There are 12 people on earth who think he is innocent and the are all piping in on this now ridiculous thread. Oh and make that 13, his clueless wife.
Sandusky prison interview article
- Thread starter NoBareFeet
- Start date
- Status
Tell us exactly what you think he's guilty of. Do you think he sodomized the boy MM saw in the shower? Do you think he told that to Joe Curley & Shultz but they lied and covered it up? Do you think he didn't tell Dad & Dranov?
The LE activity in the Sandusky case was the crappiest and worst I've ever seen.
He's guilty of molesting boys. Joe didn't cover up anything but Sandusky is guilty. He hid it well from everyone as these weasel sexual predators do. I'm done with this thread.
OK I agree with that but define molesting boys. Do you think MM saw him sodomizing a boy in the shower? Do you believe he was forcing sex screaming boys while Dottie and family let it happen?
There were no assaults at Penn State. None.
LE was coaching victims what to say. There was no physical or objective medical evidence.
LE ignored exculpatory evidence. The excited utterance janitor was incompetent. The jury was frightened and some later admitted same. The judge was a jackass.
LE was coaching victims what to say. There was no physical or objective medical evidence.
LE ignored exculpatory evidence. The excited utterance janitor was incompetent. The jury was frightened and some later admitted same. The judge was a jackass.
If you aren't willing to go that far, I would postulate that there is absolutely evidence that creates reasonable doubt and therefore his guilty verdict was incorrect.
I don't disagree with these statements. TSM did not have good policies in place and Sandusky did not follow good protocols.
I disagree with this and think the evidence supports my assertion.
Agreed.
Completely agree and the facts back this up.
That's not how our system works. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Not the other way around.
You disagreed that PSU administrators are guilty of failing to property document MM's report and the reasoning behind their response.
I worked for multiple companies with smaller budgets than PSU and all of them had clearly documented whistleblower procedures. Those procedures provide instructions on how to receive and document the whistleblower's report, maintain confidentiality, how to document the response. Curled and Shultz did NOT do this. If they had there would be no question about what MM actually told them and why they responded the way they did.
I worked for multiple companies with smaller budgets than PSU and all of them had clearly documented whistleblower procedures. Those procedures provide instructions on how to receive and document the whistleblower's report, maintain confidentiality, how to document the response. Curled and Shultz did NOT do this. If they had there would be no question about what MM actually told them and why they responded the way they did.
True but people testified to JS's guilt and even circumstantial evidence is admissible.
I wasn't in the courtroom but my opinion is that JS's jurors got all caught up in the media hype and we're afraid of absolving him of any crimes. I think the same is true of judges who don't want to be responsible for granting JS an appeal. The same way the BOT don't want to be responsible for honoring Joe.
You really need to educate you on how many people are convinced Sandusky is innocent. Have you ever heard of Dick Anderson? Just curious how clueless you actually are.
In retrospect they should have made more thorough documentation but there was some in the form of emails and schultz’ handwritten meeting notes and meeting with counsel Wendell Courtney, etc.. None of that documentation shows a crime was reported by MM. Even MM and his Dad/Dr D didn’t feel the need to call the police that night and file an official report so JS would be arrested and questioned. Instead they treated it as an administrative matter by reporting it to Joe the next day then some school admins a few days later. Curley called MM about a week after their initial chat and asked if he was satisfied and he expressed no dissatisfaction or asked that more be done.
===================
For a little bit of background, below are some excerpts from MM's and JM's testimony at the 12/16/11 Prelim hearing for C/S/S. IMO this testimony COMPLETELY destroys the state's case against C/S/S, so no wonder John Mcqueary decided to have a random case of Commonwealth dementia (and denied ever being in the courthouse) when asked by Rominger in the JS trial on 06/12 if he could verify his testimony from the Prelim and the Judge didn't seem to think this was odd or hold him in contempt of court, etc and actually defends JM’s lack of memory....WTF????
Take a note of how many parts of the below testimony DON”T match up at all with the current narrative.
Here's the link to the 12/16/11 Prelim (backup link). Take a look at pages 67-85 (MM cross examination by Roberto) and 140-158 (JM's cross examination by Roberto and Farrell). Really, really fascinating stuff if you read through it.
Page 36: MM states that after his meeting with C/S no one from UPPD or LE came to speak with him. He didn't speak to anyone in LE until the OAG sought him out 9 freaking YEARS later.
(How was MM ok with this lack of LE to get his written statement if he really was 99% sure JS was raping a kid???)
Page 37: MM says TC called him 4 or 5 days later to follow up and told him they revoked JS’ guest privileges and informed TSM
Pg. 83: Q: When you were with Mr. Curley did you say to him – and this was ten days later?
A: Yes
Q: Did you say to him I think we should call the police?
A: No, I would not have said that to him, no
Q: And, in fact, that was consistent, you never said it to anybody in those 10 to 12 days, right?
A: No. sitting right next to Mr. Curley in that meeting in my mind is the police. I want to make that clear. I mean, that’s the person on campus who the police reports to, just so you know
Q: I’m sure Mr. Farrell will follow up with you on that.
Pg. 85: MM never once saw JS around the program with a child since the 2001 incident. Also, when TC followed up with MM by telephone 5 days later to tell him this is what we’ve done and what we’ve decided to do, MM did NOT dispute or oppose or say that they needed to do more.
**Chew on that last one for a few minutes. Apparently the state/freeh/etc. is claiming that C/S should have somehow done more even though the only witness was fine with their course of action…truly unreal.**
Pg. 151 (Farrell cross examination of JM):
Q: Do you recall Dr. Dranov disagreeing with your description of what Mike said when you said it to Mr. Schultz?
A: Not disagreeing, at least at that time, no I don’t – I don’t believe he did
Q: Did he add facts to it or correct facts?
A: We’ve had conversations so many times, it’s difficult to put into place what occurred week one, month one, year ten. And so I feel uncomfortable answer that because I don’t – I can’t say it with 100 percent certainty
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.
Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?
A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
Q: You never used the phase anal sex with Mr. Schultz?
A: Absolutely not
Q: Or the word rape?
A: Not at all
Q: Or the word sodomy?
A: No, not at all
Q: Or the phrase sexual assault?
A: No, not at all
Q: How about the word fondling?
A: I don’t think I would have used it because I didn’t see it. I would be saying what I was told, but I don’t think I would have used fondling.
Q: I apologize for this, but in the discussion with Mr. Schultz did you describe to Mr. Schultz the action of Mr. Sandusky thrusting his groin into a young boy’s rear end?
A: No
Q: Did Mike tell you that?
A: And Mike never said that
=============
Then there’s this gem from JM:
Pg. 156-157:
Q: Do you recall if you ever expressed any dissatisfaction with Mr. Schultz about the action that was taken or not taken?
A: I wouldn’t make it a personal dissatisfaction. I was – I was dissatisfied with the process that what appeared to be or sounded to me to be a serious reported infraction that we’ve all discussed here, that it appeared on the surface that the system wasn’t doing much about it. I am not in a position to say that Gary Schultz didn’t do anything about it.
**note the way JM describes the 2001 incident as "what appeared to be a serious infraction". Since when is certain child rape/molestation something that appears to be a serious infraction??...it would be a CERTAIN CRIME, not an apparent serious infraction**
Q: Well, did you ever express to Mr. Schultz your dissatisfaction with how the system was proceeding?
A: I cannot say that I ever expressed dissatisfaction to Gary
**WOW, So, according to MM/JM/the prosecution, Gary was supposed to magically conclude that JM was dissatisfied with how the report was handled, even though JM or MM never expressed dissatisfaction to either TC or Schultz? Talk about bizarro world material! These guys can’t read minds, if JM/MM were dissatisfied they should have spoken up**
Page 211 is Schultz GJ testimony, he had the impression 2001 was inappropriate.
_______________________________________________________
With the above in mind take a look at page 24 from the 6/13/12 testimony from the JS trial. Rominger is questioning JM.
Q: I have a transcript from Friday December 16, 2011, in Daulphin County courthouse. Were you present there?
A: No
Q: I’m going to show you – I’m going to show you a transcript from the Daulphin County proceeding.
A: Ok
Q: Do you recall this, what I would call a preliminary hearing
Q: I’m going to show you a transcript and turn to the list of witnesses. Do you see your name there?
A: Yes
Q: You don’t recall going to a preliminary hearing?
A: No
Q: Okay I’m going to show you what appears to be a certified copy of a transcript. You see your name on it, correct?
A: Yeah I do.
Q: I’m going to show you page 137. You were asked the question and gave an answer. Can you just look at that and see – here – if that’s what you said? And then it follows up over here.
A: I was not in that courthouse to my knowledge, something’s not right here.
Q: All right, you don’t think you said this?
The Court: He just said that, Mr. Rominger, let’s go.
Rominger: Your Honor, can we approach?
The Court: No
By Rominger:
Q: So you are saying you didn’t testify –
The Court: He just said that, Mr. Rominger
By Rominger
Q: -- In Daulphin County Courthouse? I’m going to show you another excerpt from that transcript.
