Ray Blehar....MM caught in lie?
- Thread starter marshall23
- Start date
Sadly there are idiots everywhere and it does suck. The nature of that man's crime and the sh!tstorm the media made of it in combination of the bad leadership made it about a football program even though most level headed people know better. Joe is a victim of his own good life as people expected him to be a saint and not to be human which he was. Joe trusted those above him to handle it and they really could have done a better job. Saying that here is taboo, but they really could have. Do I think they were malicious criminals out to save Jerry...not at all. Their relationship with him and his grooming for decades allowed him to fool people, but the mob doesn't care about that...they never did...they wanted blood. One phone simple phone call to a proper reporting agency and the narrative is WAY different. One phone call. Everyone will have their own opinion of Joe and MANY hated him long before this...especially the little sisters of the poor like Pitt, RU, and UMD folks.
It's not clear that Eshbach is referring to the GJP. She (and Mike) may be referring to some of the stories in the media during that Monday to Wednesday timeframe regarding the incident, some of which were likely incorrect.
The presentment never said anything about Mike and his dad going over, so he's clearly indicating something another writer had printed somewhere (or on radio/tv).
Looks like Eshbach's response was to Mike's later email about misrepresentations by the media.
Excuse me, but the narrative was that JS was sodomizing a boy in the shower. That didn't happen. To think this OAG's actions had nothing to do w/ his convictions is sort of stupid, isn't it?
Point taken. Without comparing what was said in the media vs. the GJP, I don't know just how much the phrasing in the GJP plays into the media's misrepresentations. (Then again, it's the media, so could be no correlation at all!).
Still, she told McQ to keep quiet about falsehoods. That is very disturbing, shows malice on the part of the OAG (imo), and should be addressed. And I'm not talking about how it relates to JS, but rather how it relates to JVP and PSU. That remains the primary focus of so many of us.... striving for some fairness and objectivity and righting those specific wrongs.
Someone from the OGBOT or even the new regime owes Sue and the Paternos and we PSU friends and alums a large, public apology and a righting of the narrative. I'll believe forever that that is owed; I don't believe it will happen.
regardless, this is a smoking gun on how prosecution used the GJP and conspired to twist the truth. We know that several aspects of the GJP were purposefully incorrect. We know that the prosector told MM to keep quiet about mistruths. And we know this email was sat on for several years. IMHO, this is a smoking gun that the state needs to investigate.
Nope. Here's her testimony (Hat tip, JmmyW) stating a statement by Mike would have damaged her case.
This is it. This is the smoking gun. MM's dad was out of town. That means perhaps MM was also out of town. Even Sandusky and Paterno could have been out of town. Maybe they were all together
on a fishing trip to Avalon that weekend. If that's the case nothing could have happened in the Lasch Building. This is going to be bigger than Rosewell and Area 51.
How do you defend, reconcile and/or explain away Victim 2's testimony that absolutely nothing happened that fateful night in 2002, errr, i mean 2001?
That was the only time there was a witness and a defined date. Yet, the person at the epicenter stated that what was alleged did not occur.
That’s cute and all, but the point of this thread is the dishonesty of McQueary/Esbach.
To be perfectly honest, do you really see this somehow changing the narrative at all? It should have never been about a sport or a coach, but that is the story that was made up and ran with. Let's put it like this, do you think this vague note is going to walk anything back in terms of a national perception. Do you think Jim Bob at Gainseville is going to read that and say...well they surely screwed PSU...did you read that email exchange? A big deal...sure...here, but no where else. I doubt this even touches the Lions Den or 247 in terms of other active PSU sites. So I don't think this is some huge game changer, but maybe other do...which is fine.
It means people lied and hid the truth, at least to some degree. It is a smoking gun that we were misled. It is a smoking gun that suggests there should be an investigation into the behaviors of the prosecution.
I agree. To me, the only way to change the general public perception (and even then, only to an extent) is for a strong, public statement to come out of UPark by the BOT Chair or the Pres or even from the Governor that refutes the common narrative and details the facts vs. the misconceptions.
And I have no faith that that will ever happen. It's a pipe dream (along the lines of my Charlize pipe dream, but that's another thread).
IF - IF the court ever allows the A9 / Paterno family findings to be released, we may have a sliver of hope that some pay attention to what that reveals. I doubt it, but it would be worth taking that step to get something out there for public consumption as an antidote to the crap that's been out there to date.
