Penn State’s former outside general counsel Wendell Courtney advised former VP Gary Schultz....
- Thread starter step.eng69
- Start date
This report by Graham Spanier is useful in seeing the entire picture of what CSS were thinking back in 2001. Since it was standard practice to keep notes we have this important view of what was being said. In a chance encounter with Graham Spanier Tim said this about what Joe had said:
Spanier’s Statement
“More than a decade ago, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz asked to catch me after another meeting to give me a “heads up” about a matter. Looking back at my calendar for what is presumed to be February 2001, I surmise that meeting to have been on Monday, February 12, at about 2:30PM…
..The report was that Jerry Sandusky was seen in an athletic locker room facility showering with one of his Second Mile youth, after a workout, and that they were “horsing around” (or “engaged in horseplay”). It was reported that the staff member was not sure what he saw because it was around a corner and indirect.
LINK - GRAHAM SPANIER'S NOTES ON TIM CURLEY'S HEADS UP LINK
yep. But that comes down to this question: Did MM tell them that he had seen a sexual assault and they decided to quash it or did MM tell them that he saw something creepy? Its really MM word against Curley and Schultz'.
Complete nonsense - MM referring to hearing "sexual sounds" (which he TESTIFIED had stopped and there were no sounds at all when he saw what he saw in the locker-room) is NOT EYEWITNESSING sexual behavior. And your full of $hit that Dr. Dranov did not say that he asked him multiple times if he actually ever saw any kind of sexual behavior to ascertain whether police should be called - Dr. Dranov said every time he would ask him the question point blank, MM would revert back to talking about the noises he heard, which by MM's OWN ADMISSION were not being heard anymore when he was in the locker-room!
Also supports C & S testimony as well. In the end, three people spoke (MM, C & S). What words were chosen? We don't know. All we do no is that MM's word choice was not enough to have Dranov and his father call the police either (and had JVP scurrying for the rules and called C & S). Comes down to which one do you believe. The fact that nobody did all that much lends me toward believing C & S over MM.
The other thing C/S have going for them is just about everyone is confirming their version. The only person who marginally confirmed McQ is JVP. But as debated here, very marginal leaning toward horseplay as well.
Not only that, but perhaps the most inconsistent part is the fact that he has testified that the noises had STOPPED when he got into the locker-room! So he's now claiming that he's relatively certain they were having intercourse based on a couple second glance in a mirror at an angle from a pretty good distance, but he wasn't hearing the slapping sounds that he heard only moments earlier through multiple doors and walls from even further away, but he's sure they were having sex??? How does that make any sense whatsoever???
His main problem, I think, is that he is now, has always been, and likely always will be a State College townie.
It is a kind of arrested development.
For me, that is the real elephant in the room here.
I don't think that there is any kind or real evidence that he can be functional outside the comfortable environs of SC is what I am saying.
Well, JVP released a letter after the SWIGJ Presentment - Statement of Lies stating in no uncertain terms that MM had never said anything to him about witnessing a sexual act or sexual encounter of any kind. Have to believe that is admissible evidence in this case as well as C/S/S cases in regards to what JVP says MM told him about the event since it came directly from JVP's desk. If the State has so much evidence that Curley and Schultz committed perjury relative to their conversation with MM, why precisely did the OAG drop the charges in complete and abject Court defeat???
The other possible scenario is that Schultz and Curley covered it up and gave false impressions of what was relayed to them to Spanier and Courtney.
Since Joe frequently answered a question with a question, wasn't there some uncertainty concerning that his testimony was transcribed wrong?
“It was of a sexual nature” or “Was it of a sexual nature”? Blehar brought this into question a year or two ago.
Last edited:
to what end? Why would they cover this up?? JS didn't even work for them, what would be their motivation?
Don't think so given that JVP penned a letter stating that at no time during their conversation did MM ever refer to seeing a sexual act or sexual assault of any kind. How do you figure that is "inconsistent" with what Schultz told Courtney on Sunday, 2/11/2001?
I admit to having complete faith in the integrity and honesty of Dr. Spanier and Gary Schultz because of my interactions with them via email. I have not had the pleasure of contact with Tim Curley.
But this is not just MM's version of his words to Tim and Gary vs their version.
Consider -
Friday, Feb. 9: McQueary tells John McQueary and Dr. Dranov (around a corner)
Sat, Feb 10th: McQueary tells Paterno
Sun, Feb 11th: Paterno tells Curley and Schultz
Mon, Feb 12th: Curley and Schultz tell Spanier (around a corner)
Mon, Feb 19th*: McQueary tells Curley and Schultz
*approximate
Given that Curley and Schultz told Spanier on Monday, 12 February 2001, that the incident happened around a corner and out of sight one can reasonably conclude they got the information from Paterno, who got it from McQueary. By deduction, McQueary told Paterno the incident happened around a corner.
Changing Testimony
When preparing for the hearing or Grand Jury appearance Joe met with MM to refresh an 85 year old memory - Joe was 75 in 2001 and 85 in 2011
According to a source, Paterno, in late 2010 or early 2011, met with McQueary to refresh his memory about 2001. It appears likely that McQueary left out the detail that he couldn't see around a corner and provided Paterno with the enhanced version that included hugging in the shower.
