I don’t really see arm twisting here either. Maybe some leading questions but not arm twisting.
Real Crime Profile: Podcast on HBO's PATERNO featuring Scott (Updated with Part II 5/16)
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
I don’t really see arm twisting here either. Maybe some leading questions but not arm twisting.
how about this?...
There is circumstantial evidence that Joe was influenced:
1/12/11 at 8:40 a.m. to approximately 9:20 a.m. (40 minutes), Joe met with:
2 police officers, (Rossman and Sassano) and 2 deputy attorney generals (Fina and Eschbach).
In the police report, there is no mention of the term “sexual”. It does state: “something inappropriate”.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the 2 deputy attorney generals left the room as well. We know this because the police report also reveals that after Joe’s interview concluded, the 2 police officers then interviewed Curley and then Schultz, and only the police officers and Cynthia Baldwin were present in the subsequent interviews, i.e. Fina and Eschbach were no longer there.
1/12/11 at 11:06 a.m. to 11:13 a.m. (7 minutes), Joe testified in front of the grand jury, Eschbach asked the questions:
Joe says: “a mature person who was fondling whatever you might call it – I’m not sure what the term would be a young boy.”
Note: Where did the term fondling come from? Joe did not use the term 2 hours earlier in his police interview, and more importantly, Mike McQueary has never used the term or described fondling. It is clear that Joe was inaccurate when he used the term fondling. We also know that what the Grand Jury presentment states that McQueary saw and then reported to Joe is not accurate.
Joe says: “Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was. “
Note: Sexual nature. What does it mean? Does it mean sexual assault? Or does it mean Jerry in the shower with a young boy? Most of us are now repulsed with the mere thought of Jerry being in the shower with a young boy, even if that’s all it was, but I’m not so sure that in that in the time frame and given the nature of the children Sandusky was trying to help it was necessarily repulsive. Joe did not use the term “sexual nature” 2 hours earlier in his police interview. At that point, the prosecution had precisely what it wanted, and it did not want to ask what sexual nature meant, because it might have hurt it (in fact, in Joe’s last police interview - shortly before the indictments - the police officer asked about the sexual assault, and Joe responded that he never said anything about an assault). Moreover, there were no defense attorneys present to clarify precisely what Joe meant by the term “sexual nature”.
Why did Joe meet with 2 prosecutors for 40 minutes that morning, and when the meeting concluded at 9:20 a.m., where did Joe go until 11:06 a.m. Where did the deputy AGs go until 11:06 a.m.? A viable theory exists that the deputy AGs told Joe what they knew about Sandusky. Joe, without committing perjury and in an attempt to help the prosecution, uses the term “sexual nature”.
31 ritaith, Today at 9:49 AM
I don't remember who first introduced the word "horseplay" into the narrative and I wasn't aware of a statement by Joe prior his police interview. That I don't know about it doesn't mean anything.
I know two things:
1) For Joe to have fallen short of some arbitrary moral standard, he would have had to have believed his superiors had handled the matter incorrectly. There's no indication at all that Joe thought C/S/S had screwed the pooch.
2) When Spanier replied to Curley's email with "That approach is acceptable to me....", he was exercising his duty as the final authority on the matter. Anything related to PSU from that point on was his responsibility.
IOW, I think Joe was aware of how the matter was handled and after talking with both MM and TC, he had no problem with it.
Didn't mcqueary claim at some point that Joe said something to the effect of "Old Main screwed up"? This, I believe, was before November 2011, so by "Old Main", Joe wouldn't have been referring to the bot's handling of the situation post sandusky's indictment. Did Joe blame Spanier going back to 2000/2001? Was "Old Main" just Spanier, or could he have meant Spanier, Schultz, and/or Baldwin? Could he have even meant Curley in that "Old Main" referred to all senior administrators involved?
It's also possible that mcqueary lied and that Joe never made the Old Main comment.
If I recall correctly, this event was to have taken place contemporaneously with the story breaking in November 2011.
At the time, it seemed as though Joe was referring to the BOT. I don't recall that he said Old Main screwed up, but that doesn't mean he didn't. What I do recall is that Joe told Mike not to trust Old Main.
These podcasts were worth the listen. Clemente is really good at laying out the story in a reasonable manner and pointing out the ridulousness of the Freeh report. I agree with wensilver that Lisa is unbelievably annoying. She is constantly interjecting “they all had to know about what a piece of garbage Sandusky was” type of commentary and Clemente would calmly explain to her (again) how “you don’t get it” — Sandusky was a nice-guy groomer, not a stranger-danger predator, and was one of the best at keeping this a secret. The fact that Clemente kept referring to State College as College Park only lends more credibility to his comments (no connection to Penn State).
