Sandusky prison interview article

[Peace is Our Profession]

Ros, Joe himself told the grand jury that a very agitated McQueary reported the day after the incident that he had seen Sandusky doing "something of a sexual nature" to the boy. This was from Joe's own mouth. Please...read the link.

This is correct. This is the truth.

Keep in mind also that neither Joe himself nor any member of his family ever attempted to defend Sandusky. Their defense always rested not on Jerry-was-wrongly-accused but rather Joe-didn't-know.

Here's the rub though, with the emails and Joe's corroboration of MM, Joe's defense of "I didn't know" gets hard to defend. Coupled with Joe knowing about 1998 then as Van Natta said it doomed him. This is why the secondary rationalization is to try and clear Jerry. If you clear him then the whole thing goes away. It's swinging for the fences. But it wont work.

It's very possible that Joe didn't believe Sandusky was a pedophile and that's understandable but not reporting him and being part of the process that decided not to report him tarnishes Joe's legacy unfortunately. Personally, I think he stayed too long and that made the program "his" and he had to protect it. IHMO

Mike McQueary no doubt wishes he'd never gone into Lasch that night. What he saw there ruined his life. But he did see it and he did report it...including in a written statement to police.

If there is any true scapegoat in this sad saga it is MM. He didn't do what previous coaches before him saw and knew about but kept quiet and moved on. Yeah he got some money but he is a pariah in his own hometown, hated for bringing Joe down because he had a conscience. The smearing of him today is despicable.

And what he saw was consistent with the independent and separate testimony of numerous other victims, witnesses, and complainants as compiled in the grand jury report.

And put the nail in the coffin for Jerry

Why didn't he barge into the shower right then and there? He should have for sure. But his brain probably couldn't process the horror and all the implications of it. I'd like to think I would have reacted differently on the scene, but you don't know until confronted by it.

Think about that for a minute though. He was a Grad Assistant and Jerry was a local god in State College. Mike admired him and had been on the team when he was coaching. That's why he couldn't really tell Dranov and his dad what he saw. He also knew what turning in Jerry meant. Professional suicide and banishment. Hatred from Nittany Nation and no police would have ever believed him. He went to Joe for top cover. He got it too till the lid blew off.

No, Sandusky was not "cleared" of anything by previous grand juries...if they were in fact convened as vaguely reported. Declining to bring an indictment requested by prosecutors does not equate to "clearing." To me, this is on the order of claiming that attorneys of numerous victims conspired separately to influence their clients to lie to the grand jury on the theory there'd be a big-time payday at some future time if they did so. It's a desperate fairy tale with no grounding in facts or evidence.

Well put

Yes, my friend, we'll agree to disagree. But it's ironic as hell that you and others here find yourselves defending the guy who destroyed Joe and Joe's historic legacy to Penn State...and also to the game of college football. As I said earlier, if you want a hill to die on, Joe's is a lot worthier than Jerry's.

As for Joe, it is sad but whether fair of not you are often remembered by the last bad thing you do.

 

[joeaubie21]

Do not engage the clown.

 

[Jerry]

Do not engage the clown.

It's the Florida State guy...I forget his screen name....who once posted here whenever this depressing subject came up.

I mean, no knock on the man because I agree with him on some things, Sandusky being one, but he should have the honesty to let people know who he is and what handle he's used in the past.

 

[joeaubie21]

It's the Florida State guy...I forget his screen name....who once posted here whenever this depressing subject came up.

I mean, no knock on the man because I agree with him on some things, Sandusky being one, but he should have the honesty to let people know who he is and what handle he's used in the past.

WCHAnole aka whackonole? Sounds more like JockStrapJohninPhila.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

It's the Florida State guy...I forget his screen name....who once posted here whenever this depressing subject came up.

I mean, no knock on the man because I agree with him on some things, Sandusky being one, but he should have the honesty to let people know who he is and what handle he's used in the past.

Honest and frank discussion is what some of us are looking for. Who we are is irrelevant. I've found you and some others to be reasonable so why worry about who we are? Most everybody on here is anonymous anyway.

