Sandusky prison interview article

[LandoComando]

@WeR0206 ask someone your friends with that believes Paterno mishandled the Sandusky situation what they remember about it. I guarantee "Penn State said Joe knew" won't be said before "Penn State cared about Paterno's legacy than the kids". Truth is you seem to grasp this while, at the same time saying it's the BOT's fault the fans and alumi didn't handle it better.

Outsiders don't have any recollection of what the BOT said or did. Just people defending Joe and screaming about the statue. Not fair but reality.

 

[indynittany]

@WeR0206 ask someone your friends with that believes Paterno mishandled the Sandusky situation what they remember about it. I guarantee "Penn State said Joe knew" won't be said before "Penn State cared about Paterno's legacy than the kids". Truth is you seem to grasp this while, at the same time saying it's the BOT's fault the fans and alumi didn't handle it better.

Outsiders don't have any recollection of what the BOT said or did. Just people defending Joe and screaming about the statue. Not fair but reality.

You're confusing reality with "the narrative".

 

[LandoComando]

You're confusing reality with "the narrative".

You realize the narrative often becomes reality, right? The truth isn't the discussion here. The discussion is what do people remember and why. The truth rarely matters when it comes to public opinion/perception.

It okay to look back and realized everyone screwed up. That's life.

 

[roswelllion]

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.

I understand what you are saying. i disagree a little with the term whistleblower. What specifically did MM say [your point i know] but usually whistleblowers have specific complaints. Secondly Sandusky was no longer an employee of the University or the football program. Of course C&S soft peddled JS but more because he was a local/semi national celebrity for his Second mile efforts.
Also Curly did go to Dr R with the report. He was both an expert and the actual employer. Isn't that where a true whistleblower would have gone?
Same as before this has been discussed over and over and no one changes their mind.

 

[WeR0206]

@WeR0206 ask someone your friends with that believes Paterno mishandled the Sandusky situation what they remember about it. I guarantee "Penn State said Joe knew" won't be said before "Penn State cared about Paterno's legacy than the kids". Truth is you seem to grasp this while, at the same time saying it's the BOT's fault the fans and alumi didn't handle it better.

Outsiders don't have any recollection of what the BOT said or did. Just people defending Joe and screaming about the statue. Not fair but reality.

Most people remember the nationally televised press conference where the BOT threw their legendary coach under the bus. That's what cemented it for them along with the freeh report/press conference. I can't tell you how many times I heard "if Joe did nothing wrong why did PSU fire him in disgrace..." etc. when discussing this with people. I also was called a pedo enabler just b/c I graduated from PSU. This is all due to the BOT's response.

You seem to be mixing up the cause with the effect. The cause was the BOT's handling of the crisis, the effect was alumni/Joe/FB program being labled as pedo enablers who don't care about kids so they kept it alive to right the wrong.

If the BOT said we stand by the victims and also know that our employees reported all incidents outside of PSU to child care experts/mandatory reporters it would have went from a 5 alarm fire down to a 2 alarm fire and then fizzle out/people would drop it. Instead they threw jet fuel on the fire.

 

[AvgUser]

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:

https://legacy.npr.org/assets/news/2011/11/sandusky_presentment.pdf

Clear as a bell? You do know that the GJP that you think is gospel was filled with intentional and misleading statements (aka LIES), don’t you? The prosecution even admitted it.

 

[LandoComando]

Most people remember the nationally televised press conference where the BOT threw their legendary coach under the bus. That's what cemented it for them along with the freeh report/press conference. I can't tell you how many times I heard "if Joe did nothing wrong why did PSU fire him in disgrace..." etc. when discussing this with people. I also was called a pedo enabler just b/c I graduated from PSU. This is all due to the BOT's response.

You seem to be mixing up the cause with the effect. The cause was the BOT's handling of the crisis, the effect was alumni/Joe/FB program being labled as pedo enablers who don't care about kids so they kept it alive to right the wrong.

If the BOT said we stand by the victims and also know that our employees reported all incidents outside of PSU to child care experts/mandatory reporters it would have went from a 5 alarm fire down to a 2 alarm fire and then fizzle out/people would drop it. Instead they threw jet fuel on the fire.

Lol most people didn't watch the press conference. People immediately defending Paterno and Penn State football instead of letting the story die is why we are where we are with public opinion.

If the BOT said that and people defended Paterno we'd be in the exact same spot because our fan base/alumni and people like Jay and Franco would have made it worse. The fact you don't see that is...exactly why people make the comments they do. Even all these years later you still don't comprehend that while the BOT screwed up so did those that felt the need to defend Paterno immediately. There would have been a proper time but people couldn't wait.

You still arguing this is why public opinion is the same more than a decade later. You still don't get it

 

[bdroc]

today. Not in 2001

No. A whistleblower's complaint should ALWAYS be thoroughly documented.

 

[Obliviax]

No. A whistleblower's complaint should ALWAYS be thoroughly documented.

