I understand your point, I just think it is wrong. I believe that Dr D didn't want to deal with the situation, just like everyone else. The testimonies clearly show that MM conveyed a sexual component to what he witnessed. Dr. D failed.
Sandusky Scandal Costs Approach 1/4 Billion.
- Thread starter moofafoo
- Start date
That's called hindsight, which isn't available at the time of the decision. Funny how that works. It also suggests that what was actually stated in 2001 when people spoke to one another did not convey a sexual component because not one person took any action.
None of us can agree what "Sexual componont" and "sexual sounds" really means either.
I've been saying the same thing about Joe for years. The actions he took were enough that the situation could have been handled properly. It *should* have resulted in the police being called by C&S. I put Joe's culpability very low in this, but I think it's fair to say that he was part of a group who failed. That doesn't make him a "bad" person, just a failure in this case.
That's no hindsight at all. And again, people not taking action doesn't prove anything.
I would say that Mike was a damaged coward and Dr. D and his father should have recognized that (from him being in shock to the point where he couldn't talk completely about the situation) and forced him to go to the police. My opinion is that Paterno should have never even been involved. But he was, so you have to include him in this sad story.
To provide a quick summary, MM testified that:
-no one from PSU ever told him to keep quite (there was no cover up)
-he wasn't 100% sure what JS and the boy were doing or if there was fondling b/c he couldn't see any hands/privates but he IMPLIED that something bad MAY have been happening based on the sounds he heard and positioning.
-Curley DID follow up with him via phone a few weeks after their initial meeting and during this phone call he told MM what they decided to do about his report and MM expressed no dissatisfaction nor said more needed to be one besides PSU's action plan.
-He never once saw JS around the program with a kid again after 2001
MM's actions: never once submitted a written statement to UPPD or asked Schultz why no one from UPPD ever came to get his statement (if he really did want JS arrested, questioned, etc. why didn't he ever take this key step??). Instead he went on with his life for the next 9 years as if he was perfectly happy with the admin's response, not uttering one word of discontent to any of the admins.
When you add all of the above up it paints a pretty clear picture... that in 2001 MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing but was weirded out and felt someone at PSU needed to know but apparently he didn't feel strongly enough about his speculation to make a formal criminal complaint to law enforcement via a written statement.
That all would have been perfectly fine except that 9 years later MM played revisionist history to the OAG by claiming he was certain a child was getting abused (there was no speculation mentioned, MM said he unequivocally reported child abuse) and reported it as such in 2001, which makes no one's actions in 2001 or MM's testimony about not expressing any dissatisfaction to TC make any sense.
So, according to MM, he is certain a kid was getting abused, he NEVER files a police report but instead he tells some psu admins, he sees that JS is reported to his charity but never arrested (b/c he never filed a report, duh!), then never expresses one word of dissatisfaction to anyone at PSU he entrusted to handle his supposed report of child abuse when they follow up with him....yeah that makes perfect sense!!
-no one from PSU ever told him to keep quite (there was no cover up)
-he wasn't 100% sure what JS and the boy were doing or if there was fondling b/c he couldn't see any hands/privates but he IMPLIED that something bad MAY have been happening based on the sounds he heard and positioning.
-Curley DID follow up with him via phone a few weeks after their initial meeting and during this phone call he told MM what they decided to do about his report and MM expressed no dissatisfaction nor said more needed to be one besides PSU's action plan.
-He never once saw JS around the program with a kid again after 2001
MM's actions: never once submitted a written statement to UPPD or asked Schultz why no one from UPPD ever came to get his statement (if he really did want JS arrested, questioned, etc. why didn't he ever take this key step??). Instead he went on with his life for the next 9 years as if he was perfectly happy with the admin's response, not uttering one word of discontent to any of the admins.
When you add all of the above up it paints a pretty clear picture... that in 2001 MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing but was weirded out and felt someone at PSU needed to know but apparently he didn't feel strongly enough about his speculation to make a formal criminal complaint to law enforcement via a written statement.
That all would have been perfectly fine except that 9 years later MM played revisionist history to the OAG by claiming he was certain a child was getting abused (there was no speculation mentioned, MM said he unequivocally reported child abuse) and reported it as such in 2001, which makes no one's actions in 2001 or MM's testimony about not expressing any dissatisfaction to TC make any sense.
So, according to MM, he is certain a kid was getting abused, he NEVER files a police report but instead he tells some psu admins, he sees that JS is reported to his charity but never arrested (b/c he never filed a report, duh!), then never expresses one word of dissatisfaction to anyone at PSU he entrusted to handle his supposed report of child abuse when they follow up with him....yeah that makes perfect sense!!
In the 12/16/11 prelim
Page 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 sex act".
That makes absolutely no sense....So MM was confident he saw a serious or severe sex act, considered calling the police about it but didn't, and instead slept on it then told a football coach....what a load of crap.
Right after page 67 on page 68 Roberto (Curely's lawyer) asks MM what he told Dr. D that night and Beemer immediately objected claiming it was irrelevant (huh???) and of course the corrupt judge agreed. Roberto then goes onto the record and says ".....I think the Commonwealth's vehemence in preventing me from going into this area would lead me to believe that Dr. D's testimony doesn't corroborate MM's testimony".
I think she hit the nail on the head with that one.
Last edited:
But regulations dictated he take it to his boss. Remember this was several hours later. The NCAA, after months of review, released a statement dictating guidelines for a coach, when receiving such a report, should go to his or her boss and also make sure it is reported outside of the sports vertical structure. Then they are to get out of the situation. This is EXACTLY what Joe did.
Round and round we go...
...except that in 1998, all the right people were called for a very similar and perhaps identical situation and the conclusion was... No crime. Not even a charge of a crime.
Also seems strange that Mike would continue participating in Second Mile events and interacting with Jerry Sandusky.
Add it all up and you can see why nobody can seem to agree on anything after all these years.
No. What I'm saying is that Joe didn't testify that he specifically told Curley "it was a sexual nature", but only answered "Yes" when questioned if he told him "substantially the same thing". Who knows what that meant in Joe's mind, especially 10 years after.
Are you capable of understanding the mental gymnastics equivalent of a simple tumble?
I'm sorry, but reporting the incident to police is the better action to take. Not that what Paterno did was wrong (again, it *should* have resulted in the police being contacted), but the better action was to take MM's cowardly ass right down to the police station.
It doesn't matter that 1998 yielded no arrest. Whether a crime was committed or not is up to the police to decide. It's not C&S's job to determine that.
I am able to understand that a Brown educated man would know the importance of that question and would elaborate on it if the answer was not simply "yes." "Horseplay" is not substantially the same thing.
Get 11,
This is what your not analyzing, in 2001, 3 people decide that the eye witness accounts didn't rise to the level of police involvement. Not we don't want to tell the po-po because we don't want to get involved, but fact as sworn testimony, so the eye witness tells a waterdowned version to a 4th person. So now at this point we have two competing versions of the same story given and introduced by the same person. So then we know that persons 5 and 6 are told these two version who in turn tell person 7. What's the outcome? All The persons told the two versions and the eye witness do not involve the police.
This is what your not analyzing, in 2001, 3 people decide that the eye witness accounts didn't rise to the level of police involvement. Not we don't want to tell the po-po because we don't want to get involved, but fact as sworn testimony, so the eye witness tells a waterdowned version to a 4th person. So now at this point we have two competing versions of the same story given and introduced by the same person. So then we know that persons 5 and 6 are told these two version who in turn tell person 7. What's the outcome? All The persons told the two versions and the eye witness do not involve the police.
Clearly, the NCAA was wrong to step into something they shouldn't have. That's not even part of this discussion.
I can't upload the actual page here but it's page 406: http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/MCQUEARY PLAINTIFFS EXHIBITS FROM JURY TRIAL.pdf
Pretty sure it's an L. Also note there appears to be a name scratched out in the upper left. Looks like Paul something but would be interested in any ideas.
Paul Tomczuk? McQuade Blasko Attorney
That would make a lot of sense but looking at the last name again it looks like there's a 'g' in there. Someone associated with MB would make a lot of sense though.
Didier... I believe the traditional cursive z has a tail very similar to a g..
Another wrinkle. The only entity known to have "made a report" would be Alycia Chambers of The Highlands. Could "TLH" somehow refer to The Highlands or someone at that practice in 1998 when she consulted colleagues, wrote a 100-pg report, and contacted Childline?
(FYI) I spent some time adjusting the resolution to make the image more readable and went back to the Freeh Report Exhibit 2H? or 2I? can't recall which one to compare Schultz' writing on same date 5/5/1998*, note-taking style, how he formed letters to see if there was another "L" to compare it to as well as tried to fit the statement into the context of the conversation where Harmon was telling him what DPW planned to do and what Harmon's role was.
*Isn't it interesting this note was not in the Freeh exhibits along with the other one where it should have been? But I think that's been addressed before.
Last edited:
If multiple persons listened to MM describe what he saw and EACH of these people exhibited the same "no crime" response, why do you keep going back to the most extreme VERSION of one of many MM "versions"???
My concern here is how can ANYONE believe the premise of this "Story" when there now are so many other FACTS that bring MM's extreme sexual statements into serious question? How is it possible that you still hold onto testimony that is refuted by EVERYONE's actions here - this includes family and friends, not just all PSU persons who listened to MM about what he saw.
I am saying that MM's own activities - both at the "scene" and from 2001-2011 - refute the premise that what happened in the shower was criminal and therefore needed to be reported to police.
Finally, if the CONSISTENT actions of everyone who MM talked to in 2001 was not enough to PROVE that what was witnessed was not worthy of further action, how about the sworn testimony of the "victim" who directly stated NOTHING HAPPENED. Why do you continue to cling to this obviously "tainted" soundbite obviously designed to deceive the public?
PLEASE....do not try to distract focus from the core issue here - WHAT MM SAW IN 2001!!! Don't try to bring into play "...jury of his peers...convicted sex offender...etc" - this is all BS when you look at the CORE point in this case - the validity of MM's "positively criminal" testimony.
Truth is, it is now MUCH more reasonable - BASED ON KNOWN FACTS - to support that MM's meeting with Paterno and C/S/S actions were TOTALLY APPROPRIATE for what was reported in 2001.
HERE ARE JUST 2 questions you need to ask......
WHAT IS THE MOTIVE FOR THE OAG to get MM to "spice up" his 2001 testimony in 2011 so that it now supported a Crime occurring at PSU?? Why did they need to release to the public a "Story" of what happened in 2002 (2001) which was based upon KNOWN "tainted" or "manipulated" testimony??? This "tainted" testimony version has always been the one you base your comments on.
Why did the OAG try to influence "victims" to refute original testimonies that DID NOT provide support for the OAG-driven agenda of CRIMINAL ACTS (check the TAPES that support this legal abuse of evidence building) ????
Dozens of other "suspicious features" surrounding this case & MM's multiple testimonies, but I doubt if you care.
Last edited:
The problem for you is that you cannot change testimony. It is what it is... and that's an event of a sexual nature. Sorry if you don't like it, but any amount of pissing and moaning isn't going to change it. I don't care that the men were cowards and choose to kick the can down the curb; that doesn't mean that nothing criminal happened.
It's funny that most of you don't know what was in Joe's mind regarding issues you don't want to
believe, but know exactly what was in his mind regarding issues you do.
So according to you if someone hears screams and a gunshot coming from a house, they should determine if something "criminal in nature" happened before contacting the police instead of
letting the police investigate for themselves.
Wasn't Mike questioned at the C/S/S preliminary hearing and didn't he couch his answers in " I would have said" or "I would have done". Who speaks like that? Someone sure what they said >10 years ago? Someone coached by an attorney on how not to commit perjury?
Another NO CONTENT RESPONSE... Come on, quit with the BS - your response does not (and never does) address any issue....The Issue here is the VALIDITY of the message that MM delivered in 2001!! This must be a problem with you keeping your years straight!