 

[joeaubie21]

∆∆∆🌭🌭🌭🌭🦨🦨🦨🦨∆∆∆∆

 

[bdroc]

Two things:
Ask yourself if you were FALSLY accused of raping children would you sit on the stand and defend yourself? Of course you would.

That's not true. Most defense lawyers tell their clients not to testify. What can they say other than that they didn't do it.

Let's try it right here. I accuse you of raping children. What do you have to say in your defense?

 

[bdroc]

This is correct. This is the truth.

Here's the rub though, with the emails and Joe's corroboration of MM, Joe's defense of "I didn't know" gets hard to defend. Coupled with Joe knowing about 1998 then as Van Natta said it doomed him. This is why the secondary rationalization is to try and clear Jerry. If you clear him then the whole thing goes away. It's swinging for the fences. But it wont work.

It's very possible that Joe didn't believe Sandusky was a pedophile and that's understandable but not reporting him and being part of the process that decided not to report him tarnishes Joe's legacy unfortunately. Personally, I think he stayed too long and that made the program "his" and he had to protect it. IHMO

If there is any true scapegoat in this sad saga it is MM. He didn't do what previous coaches before him saw and knew about but kept quiet and moved on. Yeah he got some money but he is a pariah in his own hometown, hated for bringing Joe down because he had a conscience. The smearing of him today is despicable.

And put the nail in the coffin for Jerry

Think about that for a minute though. He was a Grad Assistant and Jerry was a local god in State College. Mike admired him and had been on the team when he was coaching. That's why he couldn't really tell Dranov and his dad what he saw. He also knew what turning in Jerry meant. Professional suicide and banishment. Hatred from Nittany Nation and no police would have ever believed him. He went to Joe for top cover. He got it too till the lid blew off.

Well put

As for Joe, it is sad but whether fair of not you are often remembered by the last bad thing you do.

You believe that MM spilled his guts to C/S/Joe but couldn't tell his own family? What a bunch of crap!

 

[Chris92]

So how's the commonwealth doing protecting its children $60 million later? Now that the money has dried up, how many victims have come forward?

 

[WeR0206]

Do not engage the clown.

This ^^^. I put the obvious shill on ignore

 

[LandoComando]

No credible lawyer would have allowed Sandusky to testify. Watch any interview with him. He'd be convicted instantly if he testified. Him not testifying as nothing to do with guilt or innocence. He's obviously guilty but not testifying isn't why.

 

[MacNit2.0]

If you think that will do anything other than cause a massive wave of public backlash and drag PSU's name through the mud all over again you are deluding yourself.

Who cares…what is right is right!

 

[MacNit2.0]

No credible lawyer would have allowed Sandusky to testify. Watch any interview with him. He'd be convicted instantly if he testified. Him not testifying as nothing to do with guilt or innocence. He's obviously guilty but not testifying isn't why.

Obviously guilty? How do you know?

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

You believe that MM spilled his guts to C/S/Joe but couldn't tell his own family? What a bunch of crap!

That's what the evidence points to.

 

[LandoComando]

Obviously guilty? How do you know?

Are you kidding me? Listen to the man speak for 15 seconds about what happened. He'd be convicted in a second. Every attorney knows this.

The fact anyone is trying to pretend he isn't guilty is pathetic. Accept it.

 

[joeaubie21]

Pass on the fake bait and lies.

 

[joeaubie21]

There is no 'nole guy. WCHAnole has zero posts on any FSU site. The made ups nic of PiOP in 2012 points to one of 2 yompa....mbe34 orJockStrapJohninPhila.

The content of his screeds is easily recognizable as Pennlive nonsense circa 2012. I vote jockstrap.

 

[AvgUser]

Ros, Joe himself told the grand jury that a very agitated McQueary reported the day after the incident that he had seen Sandusky doing "something of a sexual nature" to the boy. This was from Joe's own mouth. Please...read the link.

Keep in mind also that neither Joe himself nor any member of his family ever attempted to defend Sandusky. Their defense always rested not on Jerry-was-wrongly-accused but rather Joe-didn't-know.

Mike McQueary no doubt wishes he'd never gone into Lasch that night. What he saw there ruined his life. But he did see it and he did report it...including in a written statement to police. And what he saw was consistent with the independent and separate testimony of numerous other victims, witnesses, and complainants as compiled in the grand jury report.

