Joe's testimony was recorded then transcribed by one of the prosecutors.
Penn State’s former outside general counsel Wendell Courtney advised former VP Gary Schultz....
- Thread starter step.eng69
- Start date
I didn't say that, I feel that he probably thinks he was much "clearer" to CSS than he actually was. I also feel strongly that people in the OAG greatly embellished things so as to maximize the possibility/probability of a conviction. As the story gained windspeed it became impossible to control. Many unintended consequences resulted which could not be walked back. OAG got a conviction, which was their only desire. Truth was never a factor in any of this.
So if Mike didn't know he witnessed an assault at the time, how can he say now that he did and was clear that he communicated that to others in 2001?
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.
REMEMBER JOE WAS 75 IN 2001 and 85 in 2011 so he asked MM to "refresh" his memory prior to his GJ testimony --- big mistake.
Changing Testimony
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?
I say MM was instructed on what to say by the OAG who through some grant of immunity, or holding something like sexting, gambling or potential indictment for failure to report over his head made MM do it.
Articulated? The Second Mile chief psychologist recommended that Jerry wear swimming trunks in the shower.
Last edited:
As others have stated, Courtney was consulted before Schultz heard from MM himself. What Schultz told Courtney was based on what he had been told by JVP. If that was just horseplay, then there was no "sexual component" of the story for Schultz to leave out.
Not to mention, if Schultz was inclined to cover up this report, why go to Courtney at all?
This is extremely misleading... Can you show me where Dranov asked Mike about seeing "actual penetration?" Because what I recall is when Mike told him about sexual sounds, Dranov recounted the conversation going like this (paraphrasing):
DD: What do you mean sexual sounds?
MM: You know....
DD: No, I don't know.
At which point, DD asked him to describe what he actually saw and Mike kept coming back to the sounds. Sorry, you can't say that Dranov "knew it was sexual."
To summarize, if Mike now believes that is what happened in 2001, then he is not lying.
That would be a fair assessment. I'll stress, I feel the OAG raped his words in order to further their cause.
But wouldn't he still be lying about what he told C/S/S in 2001? If he didn't discover "the truth" about 2001 until sometime much later, how could he have told them about it in 2001 like he said he did?
Going from memory but I think you're correct. I've been waiting forever to hear what Courtney said as an independent 'outside' source (i.e. Not MM, or CSS).
Again, we are dealing with memories over a 10 year gap so I don't put any weight in the specific language used to describe events of 10 years prior. What I tend to judge by is people's actions.
This statement by Courtney falls in the general "camp" of CSS. If you were putting MM's story and CSS' story on a scale- just about everyone's account is weighing down the CSS side of the scale (including the actions of MM Sr and Dranov).
Courtney covered his backside with the testimony. He said it didn't rise to the level of abuse but thought it should be reported anyway. So far it seems like people understood MM was upset over some event but he apparently wasn't giving this red hot alert that he says (or thought) he was giving.
That said, if it's true that Courtney said report it I need to know 1 more thing. Was this a "no question- report it" recommendation from Courtney or a "well, I don't think it meets that level but just to be safe you could always report it if you want" type recommendation?
The next issue for me is if Courtney said report- then I want to know why CSS didn't report it (or if they did and because of the incredibly stupid CYS policy the record was destroyed after 6 months).
Every statement released
raises more questions but at least some key info is now being made public.
"saw penetration"? I'd say that the kid would be screaming his head off if there was penetration. You wouldn't need to actually see it. In other words, there was no penetration. Has anyone ever asked MM how a 6 footer penetrates a child that's a foot shorter and it's done while they're both standing. It's not physically possible, is it?
I'll keep that in mind the next time the neuro surgeon operates on my spine which has been done several times in the early 90’s, the next time I’m on a transatlantic flight with the flight officers bored being cooped up in the planes cabin, or the next time I’m playing “William Tell” with my hunting buddies……look out, the mind is a tricky thing.