Should. But wasn’t required at the time. Should and legally required are two different things. Besides, 10 years later likely destroyed anyway

 

[WeR0206]

Lol most people didn't watch the press conference. People immediately defending Paterno and Penn State football instead of letting the story die is why we are where we are with public opinion.

If the BOT said that and people defended Paterno we'd be in the exact same spot because our fan base/alumni and people like Jay and Franco would have made it worse. The fact you don't see that is...exactly why people make the comments they do. Even all these years later you still don't comprehend that while the BOT screwed up so did those that felt the need to defend Paterno immediately. There would have been a proper time but people couldn't wait.

You still arguing this is why public opinion is the same more than a decade later. You still don't get it

Most people weren't defending Joe immediately. Most were aghast at the allegations and were trying to get their arms around all the facts first and trying to make sense of the nonsensical GJP. But before they could even do that the BOT threw Joe under the bus thus forcing peoples hand to defend Joe from the rush to judgement kicked off by the BOT and solidified by Freeh.

Again, if the BOT didn't mess up so bad people wouldn't have felt the need to defend Joe/PSU as much. IOW if the BOT kept their mouths shut and said they had no comment until all legal cases were adjudicated and all facts discovered then the "people defending Joe" theme that you keep harping on never would have been needed. You don't understand basic cause and effect and the order in which things happened.

#1) false/misleading GJP --> #2) PSU BOT throwing Joe/PSU football/culture under the bus --> #3) Alumni saying hold on you're rushing to judgement/defending Joe/whatever you want to call it.

If you take away #2 there never would have been a #3. You're a waste of time

 

[LandoComando]

Most people weren't defending Joe immediately. Most were aghast at the allegations and were trying to get their arms around all the facts first and trying to make sense of the nonsensical GJP. But before they could even do that the BOT threw Joe under the bus thus forcing peoples hand to defend Joe from the rush to judgement kicked off by the BOT and solidified by Freeh.

Again, if the BOT didn't mess up so bad people wouldn't have felt the need to defend Joe/PSU as much. IOW if the BOT kept their mouths shut and said they had no comment until all legal cases were adjudicated and all facts discovered then the "people defending Joe" theme that you keep harping on never would have been needed. You don't understand basic cause and effect and the order in which things happened.

#1) false/misleading GJP --> #2) PSU BOT throwing Joe/PSU football/culture under the bus --> #3) Alumni saying hold on you're rushing to judgement/defending Joe/whatever you want to call it.

If you take away #2 there never would have been a #3. You're a waste of time

It doesn't matter what caused people to defend Paterno. The issue is they did and how they did. You keep focusing on what caused it which is irrelevant. People didn't have to respond the way they did to the mistakes made by the BOT and because they did Joe's reputation can never be restored. All they had to do was shut up and wait for it to blow over which, like everything else, does if people allow it to die.

The reaction is all people remember. To this day, you're still asking for the BOT to state they were wrong which would make it 100x worse in the eyes of the public. This is PR 101. The BOT didn't understand it then and you still don't understand it now.

 

[PSU2UNC]

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 didn't wait 9 hours.
He waited 6 weeks. The "shower incident" occurred in late December and he did not go to Paterno until February 10th. There was no urgency because he didn't see a crime.

New Proof That December 29, 2000, Not February 9th, 2001, Was the Real Date of the "McQueary Episode" | The Framing of Joe Paterno

www.framingpaterno.com

 

[PSU2UNC]

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.

Disagree. MM was clearly panicked when contacted by police. He did not have any clue it was about Sandusky. He thought it was either about gambling or dpics. That's why initial meeting was on a park bench and not at his home or the police station.

 

[PSU2UNC]

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?

Good points, regarding the Freeh Report.

The executive summary is NOT supported by any of the actual information in the document. Additionally, there is the "diary" (basically working notes) of the one woman on the investigative team for Freeh (her name escapes me) that exposes the Freeh Report as a complete scam.

 

[roswelllion]

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:

https://legacy.npr.org/assets/news/2011/11/sandusky_presentment.pdf

Well., let's unpack your thoughts. BTW I do feel much more strongly about the PSU trio than JS but it was apparent he did not receive a fair trial. But I digress back to unpacking.

."Mike didn't wait 9 years. he went right to Joe".
- He denied 3 times [interesting] to Dranov he saw anything sexual. Dranov was an expert.
- he never told Joe he saw anything sexual. something troubling him yes sexual no.
- a 6 ft 5" inch athelete in his 20's doesn't confront a 60 year old comitting sexual assault? okay then
- to my recollection the sexual assault language WAS 9 tears later

"we had heard of similar stories earlier" - Again to my recall there was only 1 incident and it was investigated and JS was CLEARED. Isn't it logical to presume this was one those "Jerry and boundary issues". -

MM';s other issues had nothing to do with anything. What was it you said "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......"
MM was certainly a person with little or no morals. Why should we choose to believe ANYTHING he tells us.