The Court: Mr. Rominger, he just said he wasn’t there.
Mr. Rominger: Your Honor, I’m having some difficulty because according to the Commonwealth he was there.
The Court: He said he wasn’t there, Mr. Rominger. I don’t know what more I can say to you.
**Truly unreal the Judge went along with that B.S. and had no problem with JM contradicting what the Commonwealth’s own transcripts were saying…W…T….F!!**
Last edited:
Agreed. How on earth can a judge disagree with an official court transcript that indicates that a person was providing sworn testimony.
And people still think Sandusky had a fair trial.
They ought to pray they are never railroaded by corruption like this.well said obli. To me the whole issue of repressed memory therapy is a hoax. In this case, plant a seed and money grows.
Jerry,
My recollection is there were 3 GJ's and the 1st 2 didn't charge, then McQueary came forward and swayed the final GJ. The whole McQueary deal is a farse. Dranov, NEVER said go to police [he was an expert] Te old man denies testimony HE GAVE
and we are to believe Mike M who said nothing for 9 years, gambled on PSU football while playing and was sending dicpics to Co-Eds while coaching. 3 profiles in courage those 3 were.
The BoT giving Matt Sandusky money demonstrates how corrupt they could be, and what a farce the whole Jerry connection to Joe and Penn State was.
Check out who the officers and incorporators of Charlie Brown Airlines were.
I understand all the testimony. I think MM experienced something that was troubling to him but he didn't see enough to say what it was. That's why he gave "soft" report to dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Shultz.
That said, Curley and Shultz should have had clearly documented what MM told them and have had him sign off on it.
Ros, I think your above post is another illustration of the deflection that has characterized the comments of Sandusky's defenders in this thread.
Mike saw something that upset him very much that evening in 2001. He didn't wait 9 years to say something...or even 9 hours. He went to Joe with the story...as Joe testified to the grand jury. His alleged gambling and dicpics have nothing to do with any of this.
Moreover, and this is crucial: the incident that Mike witnessed bears clear similarities to a series of other incidents separately reported by an array of other victims, witnesses, and complainants over the course of a number of years.
Keep in mind that 10 years later, when the whole thing blew up, everyone involved was concerned first and foremost with their own preservation: how to put the best gloss on their own actions to avoid any suggestion of wrongful conduct on their part.
I think Sandusky's defenders are in their minds conflating the issue of Jerry's guilt with the wrongs done to Paterno and the football program, with the cowardice of the Board, with the entire screwed-up mess that did so much damage to the university. It all blends together and becomes a package deal. Therefore Sandusky must have been railroaded. Except he wasn't.
As I said in another comment in this thread, the psychology of denial is very real and powerful. Often when we encounter things that are too painful to believe, that we are emotionally invested in not believing, that challenge our very sense of who we are...we find reasons not to believe...not to accept clear evidence...to rationalize or find alternative explanations for inconvenient facts.
I saw this in the matter of the scandals that devastated the Catholic Church. You and I saw it in our debates on the other board with our conservative friends on the subject of a certain public figure. I see it in spades here with regard to the issue of Sandusky's guilt.
This is why we taught our kids to put principles first and never to confuse principles or identify their own self-worth with any single person...whether a President, a Pope, a priest, an athlete, a coach...whoever.
Another thing I taught my kids: usually when something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...it is a duck. When I read the entire 23-page grand jury report linked below, I see...a duck. Clear as a bell:
Agreed. But the issue of child abuse was different then. The Catholic Church scandals had not come to light asking with its subsequent law changes. Part of that was statutes of limitations and the destruction of records in cases accused but not charges. At the time, the accusation was so damaging even those innocent were harmed. So records were destroyed. C & S had no course of action once MM left the scene and didn’t ID the child. The fault is the second mile, which was notified and did nothing. One can argue they could have called the police but the police reported to Schultz. So in effect, they were notified
I don't think MM sending dicpics or gambling has much to do with it. I think he was genuinely troubled by what he saw but wasn't sure exactly what it was. So he gave a soft report which led to a soft response by Curley & Shultz.
Agreed. Adding that there were several rumors that MM's personal challenges were being used by the prosecutor to make sure that MM provided the company line. I have no idea how true those were but do recall MM stating that what was being presented wasn't true. Then he told the story on the stand with no cross-examination (IIRC). Odd, don't you think? Regardless, once MM left the scene of the crime and there was no victim to be found, there wasn't a lot anyone could do. Especially since MM stated that he didn't actually see anything. Again, creepy isn't illegal.
