Everyone knows the guy is a ****ing idiot, the media targeted Joe because it made for a much more sensational story, the state of Pa is corrupt, etc. Just. Move. On. Enjoy your life.
Penn State Confidential: What Did Mike McQueary Hear and See?
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Wins has nothing to do with it. It's called accepting the brutal facts and living your life.
Hooligan's Holiday was better than anything they ever did, but it didn't sell. Either way, it was a great album.
What facts do you base your conclusions off of? I would guess that the cases being completed and dropped, as well as the simple passing of time, is a far greater reason for the dropoff in outrage amongst Penn State related people.
Some of us would prefer to not indulge in daily circle-jerks where we labor over the same points and yell down anyone whose arm gets tired as not a 'true Penn Stater'.
If you scroll down a half page to the actual picture of the book cover, you can see that it was just an error on the blog.
Thanks. I only made it to the editor's note, which apparently was what the OP quoted. It makes me feel better that it's just the editor of Big Trial -- not an actual book author, book editor, and publishing house that screwed up.
The cases are not complete and I suspect they won't be over anytime soon.
Graham Spanier is still a free man and his appeal is very strong. I believe he will eventually be exonerated on appeal and will not have to spend a day in jail.
Jerry Sandusky has an active PCRA petition going on. In fact the Commonwealth's final submission was due yesterday (after 2 extensions) and should be posted to the Centre County web pages today. Professor Wes Oliver of Dusquene Law School has stated it is one of the strongest PCRA's that he has seen. I am looking forward to reading the Commonwealth's rebuttal to Sandusky's compelling and comprehensive 257 page filing regarding 31 key issues. I think the State will be hard pressed to refute the defense findings.
If none of this interests you, please ignore it and move on as you wish.
You are 100% correct. But some insist on embarrassing themselves and PSU
by repeating the same tired and useless arguments in a sports forum.
You are welcome to your own opinions. It is a free country.
If you are not interested in this topic and others on the fiasco then please ignore them.
But you're doing something different, right? Right.
"Uh... he's clearly guilty because he was convicted at trial. He was convicted at trial because he's clearly guilty. - Sincerely the Commonwealth of PA"
While my gut leans towards him actually committing some of the crimes, given the nature of his trial, we don't have enough information to determine what he actually did and didn't do. (Other than the victims from the PSU showers, we know for sure they weren't abused) While his trial was a sham, the same people get to rule on whether he gets a new one, and it's not going to happen. Honestly I don't really care about him, he was an ex-employee. But I would like to see the issues in our judicial and child protective systems get exposed and fixed.
Actually, the jurist who makes the initial ruling on whether or not the PCRA has merits is Judge Foradora and he had nothing to do with the first trial. The ruling is subject to appeal to Superior and/or the Pa. Supreme Court and while some of their members may have participated in some aspects of the appeals of the first trial, it is likely that any panel that will rule on appeals for this PCRA will include a number of people who had nothing to do with the first trial. I am glad that Judge Cleland recused himself from the PCRA. IMO, he was biased and a key reason that the first trial wasn't fair and there were compelling reasons for him to recuse himself.
I am not sure if JS committed any crimes as I am unaware of any credible evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation that he engaged in any sexual acts with any of the accusers. However there doesn't have to be sexual acts to be guilty of a crime if there is sexual intent. That being said, it is not clear to me whether or not Sandusky had sexual intent.
I would like to see Sandusky win a new trial for several reasons. The obvious reason is because he didn't get a fair trial in the first go round. Some other key reasons are to determine which, if any, of the ~30 accusers that the PSU BOT gave multi-million dollar settlements settlements to were actual victims and whether or not Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Paterno did anything wrong.
francofan said:
True, but it's an exclusive club, and they will look out for each other.
francofan said:
This is the area that I think his guilt probably lies. Just my opinion based on what we know.
francofan said:
Agreed, but we already know Paterno did no wrong.
You and I may believe that Paterno did no wrong, but I can assure you that that is a minority opinion. I believe that a new trial would very likely move the needle on this question in a positive direction.
I understand that winning a new trial is not going to be easy. That being said, the defense has a very strong case and stranger things have happened.
Valid point, but I don't think it will change anything in regards to Paterno. There are two types of people in this world. Those who understand the facts of the Sandusky Scandal and already know that Paterno did exactly what he should have done, and those who don't understand the facts and have formed their opinion of Paterno out of ignorance, emotion, and the fact that he always beat their football team. The latter will never change their opinion, the former don't need to.
