'explain' anything you want. Just ask a focused question. Just one. You say JM's testimony contradicts MM's testimony and destroys the whole case? Tell me how and why. Confine yourself to that, and I'm all ears.
Just don't twist an MM statement like "I thought I saw some kind of intercourse" into MM reporting "certain child abuse" because that kind of deliberate misquote makes you a disingenuous little weasel.
Last edited:
I already laid it out for you, numerous times. Go back to page 4 of this thread and read my post near the bottom (I even included the specific text of JM's 12/16/11 testimony that I was referring to so there was no confusion) -- you know, that post you said was too long for your liking...perhaps you should actually read it before asking me to provide info.
It's really this simple, either MM reported what he thought was certain child rape/molestation in 2001 to C/S or he didn't. MM's testimony from 12/16/11 said he did. The testimony from JM on 12/16/11 and also that of C/S/S/P/JR/Dr. D all shows that MM did NOT report certain child abuse/molestation in 2001 but only a late night inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable.
It would help if you had a little more respect for language. See comments imbedded above.
Wtf are you talking about? Every time MM was interviewed or testified in 2010 or beyond he said that he never saw insertion but was certain JS was sodomizing a boy and reported it as such to C/S (even though that statement in and of itself is contradictory).
I actually agree with you that Mike McQueary did not report certain child abuse to anyone in 2001. In addition i dont think he reported what he thought was child abuse to anyone in 2001 because nobody testified to that except for him.
It is entertaining watching you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to make sense of MM's nonsensical testimony tho...
You said MM perjured himself. As I asked you before, show me where he perjured himself.
Last edited:
There are two separate issues here - what did Mike witness and what did Mike tell people he saw...
Neither seems to be clear... Even tho Mike is the only one testifying to the first he can't seem to make it clear. Let's not forget that THE SOUNDS Mike heard had him thinking he was going to witness sex before he even walked into the locker room. IMO that's the clear reason why Mike hasn't been able to tell anyone - dad, dranov, Joe, Curley, Schultz, juries... - what exactly it was he witnessed in the shower. He thought sex before he entered, saw JS and child and it shocked/confused him immediately, and then after the immediate reaction he made the connection that the sounds he heard came from JS and that child - but yet he didn't see any actual sex act, just close proximity.
I've said it before - if Mike doesn't hear the sounds (what some have suggested as foot steps running on a shower floor, or towels snapping) then his whole version of this may be different, and it's possible this incident is never even reported and then later discovered.
Hmmmm, I just read this entire thread and, after all these years, I'm wondering how you and 'macadamia' arrived on this board with such a force. As you appear to be a PSU Hockey fan, I'm wondering how you reconcile the presence of the Pegulas within TSM? You OK with that?
I'll preface this comment with the statement that I don't see Mike as a total villain in any of this. I think he is a pawn of the OAG. I think they got him to "enhance" his testimony, then blindsided C/S/S so no one could be called to rebut it (ohhhhh how some of the haters forget how the prosecution reacted during the C/S/S prelims when Mike's testimony was merely hinted at being attacked! In fact, go back and read MM's testimony in the JS trial and watch the unprecedented actions of Judge Cleland who scolds the prosecutor for leading the witness, AND the defense for refusing to object. HILARIOUS!)
I don't believe this current narrative is entirely Mike's either, and I don't believe it was what Mike told anyone back in 2001. But there are 2 incredibly suspicious aspects of Mike's current story (outside the physics of the actual locker room)
#1 - he watched Rudy ALONE on a Friday night and suddenly got so inspired to go to the Lasch building to watch recruitment tapes. uh huh.
#2 - he heard what he describes as sex noises ("rhythmic slapping") of 2 people in the shower . . . and proceeds to enter the locker room anyway!! uh huh.
as an added thought, some dimwit brought up the idea of "compliant victimization" should have been well known back in 2001. Well yes, certainly by a football coach and 3 college admins. **rolls eyes**. I pointed out Clemente has tried to educate people on this concept, then I thought well who WOULD have been aware of CSA issues back in 2001??
and here we go bringing it back home . . . ayup, Jack Raykovitz. so in essence, the PSU admins who had no knowledge or understanding of what could have been going on with Sandusky at least punted it to the guy who was legally responsible to investigate, and would have been properly educated and trained in identifying any red flags about this incident. but they should have KNOWN JR would protect his job over investigating suspected child abuse by one of his employees towards a child who was in his legal care.
uh huh.
Much of what you say is plausible. But I can't get past the 'close proximity' part. It's a very watered down version of the picture I still have in my head -- the picture of Jerry pressed up behind the boy, arms around his waist, the boy's arms braced against the wall. Seems a lot of people want to believe that never happened. I believe it did. IMO, Mike had no reason to make it up, no reason as a lowly grad assistant to call for an audience with his legendary boss at 7:30 am with something that merely made him 'uncomfortable.'
Mike knew nothing of 1998, but he risked the career-damning perception he was some wacko on a mission to lay waste to one of the great icons of his alma mater. That took incredible courage. What if it wasn't what it seemed? What if he was somehow wrong? But he wasn't. 12 years and 45 of 48 counts later, history says he wasn't. That's the big flaw in the argument Mike's detractors can't erase. When the UFOs are landing all around you, how do you continue to call the guy who claimed to see on a decade earlier a liar?
Last edited:
