Ray Blehar delivers another great blog post about McQueary and Corbett
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
The old "recovered memories" thing ... if you give Jerry a free pass to recover memories then ... you can't really argue with victims so do it. And vice versa.
Not one person Mike told thought the matter warranted a report to DPW. In fact, in all the available notes and emails from '01, the boy is not even mentioned once.
1. PMA's victory in federal court about the $60 million was a travesty b/c PSU just wrote a check to the plaintiff w/o investigating/ challenging that case from the 70s.
2. There's no way that Ray Gricar's mystery isn't a part of this, IMHO.
2. There's no way that Ray Gricar's mystery isn't a part of this, IMHO.
1. PSU did not investigate or challenge any of of the claims against them. Half of the men paid settlements did not even know Jerry Sandusky on a personal level.
2. There’s no way Gricar’s disappearance is in any way related to Sandusky. There was nothing nefarious about him not bringing charges in the 1998 incident. As noted in Mark Pendergrast’s book, the boy simply flat out refused to claim Sandusky had any sexual intent despite being pressured by DPW to do so. That boy would continue to be friends with Sandusky for 13 years, never claim any other incidents, and even sent Jerry a text stating “Happy Fathers Day, I am so glad God has put you in my life” only a year before the arrest.
Ok, but DA’s hear things. What if he heard or learned other things subsequently about Sandusky which made him feel deeply guilty for being fooled or worse and not prosecuting when he had the chance.
"half the people PSU paid Jerry didn't even know on a personal level" . What is the basis for your comment? I am not doubting you I just think something like that if true really further makes a mockery of this entire saga.
Hey Ray,
I appreciate all the work you have done on this subject. I followed the saga pretty closely for years and then lost interest when literally everything I hoped for went the other way. So i am going to throw a bunch of sxxt against the wall. I apologize in advance if so much is old news. Also some you will know others you'll need to speculate so please do both.
. for a long time I thought Harmon's silence was a key. Did he ever testify? If so I guess it wasn't very significant. Thoughts on Harmon.
.why did no one ever "take apart" MM's various testimonies as many had predicted?
. you are confident AM was not vic 2, and I thought you speculated you might know who vic 2 was. Any other thoughts and any guess why v2 didn't show up for a payday? Also AM got paid for being v2. Do you think he knew who it was and was sure he wouldn't appear?
. I am a little suspect of repressed memory therapy. Is it true all the vics used this technique to recall their abuse?
. You seem convinced JS was guilty as hell. I agree "blowing rasberry's" and bear hugs etc is abuse, however IMO it was his more perverse actions that really inflamed public opinion. I am not sure what the medical affliction some suggest JS has but do you think that is true? If so does that preclude some of those more perverse actions? Also, if he has something visible is it strange the defense never asked about that during trial?
. Finally, the famous A-9 Freeh review was at worst a dud at best the biggest secret since the landing at Normandy. Do you have any thought why? [either report had no hidden gems or why no leaks?]
Thanks in advance.
I appreciate all the work you have done on this subject. I followed the saga pretty closely for years and then lost interest when literally everything I hoped for went the other way. So i am going to throw a bunch of sxxt against the wall. I apologize in advance if so much is old news. Also some you will know others you'll need to speculate so please do both.
. for a long time I thought Harmon's silence was a key. Did he ever testify? If so I guess it wasn't very significant. Thoughts on Harmon.
.why did no one ever "take apart" MM's various testimonies as many had predicted?
. you are confident AM was not vic 2, and I thought you speculated you might know who vic 2 was. Any other thoughts and any guess why v2 didn't show up for a payday? Also AM got paid for being v2. Do you think he knew who it was and was sure he wouldn't appear?
. I am a little suspect of repressed memory therapy. Is it true all the vics used this technique to recall their abuse?