Mike "thought" he heard "some noises" and translated it into what he "thought" was happening.
He "saw" even less.
He "saw" even less.
How do you see around corners while looking in a mirror?
It is time to get this off the board, people trying to reminisce about 5 years ago SUCKS!!!! Get it off the board Phil!
You are welcome to your own opinions.
If you will, please explain your hardship in ignoring threads that causes you your consternation. Whether or not you want to admit it, the last chapter of this saga has yet to be written.
Right, because how would anyone have known what this thread was about?
Reminisce is hardly an apt description.
.
In order to buy into the completely illogical and "unscientific" bull$hit that "Scientific America" is attempting to sell there, we need to first "buy into" their factual position that Mike McQueary, his Father and Dr. Dranov committed major-league Felonies under PA's "Obstruction of Justice" Code by not reporting the suspected "Anal-Rape" of a child. PA does not prosecute "Accessory After The Fact" under a separate code and therefore the claim of "ignorance" can be a defense EXCEPT when:
And the result of the non-reporting results in damage to the VICTIM of the crime that could have otherwise potentially been averted. Beyond absurd to claim that a 28 year old Adult and two 50- or 60-something year old adults don't know that "subjecting a 10 year old to anal sex" is a CRIME in Pennsylvania OR that not calling in said CRIME while it is IN-PROGRESS would not result in further "injury" to the VICTIM (and impede authorities ability to bring the PERPETRATOR to justice)!
In order for us to believe "The State's" case as summarized in this "Scientific America" article (keep in mind Paterno was never charged with any crime), it entails the LOGICAL REQUIREMENT that Mike McQueary, his Father and Dr. Dranov were charged by The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (or actually intentionally and corruptly NOT CHARGED) for the EXTREMELY SERIOUS FELONY of intentional Failure to Report the Criminal Anal-Rape of a 10 Year Old Child In-Progress?!?!?! And this is not the "FTR" of the PA CPSL - this is the major-league "Failure to Report a Crime under the PA Obstruction of Justice Code" (what is known as, and prosecuted under, "Accessory After The Fact" in most locales, but prosecuted under the "Obstruction of Justice Code" in Pennsylvania). Oh btw, 100% of these "supposed" State's Witnesses explicitly stated at-trial that The State was LYING in their Grand Jury Presentment and Accompanying Indictments (the Presentment was referenced as the "Probable Cause" for 100% of the 2001 Indictments) when The State said (and the OAG is unquestionably the writer of the Presentment):
- That Mike McQueary witnessed such a thing -- Mike McQueary testified at-trial that he told the Grand Jury the diametric opposite, that he DID NOT witness such a thing and never told anyone he had (and the Grand Jury Record reflects MM's claim, not The State's in their fraudulent Presentment).
- That Mike McQueary told John McQueary and Dr. Dranov, while the incident was IN-PROGRESS that he "saw" and eyewitnessed the child being "subjected to anal-rape" - again, not only Mike McQueary testified at-trial that this State Presentment/Indictment claim was a LIE and he never told them OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER such a thing, but John McQueary and Dr. Dranov testified that these State Presentment / Indictment claims DIAMETRICALLY CONFLICT with what they told the Grand Jury when they testified....they told the Grand Jury NO SUCH THING and had they thought Mike was remotely telling them that he saw JS molesting the child in any form, let alone "subjecting the child to anal-rape" - none of which MM actually did, they would have called Police/911 IMMEDIATELY!
IOW nits74, we are literally required to suspend REALITY and the FACTUAL RECORD (including the FACTS MM, JM and Dr. D actually testified to the Grand Jury) in order to believe "The State's Case" as to what happened that night and in the days and weeks following the event! A "suspension of REALITY and FACT" that is not supposed to be permitted in a US Court of Law via both guaranteed DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS AND CITIZENS RIGHTS enumerated in both the US and PA Constitutions!