I t
Start with this. I'm pretty sure that nobody witnessed JS performing sex acts with kids and no victims reported such things to PSU administrators. It's also true that prosecutor Eschbach lied about what MM told her in the grand jury presentment. That doesn't mean that JS is innocent but it does raise some questions about the fairness of the trial.
There are a couple of posters who think JS is completely innocent but the overwhelming majority think he is guilty but guilty of what? Did he abuse 30+ kids or was it 6? Did he sodomize them or was it just inappropriate touching?
You seem to think the kids who came forward to collect money are all honest because they have consistent stories. I think you ignore the fact that they were coached by profit seeking lawyers.
The overwhelming majority of posters haven't declared JS innocent. They're just questioning the inconsistencies of the evidence.
Let's make this simple. Do you believe that Dottie & family ignored screaming kids crying for help while Jerry sexually assaulted them?
I think your hate for JS and what he was found guilty of is so extreme that you struggle to interpret the evidence and comments made by board posters objectively.
Start with this. I'm pretty sure that nobody witnessed JS performing sex acts with kids and no victims reported such things to PSU administrators. It's also true that prosecutor Eschbach lied about what MM told her in the grand jury presentment. That doesn't mean that JS is innocent but it does raise some questions about the fairness of the trial.
There are a couple of posters who think JS is completely innocent but the overwhelming majority think he is guilty but guilty of what? Did he abuse 30+ kids or was it 6? Did he sodomize them or was it just inappropriate touching?
You seem to think the kids who came forward to collect money are all honest because they have consistent stories. I think you ignore the fact that they were coached by profit seeking lawyers.
The overwhelming majority of posters haven't declared JS innocent. They're just questioning the inconsistencies of the evidence.
Let's make this simple. Do you believe that Dottie & family ignored screaming kids crying for help while Jerry sexually assaulted them?
There is strong evidence out there that Mike waited weeks to notify Joe.
Remember, Mike and the prosecution had no idea what the date was of the shower episode. They ended up reverse engineering the date once they found out the date of Mike's meeting with Joe.
Say what you will about Zeigler, but the evidence that he collected about the date of the McQueary shower incident really being in December 2000 rather than February 2001 is quite convincing.
Last edited:
Yep...at least that level of grey contributed to PSU being fooled (as well as police, parents, school districts, the second mile and many more). You can't arrest someone for being fooled by him.
And it is so similar to the Catholic Priest scandal in that Priests held a special place as being kind, gentle, charitable and there at the time when you needed them most (were mentally vulnerable). They exploited that as did JS. I don't think there was anyone to blame other than JS.
I think there's more to it than that. First, by defaming Joe, and charging Tim and Gary, the prosecution basically eliminated them as potential witnesses for Sandusky's defense.
Second, and I believe this is key, by focusing on the McQueary incident, they could control the narrative. They needed to deflect attention away from TSM. Putting PSU in the crosshairs served that purpose.
To your point, Joe did put the story on the front page. That ensured Sandusky would be tried in the court of public opinion. But why I believe there's more to it than that is the complete lack of push back to the narrative by anyone in the press. That's inexplicable in a free society.
Go back to the Freeh report. The press wasn't given access to it before Freeh's press conference. Even then, nobody dug deeper than the bullet points at the beginning of each chapter. To be sure, being first is more important than being accurate. But Freeh's "reasonable conclusions" were simply not substantiated by the body of the report. Even after Freeh admitted his conclusions were his opinions, the narrative didn't budge.
It was obvious, prior to his passing, that Joe wasn't part of the problem. He passed it up the chain of command, just as was required of him. Once McQueary talked with Curley and Schultz, Joe was irrelevant. I'm not judging Spanier or the others, I'm simply pointing out that Joe had no standing. Sandusky didn't work for him and the boy wasn't a PSU student. And certainly after Joe died, the narrative could have changed. But it didn't.
Even today, since none of the 15 felony charges against C/S/S held up, why is the narrative still bullet proof?
Corbett/PSU didn't bring in Lannie Davis to have him say, "Let the system work". He was "the fixer". But what did he fix, and for whom?
Why did PSU sacrifice Joe's legacy, knowing full well how that would be received by the alumni? Why did PSU essentially announce before the end of Sandusky's trial that it would pay any and all "victims", no questions asked? And why is PSU so reticent to do today, what it should have done 13 years ago?
Last edited:
To draw attention away from the incestuous ties between members of the BOT and TSM.
Agreed. I think there's something to the argument that members of the TSM's BOT had legal exposure that PSU BOT members did not.
Great, GREAT post.