. You seem convinced JS was guilty as hell. I agree "blowing rasberry's" and bear hugs etc is abuse, however IMO it was his more perverse actions that really inflamed public opinion. I am not sure what the medical affliction some suggest JS has but do you think that is true? If so does that preclude some of those more perverse actions? Also, if he has something visible is it strange the defense never asked about that during trial?
. Finally, the famous A-9 Freeh review was at worst a dud at best the biggest secret since the landing at Normandy. Do you have any thought why? [either report had no hidden gems or why no leaks?]
Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
It is not up to a child to determine whether or not an adult has sexual intent in their interactions.
That is a good point about nobody bothering to report the incident. However, Schultz/Curley did think it was worthy of contacting the lawyer to see if they should report it. So, they obviously heard that left them feeling uneasy.
But without any evidence to back it up you can't just go into court saying "he had sexual intent" when the child says "no he didn't"
You can’t expect a child to interpret intent. What is important from the child is what was done. The basic facts. “He lifted me up from behind in bear hug while we were alone in the shower.” The child cannot think like an adult. It’s up to the adults to interpret the other adult’s actions.
Maybe that'd work for a random person, but that'd never work to convict someone as revered as Sandusky, a guy that was already known to be a quirky touchy feely guy.
I wasn’t talking about a conviction. I was talking about taking a kid’s word on the intentions of an adult. Has nothing to do with a conviction.
Curley was almost a hero.
Prosecutors had portrayed the three administrators as plotting in 2001 not to alert authorities after assistant football coach Mike McQueary reported seeing Sandusky sexually assault a boy in a locker-room shower on campus. Prosecutors say the administrators failed to act despite knowing that police had looked into a report in 1998 of Sandusky showering with a young boy.
Both Curley and Schultz said they thought reports that Sandusky had showered with young boys was inappropriate but not criminal.
“I thought Jerry had boundary issues, judgment issues that needed to be addressed,” Curley testified.
He took the stand Wednesday morning and Schultz later in the afternoon; neither was in the courtroom when the other testified. And while portions of their accounts matched, each also contradicted the other at times.
Curley struggled at times to recall details of meetings or conversations with Spanier or Schultz.
Curley said he and Schultz had visited head coach Joe Paterno at his State College home in 2001 to hear what McQueary had told the coach. But Schultz testified that he didn’t recall going to Paterno’s house for that meeting and that he got his initial report on what happened from Curley.
Curley’s testimony also raised questions about past statements by Paterno, who before he died said he had been unaware of any misconduct allegations against Sandusky until 2001.
Curley testified that he had told Paterno in 1998 that police had looked into the claim that Sandusky showered with a boy, but opted not to bring charges. He cited an email in which he said he had “touched base with the coach” and would keep him informed about the allegation.
Both men suggested they had not been led to believe McQueary witnessed a sexual attack in the shower.
Schultz said McQueary told them that he saw Sandusky standing behind a young boy with his arms wrapped around him -- and that both were naked.
But he said he did not recall McQueary claiming, as he has in the courtroom, that he heard skin-on-skin “slapping sounds.”
The former vice president also testified that when he first described the incident to Spanier, he used the word horseplay because, he said, that's how Curley told him Paterno had described it.
Schultz also said he took notes from a 2001 meeting with Spanier and Curley, during which he noted that they discussed the 1998 shower incident. They then decided that child welfare authorities should be notified and that Curley would “take the lead” and speak with Sandusky. He testified that his notes reflected Spanier’s “instructions.”
But he said he soon became “disappointed and frustrated” by how slowly Curley was moving on the matter. He and Curley didn’t interview McQueary until about 10 days after McQueary first reported the incident.
“Did Mike McQueary ever say what he saw was horseplay?” asked prosecutor Laura Ditka.
“No,” Schultz replied.
Days after that meeting, Schultz said, Curley wrote an email to him and Spanier saying he wanted to hold off on alerting child welfare officials until he had had a chance to speak with Sandusky. All three men agreed that was the fairest way to handle the matter, he said. Authorities were never notified; instead they agreed to bar Sandusky from bringing children onto campus.
Schultz testified that the decision was “a mistake,” seconds later adding: “We should have reported it, like the original plan.”
Curley acknowledged that the men initially had intended to notify state welfare officials of the McQueary report but testified that he became "uncomfortable" with that plan after talking with Paterno.
Under questioning, Curley could not recall what Paterno said to him to make him feel uncomfortable. He also was unable to recall how Paterno reacted in 1998, when he said he told the head coach police had looked into the first Sandusky shower incident.
Both men acknowledged on cross-examination that they never conspired with Spanier to commit a crime or endanger children, and that they thought at the time that what they had done was responsible and legal.
Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte asked Curley if he ever sought to identify or find the boy McQueary saw in the shower.
Do you think that might be an important distinction..... BEFORE you decide what meaning or relevance to ascribe wrt that phone call?
Sure. But as they say, actions speak louder than words. Going to a lawyer about child sexual abuse, having that lawyer say that he recommended making a call, then not making a call doesn’t look good.
What I find very revealing is that Schultz/Curley considered the 2000/01 shower incident to be more of a crisis before speaking with McQueary and less of a crisis after speaking with McQueary. I think that refutes McQueary claim that he described a detailed sexual act to Schultz and Curley.
Curley is pure entertainment.
Who hired him?
Curley told many versions of the story. He vehemently denied that McQueary reported contact between Sandusky and the boy, sexual or otherwise.
Another key difference was that Curley claimed the two met with Paterno on Feb. 11, 2001, and he informed them of the incident. Schultz claimed that Curley phoned him after the meeting.
Prosecutors also showed a 1998 email chain indicating that Paterno was made aware of an investigation into Sandusky that year after a woman complained that the former Penn State assistant football coach had bear-hugged her son in the showers. Curley testified that he had informed Paterno of that incident, contradicting Paterno's 2011 grand jury testimony. Paterno died in 2012.
The most important testimony from the two administrators, in terms of the case against Spanier, 68, is what they told their boss of the incidents. The prosecution is trying to prove that Spanier had knowledge of the crimes and failed to report it.
Prosecutors asked Schultz if he had ever told Spanier that the 2001 incident was horseplay during a late February meeting.
"Yes, because that was the original report from Joe Paterno," Schutlz said, adding that he did tell Spanier that they were naked.
"Everyone was concerned; we thought it was serious."
Schultz testified that he was under the impression the 2001 incident had been reported to DPW, up until the 2011 grand jury investigation, though he was not sure where that information came from.
"I'm not sure, but I think it was President Spanier," Schultz says.
Schultz also testified that he told Spanier more than once of a similar 1998 incident involving Sandusky. Prosecutors presented an email chain discussing the incident, on which Spanier was copied.
"It was important and the president should hear about it, and he should hear about it from me," Schultz said.
Curley, however, said he had no conversations with Spanier regarding the 1998 incident, though he acknowledged Spanier was copied on the email chain.
The prosecution earlier had introduced a note from a Feb. 12. 2001, meeting between Curley and Schultz before a meeting with Spanier and his council. Curley said he used the same paper for a meeting the trio had afterward.
The note only included the initials TMC (Tim M. Curley).
"Am I missing Graham Spanier's initials on there?" Silver asked.
"No, you're not," Schultz said.
"Is it possible then," Silver continued, "that it reflects only a meeting with Tim Curley before the President's Council?"
"Something like that is possible," Schultz replied. "But I don't think so."
He referred to a mark at the bottom of the note: "T.C. to keep Schultz posted," which he said was Spanier's directive to Curley, but he conceded that he could not specifically point out when Spanier was introduced to the conversation.
Lisa Powers, Penn State director of strategic communications, also testified about emails among her, Spanier and a Harrisburg reporter. Spanier said in those emails he had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, Powers testified.
I have said all along that I think McQueary became more clear with what he saw ten years after the incident than he was at the time of the incident. McQueary is a sketchy figure in all of this.
What could have he learned about Sandusky? Gricar dissapeared in 2005. The first person to ever claim sexual abuse by Sandusky to any authority figure (or anyone for that matter) didn’t do so until 2009/10.
When John Ziegler was leaked the identities of all 36 accusers, Jerry Sandusky checked off the ones he actually knew. Ziegler then independently asked Dottie Sandusky what ones she knew. There was no opportunity for Jerry and Dottie to “collude”. Her list matched Jerry’s.
Say what you want about John Ziegler. But I have seen no evidence of him acting dishonestly regarding this case.
Last edited:
this is really the sticking point for me. 2 separate groups of people listened to McQueary, no one felt compelled to call the police without corroboration.
Yep, because being informed of contemporaneous events in order to figure out the exact date something happened 17 years ago is the same thing as discovering through “therapy” that a man you attended football games with into your mid twenties actually repeatedly sexually assaulted you as a teenager.
on a tangential note, I have said this from the start . . . it seems odd that even in the most "incriminating" emails in the Freeh report, not one PSU admin uses the term "molestation" or "sexual abuse" . . . or even grasps the magnitude of Sandusky allegedly molesting young boys . . . there is no outcry of "jeez guys, we're gonna burn in hell for this" . . . they are far too methodical with their language. I cannot read those emails and get a sense they are THAT detached and inhumane if they are discussing a child being molested.
Except that Ziegler and Matt Lauer were buddies.
To Ziegler’s view, that horrible scream would have alerted Dottie to an assault in the home, and she would either have confronted Jerry at that time or she would be unable to defend him so sincerely later “without an ounce of consciousness of guilt.”
Mrs. Sandusky testified at her husband's trial that she never heard such a scream.
No one did a shout test on the Today show for Wednesday’s interview.
But co-host Matt Lauer did vouch for Mrs. Sandusky’s assertion that the spare bedroom in the basement is just off the staircase leading to the home’s main floor.
As to the idea that Mrs. Sandusky never heard Victim 9’s screams?
That is a hard one to prove without knowing how loud or muffled the scream may have been, whether it was covered up by another noise, whether Mrs. Sandusky could have interpreted it as “horseplay.”
Or even whether she refused to acknowledge hearing a scream out of a duty or desire to support her husband.
Dottie Sandusky told Matt Lauer this week that's not the way she was raised.
But with no other witnesses to take this out of the "he-said, she-said" realm, there’s really nothing conclusive to be drawn from this point.
Uneasy in the sense that JS showering alone with TSM kids was a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Again, not one mention of the boy in any of their notes and emails.
Read the communication chain from the perspective of prevention and it all makes sense.
14 years later Sandusky was convicted on 5 counts in the janitor case in which there was no victim, no report of a crime, no evidence of a crime, no established date of a crime, no witness to a crime. In fact, the actual witness, who was not allowed to testify, told police that Sandusky WAS NOT the man he saw, and yet they still proceeded with that case.
My point is that once you believe JS is a serial pedophile, everything he did with any kid becomes a criminal act.
All well and good. But you said there were no charges. At the time, correct. But he was eventually charged and convicted in the ‘98 incident wasn’t he?
Yes, which makes me question much of what JS was convicted.
If i am not mistaken regarding the testimony with Schultz and Curley, I thought i read they copt a plea with the agreement that they would say certain things on the stand in exchange for no jail time. Schultz played his role but Curley went rogue which caused some of the dispute. as it turned out both got jail time anyway. Schultz seemed to lay a lot at Curley's feet. My question would be he Schultz was a VP and head of security, why didn't he take a more vigorous approach at the time. [like hey Tim don't forget you need to report this to DPW when are you going to do that}
PinkHippo = clown. PennLive clown.
Jerry my be guilty of some of the lesser offenses....that is hard to argue. However, having anal sex.....while standing up in a shower or anally raping a boy in this basement.....come on, have you seen bigfoot lately?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting 2026 Ohio DB Amar'e Miller has Penn State on top following weekend visit
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-