I've said this for years. The damage would be terrific.. The lack of any physical or medical evidence could not be hidden as alleged by imbeciles here and the OAG by throwing your underwear away or by burying your face in a pillow to hide your crying or screams. It's asinine.
So he later responded by playing in Second Mile golf outings with Sandusky?
No, no - this can't be true. We all know that Joe Paterno SAT on this information for like a week - because he didn't want to ruin anybody's weekend...I mean - EVERYBODY KNOWS that Paterno sat on the information he was given by McQueary for a week, because that's what I heard from EVERYBODY in the media.
As to your first point you are correct as to the timing. It is possible that Schultz was unaware on Sunday of the sexual context of the activity if Joe had not related that to him. The damaging aspect is the apparent failure to subsequently contact Courtney after Schultz had received more information which even he stated involved the touching of genitals.
In the final analysis Courtney's testimony is not probative as to what had been reported to Curley and Schultz which it seems some posters thought.
As to your second point, you are correct and I was in error when I reposted Uncle Lar's post that Dranov had asked that question. It was Mikes father who testified that the question was asked. That testimony can be found on Page 12 of the June 13 transcript. The point remains that based upon the testimony of record there was a sexual component to what Mike had observed that night as relayed by him to his father and Dranov.
Nice, glad to see the little tidbits of past inaccurate information are buried in our minds.
VP Gary Schultz was subjected to aggressive interrogation prior to his GJ testimony. The Prosecution kept insisting MM had told him "anal rape"
Gary insists he never thought anything but horseplay prior to that interrogation so in his mind at the time he was thinking "what was the worst thing I could have imagined given what MM said in that meeting back in 2001"? Gary knew he never considered intercourse or anything sexual at all but what was all this about "anal intercourse"? He was astounded and could not imagine where that came from so he came up with "unintentional" or "inadvertent" contact with genitals as the worst he could possibly imagine from what MM had said to him and Tim. He insists that the 2011 GJ interrogation was the first time it ever even crossed his mind. In 2001 the best he could tell from MM's statements in the meeting involved "slapping sounds" "visualizations" "feeling uncomfortable" and "late night showering naked". That is what Gary recalls.
That would make sense except for this:
1) The GJ testimony was 10 years after the incident
2) The OAG was already grooming MM as a prosecution witness
3) The real possibility of some immunity grant or MM's fear of being found out or prosecuted for gambling or sexting. (The Van Natta ESPN article brings up a report that MM gambled on PSU games while a QB and coach - a death sentence for coaching dreams) I wonder if that will come up in this trial?
4) As far as JVP goes he was 75 in 2001 when MM first informed him and 85 when he learned he would be called to the GJ so he asked MM to "refresh" his memory.
5) the GJ probe reinforces the idea that JS was a pedophile and that would encourage a more damaging view for a witness like MM.
You can't use the time lapse and subsequent events as a strike against the GJ testimony when the same things are true for the letter (which was written after the sh!t hit the fan).
Afraid I don't follow you.
The list I offered of why i feel the GJ testimony less reliable than what we know of previous events; MM's actions that night, his 10 year wait, and what Dr. D says he was told - along with what we know happened - i.e. JVP.s 'refresher meeting' and MM's contact with the OAG along with the Van Natta revelations does not depend on any letter
A "sexual component"? WTF is a sexual component? Is it anything like a "sexual nature"?
I have your sexual "component"....hanging.
Exactly, all you can say is that Dranov knew it MIGHT have been sexual based on MM's concerns regarding the sounds - IOW, it is "speculative" in nature both on the part of MM and the third-party witness (i.e., that MM was concerned it MIGHT have been sexual in nature, but never said that he actually SAW or EYEWITNESSED a sex act or criminal sexual assault. There is little doubt what Dr. Dranov would have done if MM explicitly said he SAW and EYEWITNESSED a criminal sexual assault of any kind, let alone anal intercourse....he would have called the Police instantaneously to protect himself and his medical license!).