So, where did this version come from?
Most likely, is was from trooper Rossman, who interviewed McQueary in late 2010.
Trooper Rossman, and his partner, Corporal Leiter, were caught red-handed at trial for lying about suggesting testimony to potential victims.
Based on the modus operandi of Rossman and Leiter, it is reasonable to conclude that Rossman suggested embellishments to McQueary to enhance his story.
So the MM vs C&S versions is not the key - it's all the relative testimony and actions that back up C&S over Mike IMHO
Yes. He did something. He called his dad from his office, right? His father advised him to come home, right? Is that STILL true or did that change, IDK?
At home, he spoke to both his dad (PA) and a Physician who both advised him to inform Joe.
Now, I agree, he SHOULD HAVE stepped in the shower and said, "Hey, guys. Surprised to see you hear so late. Whatcha guys doing?" To assess the situation and observe their response.
As for walking in and beating the crap out of them, that would mean that he DID INDEED witness sexual activity.
Now, why he didn't say anything, something, whatever...is beyond me. But, he did call his dad for advise. His dad told him to come home right? Or is that false?
I do not know. The only logical reason would be to protect Penn State, but there are many illogical things about this case. I'm just proposing this as a possibility.
But that would still leave McQ, his dad and Dranov (and maybe Paterno) as knowing "the truth" right? Who in their right mind engages in a coverup when so many other people, not involved in the coverup, are privy to vital information?
I would expect more urgency on behalf of the witness and his professional supporters if that was the case. McQ senior isn't exactly a lightweight in State College. They could have pushed for action.
Well, his GJ testimony contradicts that. Generally speaking, a GJ testimony under oaths should hold more weight in this situation. Again, I'm just putting this out there as a possibility.
And of course we know that JVP penned a press statement directly from his desk that unequivocally states that at no time did MM ever say anything to him about witnessing a sex act or sexual assault of any kind. The prosecutor also asked JVP as to what MM's concerns might have been (i.e., speculation - not what he actually saw). Whether MM expressed concerns that it might have been something inappropriate and "over the line" has ZERO to do with what MM reported actually seeing or what he could testify to!
They may have thought (like Paterno), that they would be fine just by following protocol and reporting the incident up the chain of command. And really, they are fine (legally). It's possible that they just didn't want to get involved any more than they had to. I wouldn't call that a coverup (including Paterno).
In my mind, if there was a true coverup, it happened with Schultz and Curley. It's just a possibility and none of this testimony changes that.
Not only is Mike McQueary a LIAR, but he is also a COWARD. When this shit storm started erupting and is was obvious things were going awry Mike needed to stand up and be a man by setting the record. This is the point he became a COWARD.
MM didn't stop anything from happening because he didn't think anything was happening. No person would have let a child remain in that position...no way.
No, it really doesn't because the questions that created his GJ testimony ask JVP to speculate about things like why MM was upset and showing "concern" regarding the situation - the questions do not stick specifically to just what MM told him he SAW and EYEWITNESSED! MM saying something like -- Hey, I'm really concerned that this might have been really inappropriate and over the line.... and JVP acknowledging that MM did say things that showed concern for such inappropriateness does not in any way trump a formal press statement from JVP's desk that unequivocally states that at no time during their conversation did MM say that he saw a sexual act or sexual assault of any kiind.
Well, we've gone round and round about this so I'm not going to go there again. But if McQ's dad and Dranov truly believed in 2001 that McQ had witnessed a child being sexually assaulted by JS and believed that what the PSU officials did to address it was sufficient, then they are two despicable pieces of crap.
That is a key question. In 1999 the case against the pedophile priest in Boston was filed and this marked an increase it the pedophile priest pandemic but it was a year prior to the apex of the SPOTLIGHT stories. Since PA is a heavily Catholic area there had to be some significant awareness of the potential fallout to trying to cover up for Priests.
We have to go back to the prevailing state of mind about JS in 2001 I think:
It seems that men with the integrity and honor of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz would never cover up for a known Pedophile. But in addition to that we know these things were part of the State College consciousness in 2001:
1) Sandusky was named "Angel in Adoption" by Mr. Family Values Sen Rick Santorum
How could a US Senator name a pedophile for such a high honor - doesn't he have resources to feret out such potential problems? Santorum is Opus Dei affiliated member of the same congregation as Louis Freeh and Antoine Scalia.
2) As founder - employee of The SECOND MILE - Sandusky was regarded as almost a "Saint" in certain circles - above reproach
3) In 1998 a mother filed a complaint and the PA DPW investigator assigned to that case came back with this report: "May 8, as part of DPW’s investigation. Counselor John Seasock,opined that "there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children." Seasock’s report ruled out that the boy "had been placed in a situation where he was being ‘groomed for future sexual victimization."
It is difficult to imagine a more stacked deck in JS favor in 2001 We have to be able to understand that mindset at the time.
"But, Courtney said, he never reached a legal conclusion that the report had been mandated,......"