We'll agree to disagree

 

[roswelllion]

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:

https://legacy.npr.org/assets/news/2011/11/sandusky_presentment.pdf

Well., let's unpack your thoughts. BTW I do feel much more strongly about the PSU trio than JS but it was apparent he did not receive a fair trial. But I digress back to unpacking.

."Mike didn't wait 9 years. he went right to Joe".
- He denied 3 times [interesting] to Dranov he saw anything sexual. Dranov was an expert.
- he never told Joe he saw anything sexual. something troubling him yes sexual no.
- a 6 ft 5" inch athelete in his 20's doesn't confront a 60 year old comitting sexual assault? okay then
- to my recollection the sexual assault language WAS 9 tears later

"we had heard of similar stories earlier" - Again to my recall there was only 1 incident and it was investigated and JS was CLEARED. Isn't it logical to presume this was one those "Jerry and boundary issues". -

MM';s other issues had nothing to do with anything. What was it you said "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......"
MM was certainly a person with little or no morals. Why should we choose to believe ANYTHING he tells us.

We'll agree to disagree

 

[PSU2UNC]

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.

Whistleblower policies have evolved significantly since then.
Not all institutions had well defined procedures in place at the time (not saying the shouldn't have, just saying I do not think anyone circumvented the existing PSU policies; recall Paterno stated that he actually took the time to look up what he was supposed to do when McQueary made a report to him).

 

[WeR0206]

People didn't have to respond the way they did to the mistakes made by the BOT and because they did Joe's reputation can never be restored.

It's human nature to respond that way when an entire community is labeled as pedo enablers. The thing you can't get past is the response by alums that you keep harping on NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED had the BOT initially taken a neutral approach, no comment until facts come out, etc. instead of immediately assuming the guilt of all their employees and throwing them and PSU's culture/fb program under the bus. That's why I keep pointing to cause and effect. The horse is already out of the barn but it's never too late to denounce the freeh report as garbage and apologize to the Paterno family. It would heal the PSU community, I don't give af about broader PR at this point. The masses would eventually wonder why PSU is apologizing and wonder if new facts have come to light, etc. which is true. We know way more about the scandal now then 10+ years ago. The state dropped all the conspiracy and felony charges against the admins, etc.

 

[Obliviax]

While Penn State and Joe were fighting for rights of minority players to stay in the same hotels and restaurants, this was going on at Alabama. Yet, the media hammers Joe and Bear is a legend.

 

[roswelllion]

No. A whistleblower's complaint should ALWAYS be thoroughly documented.

To whom? Current employer, past employer, owner of the facility?

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

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.

Joe was a witness for the prosecution wasn't he? His testimony corroborated McQueary's in that Joe testified twice that what McQueary told him was that Jerry was doing something sexually inappropriate with a child. How would Tim and Gary help Sandusky? They really didn't know him and had no real evidence to put forth.

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.

Why would the BOT want to deflect from TSM? Not all of them were on the Board (Joe and Franco had been) of TSM and what were they afraid of that involved TSM? You know that TSM was investigated by the Feds and nothing was found?

To your point, Joe did put the story on the front page. That ensured Sandusky would be tried in the court of public opinion.

Any high profile person like Sandusky would generate "public opinion" but Sandusky was absolutely beloved by folks in that local area so if anything, he had the upper hand there.

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.

Because they don't find the arguments convincing that they should?

Go back to the Freeh report. The press wasn't given access to it before Freeh's press conference.

They just would have leaked it and that would not have been the proper way to release it.

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.

Jurors in CSS trials thought otherwise.

Even after Freeh admitted his conclusions were his opinions, the narrative didn't budge.

Of course it was his opinion. All such reports are and some argue even jury verdicts are opinions.

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.

Except Joe did participate in the decision not to report Sandusky as evidenced by the emails "After talking it over with Joe".

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.

Because of the mythology of Joe being this "great" man who was so much more than a mere Football Coach people expected him to walk the walk he talked.

Even today, since none of the 15 felony charges against C/S/S held up, why is the narrative still bullet proof?

Three convictions and all three went to jail?

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?

Sounds like a conspiracy

Why did PSU sacrifice Joe's legacy, knowing full well how that would be received by the alumni?

Not all alumni feel like some of you here. Lubrano and company were elected with about 4% of the alumni vote. Are you sure all alums feel as you do?

Why did PSU essentially announce before the end of Sandusky's trial that it would pay any and all "victims", no questions asked?

Do you have any cite for that?

And why is PSU so reticent to do today, what it should have done 13 years ago?

What should it have done 13 years ago other than dig in and probably get the death penalty? They took responsibility for their errors.

 

[Obliviax]

Joe was a witness for the prosecution wasn't he? His testimony corroborated McQueary's in that Joe testified twice that what McQueary told him was that Jerry was doing something sexually inappropriate with a child. How would Tim and Gary help Sandusky? They really didn't know him and had no real evidence to put forth.

Why would the BOT want to deflect from TSM? Not all of them were on the Board (Joe and Franco had been) of TSM and what were they afraid of that involved TSM? You know that TSM was investigated by the Feds and nothing was found?

Any high profile person like Sandusky would generate "public opinion" but Sandusky was absolutely beloved by folks in that local area so if anything, he had the upper hand there.

Because they don't find the arguments convincing that they should?

They just would have leaked it and that would not have been the proper way to release it.

Jurors in CSS trials thought otherwise.

Of course it was his opinion. All such reports are and some argue even jury verdicts are opinions.

Except Joe did participate in the decision not to report Sandusky as evidenced by the emails "After talking it over with Joe".

Because of the mythology of Joe being this "great" man who was so much more than a mere Football Coach people expected him to walk the walk he talked.

Three convictions and all three went to jail?

Sounds like a conspiracy

Not all alumni feel like some of you here. Lubrano and company were elected with about 4% of the alumni vote. Are you sure all alums feel as you do?

Do you have any cite for that?

What should it have done 13 years ago other than dig in and probably get the death penalty? They took responsibility for their errors.

Joe Paterno died on January 22nd, 2012. Sandusky's trial was in June of 2012. No, Joe was not a witness for the prosecution.

 

[roswelllion]

Joe was a witness for the prosecution wasn't he? His testimony corroborated McQueary's in that Joe testified twice that what McQueary told him was that Jerry was doing something sexually inappropriate with a child. How would Tim and Gary help Sandusky? They really didn't know him and had no real evidence to put forth.

Why would the BOT want to deflect from TSM? Not all of them were on the Board (Joe and Franco had been) of TSM and what were they afraid of that involved TSM? You know that TSM was investigated by the Feds and nothing was found?

Any high profile person like Sandusky would generate "public opinion" but Sandusky was absolutely beloved by folks in that local area so if anything, he had the upper hand there.

Because they don't find the arguments convincing that they should?

They just would have leaked it and that would not have been the proper way to release it.

Jurors in CSS trials thought otherwise.

Of course it was his opinion. All such reports are and some argue even jury verdicts are opinions.

Except Joe did participate in the decision not to report Sandusky as evidenced by the emails "After talking it over with Joe".

Because of the mythology of Joe being this "great" man who was so much more than a mere Football Coach people expected him to walk the walk he talked.

Three convictions and all three went to jail?

Sounds like a conspiracy

Not all alumni feel like some of you here. Lubrano and company were elected with about 4% of the alumni vote. Are you sure all alums feel as you do?

Do you have any cite for that?

What should it have done 13 years ago other than dig in and probably get the death penalty? They took responsibility for their errors.

just a few comments i think you seem well informed so i presume you are intentionally only telling part of the story or purposely misleading.

.Why would Bot protect TSM. huge overlap in members, past members and big donors. you are disingenous when you say they weren't ALL THE SAME.
.Im might be wrong but I do not think MM told Joe he saw sexually inappropriate. I thought he said just inappropriate
. Pay any and all claims My recollection is the same. I thought that cam from Ira L. i'll let others try to site it for you.
. "After talking it over with Joe". C'mon, you can believe it or not but the rest of that story was after talking it over with Joe, curly should also discuss it with JS. Not hide it but be fair to all. you should include that and say you disagree not just forget that half of the discussion.

 

[joeaubie21]

Joe was a witness for the prosecution wasn't he? His testimony corroborated McQueary's in that Joe testified twice that what McQueary told him was that Jerry was doing something sexually inappropriate with a child. How would Tim and Gary help Sandusky? They really didn't know him and had no real evidence to put forth.

Why would the BOT want to deflect from TSM? Not all of them were on the Board (Joe and Franco had been) of TSM and what were they afraid of that involved TSM? You know that TSM was investigated by the Feds and nothing was found?

Any high profile person like Sandusky would generate "public opinion" but Sandusky was absolutely beloved by folks in that local area so if anything, he had the upper hand there.

Because they don't find the arguments convincing that they should?

They just would have leaked it and that would not have been the proper way to release it.

Jurors in CSS trials thought otherwise.

Of course it was his opinion. All such reports are and some argue even jury verdicts are opinions.

Except Joe did participate in the decision not to report Sandusky as evidenced by the emails "After talking it over with Joe".

Because of the mythology of Joe being this "great" man who was so much more than a mere Football Coach people expected him to walk the walk he talked.

Three convictions and all three went to jail?

Sounds like a conspiracy

Not all alumni feel like some of you here. Lubrano and company were elected with about 4% of the alumni vote. Are you sure all alums feel as you do?

Do you have any cite for that?

What should it have done 13 years ago other than dig in and probably get the death penalty? They took responsibility for their errors.

JJinPhila is that you Strap?

 

[Obliviax]

just a few comments i think you seem well informed so i presume you are intentionally only telling part of the story or purposely misleading.

.Why would Bot protect TSM. huge overlap in members, past members and big donors. you are disingenous when you say they weren't ALL THE SAME.
.Im might be wrong but I do not think MM told Joe he saw sexually inappropriate. I thought he said just inappropriate
. Pay any and all claims My recollection is the same. I thought that cam from Ira L. i'll let others try to site it for you.
. "After talking it over with Joe". C'mon, you can believe it or not but the rest of that story was after talking it over with Joe, curly should also discuss it with JS. Not hide it but be fair to all. you should include that and say you disagree not just forget that half of the discussion.