Why didn't he barge into the shower right then and there? He should have for sure. But his brain probably couldn't process the horror and all the implications of it. I'd like to think I would have reacted differently on the scene, but you don't know until confronted by it.

No, Sandusky was not "cleared" of anything by previous grand juries...if they were in fact convened as vaguely reported. Declining to bring an indictment requested by prosecutors does not equate to "clearing." To me, this is on the order of claiming that attorneys of numerous victims conspired separately to influence their clients to lie to the grand jury on the theory there'd be a big-time payday at some future time if they did so. It's a desperate fairy tale with no grounding in facts or evidence.

Yes, my friend, we'll agree to disagree. But it's ironic as hell that you and others here find yourselves defending the guy who destroyed Joe and Joe's historic legacy to Penn State...and also to the game of college football. As I said earlier, if you want a hill to die on, Joe's is a lot worthier than Jerry's.

Please define “sexual nature”

 

[AvgUser]

No credible lawyer would have allowed Sandusky to testify. Watch any interview with him. He'd be convicted instantly if he testified. Him not testifying as nothing to do with guilt or innocence. He's obviously guilty but not testifying isn't why.

Guilty because he molested Matt Sandusky? 🙄

How is it “obvious”?

Do you believe he received a fair trial?

 

[LandoComando]

Guilty because he molested Matt Sandusky? 🙄

How is it “obvious”?

Do you believe he received a fair trial?

Yes, he had a fair trail
Yes, he was guilty
Listen to the man speak about any of this. You put him on the stand he'd be convicted in a heartbeat and any attorney can/will tell you that. You realize that's why most people don't testify--they'd hurt themselves.
You just don't want it to be a fair trial. He's exactly where he needs to be and he needs to stay there until his death.
The fact anyone doesn't think he had a fair trial is simply laughable. Being convicted of 45 counts isn't a mistake. The man is a vile human being that should have been put to death for his actions but keep defending the pedophile.

 

[christoph]

That's not true. Most defense lawyers tell their clients not to testify. What can they say other than that they didn't do it.

Let's try it right here. I accuse you of raping children. What do you have to say in your defense?

I’m going to get up there and say it’s not true. I’ve heard prosecutors say that a person that does not testify in their own defense is a win for them. By not testifying you are saying “prove it”. Well duh a bunch of people get up there and claim you did something and you don’t defend yourself …you did it! Period!! It a case of hearsay, and the only way to win it is with an emotional counterattack

And most defense lawyers tell their client not to testify because…. They did it!!

 

[LandoComando]

I’m going to get up there and say it’s not true. I’ve heard prosecutors say that a person that does not testify in their own defense is a win for them. By not testifying you are saying “prove it”. Well duh a bunch of people get up there and claim you did something and you don’t defend yourself …you did it! Period!! It a case of hearsay, and the only way to win it is with an emotional counterattack

And most defense lawyers tell their client not to testify because…. They did it!!

You are correct--very rarely does an attorney want them to testify--regardless of guilt.
Once their client is on the stand, the attorney has zero control over how they react or respond. One misstep and a jury's going to convict you.

 

[NoBareFeet]

Mike McQueary no doubt wishes he'd never gone into Lasch that night. What he saw there ruined his life

Yeah, that poor bastard never has to work another day in his life thanks to all the millions he was given in this sham of a scandal. Wish my life could be ruined like that!

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Yeah, that poor bastard never has to work another day in his life thanks to all the millions he was given in this sham of a scandal. Wish my life could be ruined like that!

He is a pariah in his hometown and in the community (Penn State fans) he was a part of. Money is fine but it doesn't buy everything. I would bet big money that MM wishes he was poorer but still a coach with fans who respected him.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Please define “sexual nature”

When occurring in any fashion between an adult and child it means call the police right now.

 

[Obliviax]

When occurring in any fashion between an adult and child it means call the police right now.

So, if you see an adult and a child in the shower, you call the police?