Wasn't there a statement in one of Spanier's filings against freeh that indicated Spanier had recently consulted with Courtney and Courtney confirmed that the episode reported to him in 2001 did not meet the legal requirement for reporting to child welfare services?
Wasn't there a statement in one of Spanier's filings against freeh that indicated Spanier had recently consulted with Courtney and Courtney confirmed that the episode reported to him in 2001 did not meet the legal requirement for reporting to child welfare services?
well without a motive, you cant use that as a reason. To protect PSU? Please, the only thing that got protected around PSU was TSM.
Huh??? There is way more evidence of a TSM/OAG cover-up than anything else. Keep in mind in the Aaron Fisher investigation which started the whole thing, the DPW "Indicated" Fisher's DPW-filed CSA Complaint and referred it for criminal investigation implicating The Second Mile and Sandusky. The OAG got involved on 3/3/2009 and is the State-Mandated Regulator of TSM, with full power and authority to investigate them, search their records, etc.... without notice or warrant. So how would they have any excuse not to move forward immediately in the Spring 2009 with a criminal indictment of Sandusky and TSM when they go to the TSM and find out an incident was reported to TSM in Feb 2001 and TSM buried it??? Corbett and TSM are both on record in 2011 (TSM as far back as a 3/31/2011 response to Ganim's HPN piece penned by Raykovitz himself) that TSM has never been the subject of the investigation! Tell me, how is that even remotely possible given what DPW submitted for criminal prosecution in the Spring 2009???
Well, they also didn't set the record straight, by screaming from the roof top that NOTHING sexual was reported. So, either they were a piece of crap in 2001 or became pieces of crap in 2011 and 2012.
When considering MM, the proverbial "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" comes to mind.
It may have ended up that way, but this thing went silent for 10 years. Seeing the public outrage when it came to light shows that they would have a reason for concern if it got out in the open.
There is so much that we will never know with this case, that all we can do is speculate about things such as motive. Maybe they knew or heard about something that happened earlier with Sandusky and they didn't want that to get out as well? Maybe JS had some dirt on them? Or maybe, none of that is true. We really don't know.
Exactly. This has been the question from the start. If they really suspected Sandusky of raping a boy, if that was really what McQueary told them, it is hard to imagine that they would not act like normal human beings and try to have Sandusky investigated. And even if they were not normal human beings but cold calculating administrators, if they applied any kind of risk analysis the risk of not acting -- the university's potential liability -- would be huge if Sandusky were caught later. If Sandusky were an abuser, the least risk to Penn State would be if he were caught as soon as possible. A coverup scenario does not make logical sense. And from what we know, Curley, Schultz and Spanier are not sociopaths, and the ARE logical and competent adminstrators.
Use Occam's Razor -- the explanation that makes sense, the simplest explanation that fits the available facts and circumstances, is that Mike said Sandusky was in the shower with the boy, he suspected something, he didn't see anything, he heard sounds that made him suspicious. And the brain trust heard him out and decided to take the limited action they took -- alert the Second Mile, alert state child protection agency, tell Sandusky that it was inappropriate to be showering with minors. They acted the way they did not because they were covering up a crime but because they thought there was nothing to cover up. Sandusky wore the angel halo and everybody at Penn State was blinded by it. That is sad, it's a tragedy, but it's not a crime to be fooled.
It is not even remotely the same thing as Catholic bishops being completely 100% aware of what priests were doing and still assigning them to new parishes where they could victimize more children.
That's not what happened.
MM witnessed a sexual assault in the shower, he just didn't know that at the time. As time passed and rumors swirled, it became apparent what it was he saw. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Never thought about this, but it makes a lot of sense. I guess there is no recording of Joe's testimony?
An incident of this magnitude and nothing was ever articulated in a report which should have been starting with MM to Joe and then to Curley and Schultz. All of these highly educated men involved, and none of them thought this was important enough to document what they saw or what was reported to them in a report!
The old saying, "cover your ass" obviously did not apply in this matter for some strange reason. It certainly doesn't appear that any of them wanted a report sent through channels which certainly should have been Standard Operating Procedure for an entity such as Penn State. You can bet your ass that the new procedures put in place since this incident mandates written reports of all these types of matters in the future.
The old saying, "cover your ass" obviously did not apply in this matter for some strange reason. It certainly doesn't appear that any of them wanted a report sent through channels which certainly should have been Standard Operating Procedure for an entity such as Penn State. You can bet your ass that the new procedures put in place since this incident mandates written reports of all these types of matters in the future.
right, it took convincing from the porn king Fina that mike saw sexual activity
Mike admits that he didn't see sexual play, saw a head in the mirror, and it wasn't a penis head. Heard three slapping sounds.
Someone playing patty-cake?It supports C&S testimony, but only in a vacuum, without the testimony of Joe, Mike, Mike's father and Dranov.
The failure of Dranov and Mike's father to call the police may be unrelated to word choice. Think about it; if someone tells you they saw some horseplay in the shower between two people, is your logical response to ask if they saw penetration? Something in Mike's word choices prompted that kind of response.
I do agree that your statement: "The fact that nobody did all that much lends me toward believing C & S over MM" is not an unreasonable position even if I don't have the same opinion.