Joe couldn't recall what MM told him and neither could MM. After all, it was ten years later. MM said he dummied it down. Joe's family said that he didn't know what anal sex was. Joe said that MM thought he may have seen something "sexual in nature" but didn't know if he was told that or if he just surmised it.

In the end, when MM didn't act, any evidence was lost. TSM wasn't keeping track of what kid JS was hanging out with (which is now illegal). JS told Schultz who he was with and said that Schultz could contact him. Since MM didn't actually see anything and there were no other witnesses, the case died. It only gained steam when other stories started to come to light. Then you could see a clear pattern. Even the 1998 issue, the one that was thoroughly investigated, tended to exonerate JS. I am sure there was a feeling of "here we go again. something creepy but not illegal." Again, the current US President used to shower with kids. It was accepted in the day.

 

[indynittany]

Joe Paterno died on January 22nd, 2012. Sandusky's trial was in June of 2012. No, Joe was not a witness for the prosecution.

Actually, as it pertains to the Grand Jury, he was.

 

[indynittany]

just a few comments i think you seem well informed so i presume you are intentionally only telling part of the story or purposely misleading.

My guess is he's that FSU troll.

 

[Obliviax]

Actually, as it pertains to the Grand Jury, he was.

different kettle of fish altogether. there is no cross-examination. you can indict a ham sandwich. We do have his deposition and that is what I was referring to relative to Joe's comments on MM's report.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Jurors in CSS trials thought otherwise.

Juries make mistakes all the time. They clearly did here.

Of course it was his opinion. All such reports are and some argue even jury verdicts are opinions.

It was not presented as an opinon. It was presented (erroneously) as fact.

Except Joe did participate in the decision not to report Sandusky as evidenced by the emails "After talking it over with Joe".

This is a mischaracterization of that email thread.

Three convictions and all three went to jail?

One *misdemeanor* each. No one should have been jailed over this. In fact, Curley and Schultz had plea bargains to avoid jail but but the OAG was furious that they wouldn't lie to further indict Spanier (kudos to them for being honest) and did not honor the plea agreement.

Not all alumni feel like some of you here. Lubrano and company were elected with about 4% of the alumni vote. Are you sure all alums feel as you do?

What percent of alumni voted?
I agree with you that not all alumni feel this way. I would also postulate that MOST alumni (especially young alumni) either do not know the facts or do not want to know the facts of the case. I have no talked to anyone who actually knows what happened who thinks that CSS were culpable.

 

[roswelllion]

Juries make mistakes all the time. They clearly did here.

It was not presented as an opinon. It was presented (erroneously) as fact.

This is a mischaracterization of that email thread.

One *misdemeanor* each. No one should have been jailed over this. In fact, Curley and Schultz had plea bargains to avoid jail but but the OAG was furious that they wouldn't lie to further indict Spanier (kudos to them for being honest) and did not honor the plea agreement.

What percent of alumni voted?
I agree with you that not all alumni feel this way. I would also postulate that MOST alumni (especially young alumni) either do not know the facts or do not want to know the facts of the case. I have no talked to anyone who actually knows what happened who thinks that CSS were culpable.

Well said on all points UNC

 

[Obliviax]

Joe was a witness for the prosecution wasn't he? His testimony corroborated McQueary's in that Joe testified twice that what McQueary told him was that Jerry was doing something sexually inappropriate with a child. How would Tim and Gary help Sandusky? They really didn't know him and had no real evidence to put forth.

Why would the BOT want to deflect from TSM? Not all of them were on the Board (Joe and Franco had been) of TSM and what were they afraid of that involved TSM? You know that TSM was investigated by the Feds and nothing was found?

Any high profile person like Sandusky would generate "public opinion" but Sandusky was absolutely beloved by folks in that local area so if anything, he had the upper hand there.

Because they don't find the arguments convincing that they should?

They just would have leaked it and that would not have been the proper way to release it.

Jurors in CSS trials thought otherwise.

Of course it was his opinion. All such reports are and some argue even jury verdicts are opinions.

Except Joe did participate in the decision not to report Sandusky as evidenced by the emails "After talking it over with Joe".

Because of the mythology of Joe being this "great" man who was so much more than a mere Football Coach people expected him to walk the walk he talked.

Three convictions and all three went to jail?

Sounds like a conspiracy

Not all alumni feel like some of you here. Lubrano and company were elected with about 4% of the alumni vote. Are you sure all alums feel as you do?

Do you have any cite for that?

What should it have done 13 years ago other than dig in and probably get the death penalty? They took responsibility for their errors.

"Jurors in CSS trials thought otherwise."

again, untrue. Curly and Schultz were never tried. They pled guilty to low misdemeanors after the prosecution persecuted them for over five years. Both had health issues and were getting old. They wanted to get past this so took the fine. Curly actually didn't testify to what the prosecutors bribed him to do, with the lower plea, and were very upset that he testified truthfully in the Spanier trial. I think they went for jail time but can't recall if he actually served time in jail.

Spanier was tried for several felonies and misdemeanors. The jury found him guilty of a low end child endangerment charge. The jury foreperson said this happened because one juror held out for a conviction of some type and it was Friday afternoon. They wanted to go home. So to placate that jurist they settled on a single misdemeanor.

 

[joeaubie21]

My guess is he's that FSU troll.

My guess it's JJinPhila, with his Pennlive nonsense.

 

[indynittany]

different kettle of fish altogether. there is no cross-examination. you can indict a ham sandwich. We do have his deposition and that is what I was referring to relative to Joe's comments on MM's report.

I agree with you.

To the GJ, Joe said, "I don't know what you'd call it", and I'm not sure what it was." It's pure evil to try and twist Joe's words.

Again, once MM reported what he saw to Tim and Gary, Joe was officially out.

Yes, Tim circled back with Joe and then said in his email to S/S:

I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday – I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate that we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative, we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?

So what? After meeting with MM, Tim was having second thoughts. He then revisited the matter with Joe, who had received the initial report. But to S/S, Tim said: I am uncomfortable... I am having trouble... I think... I would plan to tell him... I would indicate.... I will let him know.... I need some help on this one.

At no point did he say, Joe is uncomfortable, or we are uncomfortable.

In Spanier's response to Tim, he said, "This approach is acceptable to me." Here you have the university president exercising his authority and accepting what was his ultimate responsibility. The buck stopped there.

This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.

Yet people were relentless in going after Joe! Why?

To be clear, it is my belief that, rather than covering up a reported case of CSA, C/S/S/P were focused on preventing a repeat of the '98 shower incident. Even though nothing came of that, and as in the MM incident, Jerry remained close with that boy well into his adulthood, that Mom could have sued in civil court and would have likely walked away with a nice settlement. That's why they took Jerry's guest privileges away. They wanted to avoid a subsequent incident, in which an accusation and a he said/he said scenario would have left them "vulnerable".

What's apparent from both the emails and Schultz's notes is that they never acted as though the boy MM saw with Jerry was a victim. He was never even part of the discussion. Surely if they believed CSA had been witnessed by MM, they would have expressed concern for his well being and/or whether or not he might tell someone what had happened. But there was no mention of him at all.

Instead, their only concern was that Jerry might not get the message and continue to shower alone with other TSM kids, one of whose moms might be more opportunistic.

The C/S/S response was never about damage control and always about prevention. Thus, there was never a reason for PSU to fall on the sword. And yet it did. Why?

Destroying Joe's reputation was utterly unnecessary with respect to Sandsuky. But it was totally necessary relative to the narrative, which to this day remains carved in stone.

 

[joeaubie21]

Penn State and the "football culture" is laughable. What big time program doesn't have same?

The BoT played this garbage card through fact Freeh, with the NCAA picking up on the BS.

The BoT intent was to get Paterno and Spanier at any cost. They built the nonsense narrative though Freeh and the illegal consent decree.

In the end, the NCAA settled with the Paterno family and returned the wins. Gov. Wolfe in essence returned the "fine", plus another 2M

 

[WeR0206]

Joe was a witness for the prosecution wasn't he? His testimony corroborated McQueary's in that Joe testified twice that what McQueary told him was that Jerry was doing something sexually inappropriate with a child. How would Tim and Gary help Sandusky? They really didn't know him and had no real evidence to put forth.

Why would the BOT want to deflect from TSM? Not all of them were on the Board (Joe and Franco had been) of TSM and what were they afraid of that involved TSM? You know that TSM was investigated by the Feds and nothing was found?

Any high profile person like Sandusky would generate "public opinion" but Sandusky was absolutely beloved by folks in that local area so if anything, he had the upper hand there.

Because they don't find the arguments convincing that they should?

They just would have leaked it and that would not have been the proper way to release it.

Jurors in CSS trials thought otherwise.

Of course it was his opinion. All such reports are and some argue even jury verdicts are opinions.

Except Joe did participate in the decision not to report Sandusky as evidenced by the emails "After talking it over with Joe".

Because of the mythology of Joe being this "great" man who was so much more than a mere Football Coach people expected him to walk the walk he talked.

Three convictions and all three went to jail?

Sounds like a conspiracy

Not all alumni feel like some of you here. Lubrano and company were elected with about 4% of the alumni vote. Are you sure all alums feel as you do?

Do you have any cite for that?

What should it have done 13 years ago other than dig in and probably get the death penalty? They took responsibility for their errors.

Wow, so much wrong here I'm not going to bother to correct it all as others have already started correcting your highly inaccurate descriptions of what happened.

Joe being on the BOT of TSM is a doozy. Where in the hell did you get that from?

When questioned under oath MM admitted he wasn't 100% sure what JS and the kid were doing b/c he couldn't see any hands or privates, etc....he heard some sounds, saw some positioning, then made a bunch of assumptions. That's it. That was his report to Joe and C/S/S. He of course never felt strongly enough about his assumptions to call police ASAP that night or express dissatisfaction to Joe or Curley when they independently followed up with him (he even said Joe was great in how he handled it).

Who is sure a kid was getting abused, never calls police but instead reports it to a football coach/school admins, sees the police never come to get a written statement and the abuser never gets arrested/questioned by LE, then expresses no dissatisfaction or asks that more be done when people he reported it to followed up? Everyone was taking their queues from the one and only witness who was a grown ass man.

See below for relevant testimony from the prelim in late 2011 and JS trial summer 2012. Mikes testimony is all over the place. Note the following mind boggling parts showing how corrupt the judicial process was --> The state/judge didn't let Roberto dive into what Mike told Dranov to see if it corroborates what he told Curley. Also during the JS trial the judge allowed Mikes dad to claim he was never at the prelim hearing (probably to avoid it blowing the whole case up b/c his testimony exonerates the admins). His dad claims he was never at the prelim hearing and the judge allows that claim and tells them to move onto another question.
===================================================
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. 67: MM said he and his dad decided right away that Joe needed to know what happened before Dr. D even came over. They considered calling the police but didn't even though MM was “perfectly confident he saw a serious or severe sexual act."

**Huhhh??? How in the world does that make ANY sense??**

Pg. 68: Roberto asks MM what he told Dr. D, the state objects due to irrelevance and it's of course sustained. (These are perjury charges we're talking about!!)

Pg. 69: Roberto states she wants to hear what MM told Dr. D. to see if it corroborates what MM told TC, there has to be a 2nd witness to corroborate MM's statements. Again, the Judge doesn't agree and the objection is sustained.

Roberto then goes on the record at the bottom of page 69 and says "For the record note my objection, and for the record, I mean, I think the Commonwealth's vehemence in preventing me from going into this area would lead me to believe that Dr. Dranov's testimony doesn't corroborate MM's testimony."

Pg. 72: MM never used the words anal intercourse or anal sodomy when explaining what he saw to Joe. Here's the actual Q & A b/c I think it's important. Also note how MM keeps saying "I would have told..." instead of "I told him....."

Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?

A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.

Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?

A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.

Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No

Pg. 74: Q: And you went to Coach Paterno in lieu of, not in addition to, going to police that night?
A: I went to coach Paterno first
Q: Okay, did you go to police that day of – the day you spoke to Mr. Paterno?
A: No
Q: Did you go the next day?
A: No I did not
Q: Did you make any conclusion to Coach Paterno about what was happening
A: Yes, it was extremely sexual, yes
Q: Did you say extremely sexual in nature?
A: In nature?
Q: Yes
A: I can’t remember if I said the word in nature or not ma’am. I don’t know that
Q: Did you ever use the word fondling?
A: I’m sure I did to help describe what I was seeing. I’m sure I did use the word fondling, yes ma’am
Q: Okay, did you see any type of fondling with Mr. Sandusky’s hands on the boy?
A: No, I’ve already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy, that I could not see his hands. The bodies were blocking --
Q: Okay
A: -- his hands so I cannot say that I saw Mr. Sandusky’s hands on a boy’s genitals, no ma’am.
Q: So you can’t – how would you describe fondling, I’m sort of confused here
A: Fondling is touching someone in a sexual way. I don’t know if that’s the exact definition, but that’s what my definition is.
Q: Okay, so that’s what you thought you saw
A: Yes ma’am.
Q: Okay
A: without a doubt
Q: Okay, now when you talked with Mr. Paterno and he told you what he was going to do, he was going to – did he tell you what he was going to do?
A: Yes ma’am. As I already stated, he said that he needed to think and contact some other people and that he would get back to me.
Q: Okay, and did you ask Coach Paterno if those other people meant the police?
A: No ma’am. I did not ask him that.
Q: And did you say to Coach Paterno, coach, I really appreciate it and I also think we should call the police
A: No, I did not
**again, another WTF piece of MM’s testimony that doesn’t jive with him being certain a sex act occurred that night**
------------------------------------
Pg 137 (JM being questioned):
Q: What was the nature of the contact?

A: That they were in the-- he saw Jerry Sandusky in the shower, in the shower area, the shower room with a young boy; and that between the sounds that he observed and the visualization that he saw, that there was something at best inappropriate going on and that it was sexual in nature.
("at best inappropriate"..... This doesn't sound like certain abuse was described by Mike, sounds like there was a lot of grey area in what he reported to people)

Pg. 145 (Roberto cross examination of JM): Ms. Roberto asks JM:

“Isn’t it your recollection that your son described to Dr. Dranov what happened that evening in the shower as only hearing something in the shower and drawing conclusions about what happened but not seeing anything in the shower?”

Beemer of course immediately objected. Roberto responds by saying that regarding Dr. Dranov section 4902-F requires the Commonwealth, the prosecution, to corroborate Mr. McQueary’s statements. And this witness is the best witness we can think of that would corroborate or not the statements of Mike McQueary.

Beemer responds by saying they are going down a road that’s not relevant (huhhh???). The court notes the objection by Roberto but still sustains the Commonwealth’s….what a freaking joke.

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

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Joe Paterno died on January 22nd, 2012. Sandusky's trial was in June of 2012. No, Joe was not a witness for the prosecution.

When the indictments came out I believe he was.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

just a few comments i think you seem well informed so i presume you are intentionally only telling part of the story or purposely misleading.

I have read about this a bit. Not trying to be misleading but answering questions posed.

.Why would Bot protect TSM. huge overlap in members, past members and big donors. you are disingenous when you say they weren't ALL THE SAME.

Okay, but to what end? TSM was investigated by the Feds and nothing was pursued. Sue said that she and Joe supported financially TSM, so wouldn't they be "implicated too"?

.Im might be wrong but I do not think MM told Joe he saw sexually inappropriate. I thought he said just inappropriate

When Joe was interviewed by a guy named Sassano from the OAG he said "sexually inappropriate". I think I can find that transcript. Ziegler actually posted it I think.

. Pay any and all claims My recollection is the same. I thought that cam from Ira L. i'll let others try to site it for you.

Did they pay any and all claims? Cite

. "After talking it over with Joe". C'mon, you can believe it or not but the rest of that story was after talking it over with Joe, curly should also discuss it with JS. Not hide it but be fair to all. you should include that and say you disagree not just forget that half of the discussion.

Well, we may not know what was said but Joe was involved after he had reported it.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Joe couldn't recall what MM told him and neither could MM. After all, it was ten years later. MM said he dummied it down. Joe's family said that he didn't know what anal sex was. Joe said that MM thought he may have seen something "sexual in nature" but didn't know if he was told that or if he just surmised it.

I found the transcript and here is what Joe told Sassano:

INTERVIEW: JOSEPH V. PATERNO

The date is 10/24/11; time 12:17 p.m., interview of coach Joseph Vincent Paterno, 830 North McKee Street, State College, PA. Scott Paterno is here representing his father. Randy Feathers is also present.

SASSANO: Coach are you aware that this statement is being taped and do you give me permission to tape this statement?

J. PATERNO: Yes.

SASSANO: Did Mike McQueary, some years ago, come to you, report to you an incident that he observed in the shower between Jerry Sandusky and another individual most likely a young boy.

J. PATERNO: Yes he did.

SASSANO: Okay, and can you tell me what Mike McQueary told you please.

J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on. We didn’t get in to what the inappropriate action was, but it was inappropriate. And that’s how I knew about it.

In the end, when MM didn't act, any evidence was lost.

He told Joe and Curley and Schultz

TSM wasn't keeping track of what kid JS was hanging out with (which is now illegal).

Was it illegal then?

JS told Schultz who he was with and said that Schultz could contact him.

Schultz or Curley. Did he tell him a name?

Since MM didn't actually see anything and there were no other witnesses, the case died.

MM and Joe said he did see something and probably thought Joe would handle it.

It only gained steam when other stories started to come to light. Then you could see a clear pattern. Even the 1998 issue, the one that was thoroughly investigated, tended to exonerate JS. I am sure there was a feeling of "here we go again. something creepy but not illegal." Again, the current US President used to shower with kids. It was accepted in the day.

Wasn't PSU given a report in 1998 that said Sandusky was a likely pedophile? Chambers was the psychologist.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Juries make mistakes all the time. They clearly did here.

That they made a mistake is opinion.

It was not presented as an opinon. It was presented (erroneously) as fact.

Did Freeh say that?

This is a mischaracterization of that email thread.

How so? Was Joe involved after he reported it? Why would Curley mention him then

One *misdemeanor* each. No one should have been jailed over this. In fact, Curley and Schultz had plea bargains to avoid jail but but the OAG was furious that they wouldn't lie to further indict Spanier (kudos to them for being honest) and did not honor the plea agreement.

They did go to jail did they not? Didn't the prosecution say he felt that Curley said one thing behind closed doors and then another to "save face in front of his supporters"? Didn't the judge say that he didn't believe Curley was telling the truth when he sentenced him?

What percent of alumni voted?

My calculation was 4%

I agree with you that not all alumni feel this way. I would also postulate that MOST alumni (especially young alumni) either do not know the facts or do not want to know the facts of the case. I have no talked to anyone who actually knows what happened who thinks that CSS were culpable.

Fair enough.

 

[joeaubie21]

That they made a mistake is opinion.

Did Freeh say that?

How so? Was Joe involved after he reported it? Why would Curley mention him then

They did go to jail did they not? Didn't the prosecution say he felt that Curley said one thing behind closed doors and then another to "save face in front of his supporters"? Didn't the judge say that he didn't believe Curley was telling the truth when he sentenced him?

My calculation was 4%

Fair enough.

🥱