Pool Rules: Why Experts Say You Really Should Shower Before Hopping In

Hear the radio version of this story. A 5-year-old named Stella practices her kick at the Brentwood YMCA, during a "soft opening" ahead of Memorial Day weekend

wpln.org

 

[WeR0206]

Yes, he had a fair trail
Yes, he was guilty
Listen to the man speak about any of this. You put him on the stand he'd be convicted in a heartbeat and any attorney can/will tell you that. You realize that's why most people don't testify--they'd hurt themselves.
You just don't want it to be a fair trial. He's exactly where he needs to be and he needs to stay there until his death.
The fact anyone doesn't think he had a fair trial is simply laughable. Being convicted of 45 counts isn't a mistake. The man is a vile human being that should have been put to death for his actions but keep defending the pedophile.

You claimed its common or no big deal that a defense attorney wanted to ask a witness about their DOCUMENTED prior testimony at a prelim and for the judge to allow that person to claim they weren’t at the prelim. Instead of holding that person in contempt etc for not being truthful the judge admonished the defense attorney for being confused and continuing to ask the person about their prior testimony. Can you name one other example of this happening if it’s so common?

What possible reason could the judge and prosecutor have for not wanting a defense attorney to ask a witness about transcribed prior testimony under oath?? That is clown world material!

If it is common that’s a further indicator of a corrupt judicial system.

 

[indynittany]

He is a pariah in his hometown and in the community (Penn State fans) he was a part of. Money is fine but it doesn't buy everything. I would bet big money that MM wishes he was poorer but still a coach with fans who respected him.

He should have thought of that.

Actually, I'm sure he did. I believe he knew that if Joe got wind of his gambling and sexting, he'd be out of a job. Mike got Epsteined. They had enough dirt on him to coerce him into being their tool. And then they paid him to go away. Sad.

 

[ryoder1]

You claimed its common or no big deal that a defense attorney wanted to ask a witness about their DOCUMENTED prior testimony at a prelim and for the judge to allow that person to claim they weren’t at the prelim. Instead of holding that person in contempt etc for not being truthful the judge admonished the defense attorney for being confused and continuing to ask the person about their prior testimony. Can you name one other example of this happening if it’s so common?

What possible reason could the judge and prosecutor have for not wanting a defense attorney to ask a witness about transcribed prior testimony under oath?? That is clown world material!

If it is common that’s a further indicator of a corrupt judicial system.

All your posts are about Sandusky in this thread, Covid or complaining about the BOT from 2011.

Do you actually even care about the main purpose of this board which is to discuss Penn State football?

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

So, if you see an adult and a child in the shower, you call the police?

Pool Rules: Why Experts Say You Really Should Shower Before Hopping In

Hear the radio version of this story. A 5-year-old named Stella practices her kick at the Brentwood YMCA, during a "soft opening" ahead of Memorial Day weekend

wpln.org

If there is ANYTHING sexual going on (of ANY nature)? Hell yes!

 

[LandoComando]

You claimed its common or no big deal that a defense attorney wanted to ask a witness about their DOCUMENTED prior testimony at a prelim and for the judge to allow that person to claim they weren’t at the prelim. Instead of holding that person in contempt etc for not being truthful the judge admonished the defense attorney for being confused and continuing to ask the person about their prior testimony. Can you name one other example of this happening if it’s so common?

What possible reason could the judge and prosecutor have for not wanting a defense attorney to ask a witness about transcribed prior testimony under oath?? That is clown world material!

If it is common that’s a further indicator of a corrupt judicial system.

Because it's transcribed. It doesn't need to be discussed. It's not clown material. It's you having never been in a courtroom and not understanding procedure. It's not even remotely surprising. You just dislike how the legal system works but the trial was fair and will stand under any review.

 

[indynittany]

All your posts are about Sandusky in this thread, Covid or compaining about the BOT from 2011.

Do you actually even care about the main purpose of this board which is to discuss Penn State football?

A lot has happened since 2011.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

He should have thought of that.

Other coaches did think of it and kept their mouths shut about the abuse they saw. Benefitted them greatly in the short term but how they can sleep at night knowing their silence harmed children is beyond me. Many folks however, only care about themselves.