I am not a lawyer but I have watched prosecutors for years. Many will do anything to get a conviction. Sadly, most people think that they want justice. And many do. But many want to increase their career and political positioning at any cost. Prosecutor>DA>Judge> congress> Governor.
Your questions are fantastic and are the key to understanding what happened. JS was probably guilty, at least of something. But PSU way played. Any resistance and you were going to be steamrolled. Your career and personal reputation would be toast. You could also suffer criminal prosecution. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" is a popular statement. You look at ruined lives and families: Paterno, Schultz, Curley, Spanier, McQueary and more. Why? These were all men who had zero problems with the law. And many of them had served for 30 or 40 years with impeccable records. And lets not forget the Ray Gricar mystery. There are no coincidences.
I sort of hate getting back into all this. IMO a bit 20/20 hindsight on Curly and Shultz. At the time MM gave his report if I am not mistaken.
MM wasn't troubled nothing further was done
C&S knew MM had told dad and Dranov [expert] and they didn't do anything.
C&S knew Sandusky HAD been investigated and effectively cleared previously
C did tell Raykovitz [another expert] and he told curly he was nuts
Sandusky was no longer even an employee
So while hindsight says better safe than sorry [and boy were they sorry] it sure seems like everyone WHO SHOULD HAVE HAD a much higher degree of expertise on these subjects all seemed to think it was largely a nothing burger. LE, Dranov, Dr R,.
Great summary. And yet there are people on this site like @LandoComando who think our BOT did nothing wrong by rushing to judgement and blaming a broken PSU/football culture for enabling JS. Great job guys!!
Our BOT's response is probably studied in PR classes as a classic example of what not to do when an org is in crisis mode.
The BoT was studied by a crisis management firm and found their actions exactly what one should not do.
The BoT was ass covering for members of same, their families and friends who were directly involved with TSM.
Yep, they definitely had some other agenda outside of looking out for PSU's interests.
Surma got to settle his score with Joe and the rest got to keep their noses clean. How nice!
Lol...see you didn't read anything I said when you claim I don't think our BOT dif anything wrong. They're idiots but it was the response of the fans that prevent his legacy from being restored. It was beyond stupid. On par with the BOT.
People don't say "Penn State blamed Joe" as most don't even know that. They claim "Penn State fan defended Paterno and don't care about the victims". If you don't see that then I feel sorry for you
My point isn't about the administration's response. My point is that whistleblower policies require that that complaints and responses are well documented. If that would have happened there would be no doubt about what MM actually reported. Instead we have a situation where administrators call it horseplay and MM saying they knew it was sexual assault.
I assume Curley & Shultz did this on the quiet because it was Jerry. So now we have a he said she said situation. I believe C&S testimony but their off the record way of handling this is why we are where we are today.
To be honest I think most people associated with the football program kept their heads low and their lips sealed in order to protect themselves. Very few came to Joe's defense.
How are you this dumb??
Defending Joe/the University's culture and caring about the victims aren't mutually exclusive since JOE/PSU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VICTIMS. The BOT made them mutually exclusive with their idiotic response/press conference where they fired Joe thus telling the world he did something wrong re: JS. They then cemented it by paying freeh write his "report" and give him carte balance to hold a press conference before even reading it to push out his bs narrative which pretty much said the same thing.
What's beyond stupid is labeling your entire massive alumni base as pedo enablers thus curtailing their willingness to donate, support the school, etc.
So, in your mind, BOT blames the schools culture/alumni for enabling JS, the alumni are supposed to just sit back and take it, and that's the best approach?
MSU/OSU and other schools that had similar sex abuse scandals didn't blame their own culture/alumni for the abuse. They defended their schools (under even more damning allegations especially at MSU) and look at the difference in public perception.
The blame lies solely on the BOT not the fans/alumni for reacting to the dumbass BOT labeling them pedo enablers
Last edited:
Why did the BoT pay Matt Sandusky, who had no connection to Penn State?
What was the motive behind this totally BS move? Or was it as simple as flipping Matt from testifying favorably for Jerry?
What was the motive behind this totally BS move? Or was it as simple as flipping Matt from testifying favorably for Jerry?
Lol...again, what do those that believe Paterno's legacy is tainted say is the reason why...what Penn State reported/who they blamed or the reaction of the fan base?
The BOT handled it horribly. As did the fan base/alumni. Simple concept.
Put aside or adoration of Paterno and think logically and deal with reality. Doing so doesn't mean you still can't hate how the powers that be handled it because you should. You also need to accept the lasting impact with how he's viewed nationally isn't due to the BOT.
- Status