So you want to talk about the one that didn't testify over the 8 that did? By all means you can and that is what sucks about it being tied to PSU...but isn't what I am really talking about if you read my other replies.
Spot on...not unless it is something ratings worthy will it ever be more than a blip on the radar.
which part? the part where he says, I dont know what you call it? You know the part were the GJ that heard that testimony from JVP decided to do nothing.
That was the one thing that really fired up everyone. Still does. Without that, it's not anywhere near as big a deal nationally (well, likely--with Joe's name in it, it would still not have been good).
Dumbass. Everyone knows that better fishing is off Cape May, not Avalon.
So MM wanted to correct the record because he was being........
vilified. JE says do not do it because it will hurt my case. MM says ok........why? What would cause MM to say...........nothing (again), unless there was some leverage JE had over him. MM.........your response.
It a minimum it makes a reasonable person wonder why the prosecution would try to hide anything if the facts were on their side. Telling a witness to keep quiet because your case could be jeopardized if said witness tried to set the record straight? What the hell is that? Apparently Eschbach didn't want her "alternative facts" to be challenged.
I'm with you on this point. Old Main screwed it up. But I also don't think it was/should have been criminal. And I don't think it's taboo to hold that position here. What happened fits this quote:
“You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.”--Heinlein
A couple of unrelated thoughts. First, is the BOT review still going on? I am referring to the members who retained one of our board members to help in their review. Have they not seen this e-mail? What is going on with their review?
Second, to the point of Eshbach, the entire Grand Jury process in the US is irretrievably broken. I agree with those who are outraged that she is more worried about not hurting her case than the truth, but we all need to be realists and understand that when "these people" (referring to most prosecutors) believe they are right about something, in their world the end does justify the means.
Case in point, if you can ignore the politics, is the current grand jury investigation of Paul Manafort. Forget guilt or innocence and focus on the process of the pre-dawn raid of armed FBI agents and other tactics that are all about intimidation rather than a search for the truth.
Second, to the point of Eshbach, the entire Grand Jury process in the US is irretrievably broken. I agree with those who are outraged that she is more worried about not hurting her case than the truth, but we all need to be realists and understand that when "these people" (referring to most prosecutors) believe they are right about something, in their world the end does justify the means.
Case in point, if you can ignore the politics, is the current grand jury investigation of Paul Manafort. Forget guilt or innocence and focus on the process of the pre-dawn raid of armed FBI agents and other tactics that are all about intimidation rather than a search for the truth.
I'd use the word naiveté, or inexperience, or misunderstanding vs. stupid, but that general sentiment is apropos.
I agree. Sadly our judicial system is now more about winning and losing and who benefits than about truth and justice.
It used to be 10 guilty men go free than incarcerate 1 innocent man. Now it's about the lawyers win loss record and how they can parlay their current position to a bigger one or more money.
The other thing that will change the narrative is IF/WHEN the evidence confirming that someone from PSU contacted Centre County CYS finally sees the light of day.
So if he didn't talk to his dad that night we are left we 2 choices,
. he met with Dranov only who has testified he heard nothing warranting a contact with authorities or
. he didn't meet with anybody that night and left JS alone with the kid and told no one until 12 + hours later. How does that make you feel?.
I don't know why I read these threads they just make me sick.
An excellent post. Also consider that the goal of a typical (American) police interrogation is to get a confession (vs. ascertaining the truth).
Last edited:
Thanks, Ray.
But wouldn't Curley or Schultz have stated that by now?
And if that is so, then the Commonwealth owes some damages to C/S/S, and perhaps to PSU also.
What is your take on Curley talking with Raykovitz? Should that have counted as making a report to a proper authority, in your opinion?
I noticed something about Paul Suhey being the treasurer of the Mt. Nittany Medical Center (I think that was the entity) when they bailed out John McQ and Dr. Dranov by buying their share of a nearly $2mm debt and taking over their business. Anything to look into there that may be connected to who says or does not say what about all this? Or just another in a long, long line of 'the small, small world of State College' relationships?
Thanks.
I swear in those trials, Gary Schultz is basically scratching his head, when asked about reporting it, and saying along the lines, 'my notes says we reported it, but I cant remember who was suppose to do that, so I guess we didnt.' But I think he told someone to do it, and just cant remember.
IMHO it's more likely that this is a reference to Paterno.