Actually, I'm sure he did. I believe he knew that if Joe got wind of his gambling and sexting, he'd be out of a job.

Doubt it. The gambling has never conclusively proved and came from a disgruntled room mate mad at him for reporting Sandusky.

Mike got Epsteined. They had enough dirt on him to coerce him into being their tool.

Any proof the police even knew about the dpics (not illegal) or any alleged gambling from 10 plus years later and then coerced MM into lying about Sandusky? Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

And then they paid him to go away. Sad.

Again, sounds like a conspiracy theory. Who paid him to go away? The police who you claim coerced him to continually lie under oath? The BOT who was in on it with the police? See how it sounds? Kinda out there.

 

[joeaubie21]

🤡∆∆∆∆∆∆∆

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

A lot has happened since 2011.

Sandusky, Spanier, Curley and Schultz have gone to jail.

 

[Obliviax]

If there is ANYTHING sexual going on (of ANY nature)? Hell yes!

...he didn't see anything sexual. He testified to that.

 

[WeR0206]

All your posts are about Sandusky in this thread, Covid or complaining about the BOT from 2011.

Do you actually even care about the main purpose of this board which is to discuss Penn State football?

In case you haven't noticed, there's not much football being played by PSU at the moment. Once the season starts I'm sure I'll be in the game threads etc.. I don't get too caught up with recruiting b/c it can turn on a dime these days with NIL.

If you only care about discussing PSU football why are you even in this thread asking me dumb questions?

Because it's transcribed. It doesn't need to be discussed. It's not clown material. It's you having never been in a courtroom and not understanding procedure. It's not even remotely surprising. You just dislike how the legal system works but the trial was fair and will stand under any review.

It doesn't need to be discussed b/c it was transcribed? WTF are you talking about? If testimony was transcribed under oath you aren't allowed to ask someone about that testimony in attempt to point out contradictions, etc.? That happens ALL THE TIME during trials. It also speaks to the credibility of the witness if they claim they were never at a prelim 6 months prior and never gave testimony when asked about it during a trial. Yes it was transcribed and the defense wanted to ask the witness about their TRANSCRIBED testimony but the judge wouldn't let him b/c the witness claimed he didn't give said testimony. That's the part that's clown world. You're either a moron or you're being intentionally obtuse.

If the judge allowed him to be questioned based on his transcribed prior testimony (regardless of the witness' memory claims) it wouldn't have been such a huge red flag but the judge sustained the objection to the questioning (in effect memory holing the testimony) and didn't even allow the defense to approach the bench to get an explanation on WTF just happened.

Provide me some example of how JS' trial was fair. Did his team get ample time to review all documents during discovery? No. Were they allowed to question witnesses about prior testimony? No. I could go on and on.

I'll take your non answer as an answer. You couldn't provide me a single example of this ever happening in another trial let alone a trial with national attention.

 

[Obliviax]

Sandusky, Spanier, Curley and Schultz have gone to jail.

Curly and Schulz plead to a single misdemeanor charge of "child endangerment". This was done to end a several year long effort to get several felony convictions so the prosecution collapsed to cop to a single misdemeanor charge in return for their testimony against Spanier. When they testified, the prosecutors reneged on their commitment to recommend no jail time because they didn't feel the two testified against Spanier. Do you know of anyone who got a first-time misdemeanor plea, a first-time offense of any kind, and got jail time?

 

[joeaubie21]

Curly and Schulz plead to a single misdemeanor charge of "child endangerment". This was done to end a several year long effort to get several felony convictions so the prosecution collapsed to cop to a single misdemeanor charge in return for their testimony against Spanier. When they testified, the prosecutors reneged on their commitment to recommend no jail time because they didn't feel the two testified against Spanier. Do you know of anyone who got a first-time misdemeanor plea, a first-time offense of any kind, and got jail time?

You're wasting your time replying to the cached Pennlive nonsense of JockStrapJohninPhila.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

...he didn't see anything sexual. He testified to that.

He did:

'It was sexual': Mike McQueary takes the stand at Graham Spanier's child endangerment trial

McQueary says he never spoke to Spanier about witnessing Jerry Sandusky molesting a boy in a shower room at Penn State.

www.pennlive.com