McQuery should file suit against McQuery for defaming or actually confirming his own character by making the polar opposite statements he has made on record regarding a very serious matter. Without any statements or input from anyone at PSU and after reading Mike's own words, what rational coach would hire him?
My point is that a letter from Paterno 10 years after the fact certainly holds no more weight than a GJ testimony where, at least, it is given under oath.
I believe his point is that he is not lying if he now actually believes he did....even though in an absolute sense he could be telling a "misrepresentation of actual reality and the truth". Your mind has a "bias" to protect itself -- in other words, it is very easy for your mind to recreate history over time and view how you acted more favorably than you did. This is most for the protection of itself as you could literally go to war with yourself if you did something unconscionable relative to your own values in the heat of the moment and could never forgive yourself..... The mind does have a memory bias to protect itself.
The letter doesn't contradict the GJ Testimony - you keep saying it does, but that doesn't make it so! MM could have expressed concern that what was going on, which he told Paterno he didn't know precisely what was going on based on what little he saw, MIGHT have been grossly inappropriate and "crossed the line...." -- IOW, MM might have speculated about his worst case scenario concerns and from their testimony probably clearly did, but that is "speculative" in nature and JVP has unequivocally stated that MM never told him defacto that he actually SAW or EYEWITNESSED these things. In fact, JVP put out a formal press statement immediately following the SWIGJ Presentment - Statement of Lies that MM at no time during the conversation told him anything about seeing and eyewitnessing a sex act or sexual assault of any kind.
Fair enough...but then why didn't THEY call someone other than recommend JVP? And If you are saying MM gave the same watered down story to several people, and Schultz spoke to them, wouldn't you begin to wonder (especially in light of the 1998 incident where he was considered creepy but not illegal?). To me, then, that posses enough reasonable doubt that C & S are NOT culpable.
And to that end, the State had to slap perjury charges on the PSU administrators to make it look like they lied! That explanation fits like a glove. Corbett hoped that Schultz or Curley would flip on Spanier they presumed they could use Baldwin's testimony to threaten them into action. When that didn't happen things started to get out of control. Paterno was clearly the target of Surma but when the media firestorm ignited the BOT hired Freeh to justify their action in firing Joe without a solid reason. Spanier was protecting the University's reputation standing behind Schultz and Curley but didn't realize the BOT had turned on him thanks to Corbett's push. Now that Baldwin's testimony has been tossed, JS is behind bars, the secrets that were hidden in TSM are gone forever there is little desire, need or ability to try Curley and Schultz by the State. As much as I hate this whole tragedy I must hand it to the bad guys, they played their cards extremely well.
Why on earth would Joe have "not related that to him?"
Occam's razor: Everyone acted the way they did because Mike reported Jerry engaged in "horseplay" with a kid.
Dukie has acknowledged it. His version is that Mike played at his (Dukie's) request.
You would have to ask THEM why they didn't call someone other than Joe.
When you characterize MM's version as watered down, which BTW I agree with, that doesn't mean that the watered down version didn't convey the sexual context of the observed actions. Look at the testimony of both Joe and his father.
The fact that the 1998 incident was determined to be unfounded works both ways. In addition to your take on it it can also be viewed as all the more reason to alert the proper authorities.
Did Joe & John McQ know about the 1998 incident? If they did, who told them? I was under the impression that the 1998 action was not public knowledge at that time in the past.You would have to ask THEM why they didn't call someone other than Joe.
When you characterize MM's version as watered down, which BTW I agree with, that doesn't mean that the watered down version didn't convey the sexual context of the observed actions. Look at the testimony of both Joe and his father.
The fact that the 1998 incident was determined to be unfounded works both ways. In addition to your take on it it can also be viewed as all the more reason to alert the proper authorities.
Why on earth would Joe have "not related that to him?"
Well then if Joe did relate the sexual nature of what Mike had told him, then based on Courtney's testimony Schultz withheld this information from University counsel.
I don't understand why you want to make that point.