IOW, the piece of garbage beyond question politically-tainted Prosecutors and Judges in this case just wantonly trampled FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED Citizens Rights (i.e., clear tyranny) to the severe direct detriment of ALL PSU-Related Parties with their lies and false defamations about PSU and the PSU Community, but none of us affected parties, including PSU Alumni, should worry about these clear tyrannies and massive injustices born of self-serving and self-dealing POLITICAL CORRUPTIONS (especially massively hypocritical lawyers-turned-politicians and politically-toady Judges who violated their oath to the bar and the Commonwealth to DEFEND and UPHOLD the Constitution of the Commonwealth against such immoral defilement and corruption!) - go figure, that these corrupt, morally and ethically bankrupt, pieces of human excrement, and their corrupt servile defenders, believe that affected PSU Alumni should not be permitted to even discuss these MASSIVE TYRANNIES, MORAL-CORRUPTIONS and INDECENT INJUSTICES on this, a PSU-Dedicated board!
The truth of the matter is the last chapter was written long ago. Your wishing
otherwise doesn't change that fact. And neither will you beating of a dead horse.
And as for ignoring your threads, it's like a car wreck. When passing one most
really don't want to look. But there is something about one that compels most to
glance.
In your mind the last chapter may have been written, but in the real world it hasn't. Spanier's appeal and Sandusky's PCRA are still very much alive. If you want to bury your head in the sand, please be my guest.
So your one of those A-holes
that slows down to look at a traffic accident and cause traffic jams. Not surprised.
"look, a car that's all smashed up, never saw that
before! I should slow down to get a good look. I can't wait for the next NASCAR race!"
(Note: superfluous line breaks added on purpose for effect)
Not directly related to this thread but figured I'd condense Sandusky stuff down.
Noticed recently how Schultz notes on May 4, 1998 "at min- poor judgement". When Schreffler goes to speak with Sandusky on June 1....Jerry says he realized "he used poor judgement".
Not that unusual of a phrase, perhaps a coincidence but strikes me as odd how it was used in Gary's notes (presumably reported by Harmon) and then Jerry uses that phrase.
Noticed recently how Schultz notes on May 4, 1998 "at min- poor judgement". When Schreffler goes to speak with Sandusky on June 1....Jerry says he realized "he used poor judgement".
Not that unusual of a phrase, perhaps a coincidence but strikes me as odd how it was used in Gary's notes (presumably reported by Harmon) and then Jerry uses that phrase.
How usual is the phrase............sexual in nature? I think Frank Fina introduced it first during JoePa's GJ questioning.
It's more usual than "it was a sexual nature" which is what Joe was quoted as saying in the transcript. What the hell exactly is "a sexual nature"? I had never heard that expression before in my life.
It doesn't mean anything, especially when it's qualified multiple times, or cross examined. Plus we've never hear it to verify it's accuracy.
Or when JVP could have been clarifying the questioner's obviously leading question as in:
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was of a sexual nature? I’m not sure exactly what it was.
I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
It was of a sexual nature? I’m not sure exactly what it was.
I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
Essentially, the Court Stenographer failing to reflect that it was a clarifying question in his answer to the questioner's leading questions easily explains everything. Paterno says no less than 4 times that he doesn't know what was going on and Mike did not tell him what was going on! Paterno also said that Mike merely describe it as "inappropriate" not criminal or sexual - the prosecution's disengenuousness in trying to make it more than this is belied by their very next question to Paterno:
Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?
Now please, do tell me what adult or prosecutor describes "Criminal Sexual Assault Anal Rape" in these terms?
Agree except there is no "of" in the transcript. Just "it was a sexual nature". Whatever the hell that means...
Yes, but still makes more sense with a question mark and as a clarification of the questioner's leading questions given that JVP says at least 4 times that MM gave him no specifics or details and described JS's behavior as only "inappropriate", not criminal in nature (let alone Criminal Sexual Assault Anal Rape). The prosecutor acknowledges this in the next question asking where MM described seeing this "inappropriate conduct" - laughable to believe a prosecutor would describe what MM saw in such terms if they really believed, and were trying to establish, MM told JVP he "saw" and eyewitnessed the boy "being subjected to anal-rape" which is what they clearly claimed in their Presentment. And not just that MM had told JVP this, but MM had told his father and Dr. D that he saw the child being subjected to anal-rape the prior night while the incident was still in progress and first-responders could have been sent to apprehend Sandusky and assist the boy! Complete and utter made-up nonsense and bull$hit as MM, his father and Dr. D have all made perfectly clear.
Could have been transcribed wrong..."was it of a sexual nature"?
If I'm not mistaken, this particular testimony Joe's gave was taped and then scribed from the tape.