You must still be a 2002 MM event believer. Based on your logic, this is another OAG fact that "...any amount of pissing and moaning isn't going to change..."
Back to your comments on testimony...you have one person - MM - in 2001 report something which multiple people validate AT THE TIME was not something that should be reported to authorities.
After 9 years, a NEW version of what he saw was created. In this one, he is more in tune with 2010 information presented to him by the OAG. It is this "New" version that you continue to rely on as "fact". However, if it is NOT what was stated in 2001...then it is a LIE fabricated for an unknown motive by a collusion of OAG, MM, WHOMEVER.
IF you pick apart the words of the OAG version of MM's testimony and IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE that is known which questions the validity of this post-2001 version, this is the only way you can argue that a Public "Criminal Story" exists for anyone at Penn State.
Real Question.....MM changed his "testimony" from what he said in 2001 to what you quote. WHY?? Do you want to continue to promote HIDING REAL Criminals by maintaining a falsely supported public ILLUSION. WHY??
Bottom line, the time to act was that night in the showers.
If Mike was certain of a crime, he could have intervened.
If Mike didn't want to intervene, then call 911. You have the victim, the perp and the witness all together at the scene of the crime.
Instead, Mike went home and decided with his father and Dr. Dranov that this wasn't a police matter. Then he decided to go to bed for the night (knowing he left the kid with Jerry). And just like that, the opportunity was gone, though no fault of Joe, Tim, Gary or Graham. All they could do after that is follow policy and procedure.
By sleeping on it and going to Joe Paterno the next day, either:
If "A" is true, then that explains the actions of everyone else.
If "B" is true, let's say Mike thought it would help him get a job (he did not get the open WRs job). IF that's true, then that's an indictment on Mike for putting his career ahead of the welfare of kids. Has nothing to do with Penn State's students, faculty, alumni, nor our so-called "football culture."
Mike never considered the shower scene a police matter until a decade later. Surprised nobody's asked him why.
If Mike was certain of a crime, he could have intervened.
If Mike didn't want to intervene, then call 911. You have the victim, the perp and the witness all together at the scene of the crime.
Instead, Mike went home and decided with his father and Dr. Dranov that this wasn't a police matter. Then he decided to go to bed for the night (knowing he left the kid with Jerry). And just like that, the opportunity was gone, though no fault of Joe, Tim, Gary or Graham. All they could do after that is follow policy and procedure.
By sleeping on it and going to Joe Paterno the next day, either:
A. Mike did not believe a crime had taken place.
B. Mike had ulterior motives.
B. Mike had ulterior motives.
If "A" is true, then that explains the actions of everyone else.
If "B" is true, let's say Mike thought it would help him get a job (he did not get the open WRs job). IF that's true, then that's an indictment on Mike for putting his career ahead of the welfare of kids. Has nothing to do with Penn State's students, faculty, alumni, nor our so-called "football culture."
Mike never considered the shower scene a police matter until a decade later. Surprised nobody's asked him why.
Last edited:
No...they should do what the PA OAG does....manufacture a crime and then immediately bomb the house and shoot anyone who runs out of the rubble.
Both the above response to you and your original post are equally reasonable illustrations.
You will never be able to dispute the fact that both Paterno and MM testified that something of a sexual nature occurred. You can spend your whole life obsessing over this, but it's not going to change. You will just have to deal with it. Sorry if that angers you, but it is what it is.
The only thing I've seen close to that addressed by MM was when he said in the 12/16/11 prelim that when he had the meeting with C/S ten DAYS later that he considered Schultz "the police" since he oversaw UPPD.
This rationalization by MM never made any sense to me. If that was the case then why didn't he ask Schultz right then a there to send someone from UPPD over to get his written statement ASAP?? Also, when Curley called MM a few weeks later to follow up with PSU's action plan why didn't MM object or express dissatisfaction when he learned that someone from UPPD taking his statement wasn't part of that plan??
Furthermore when JM had his face to face meeting with Schultz a few months later why didn't he ask why no one from UPPD ever came to get Mike's statement (if he really did view Schultz as the police)? Without Mike giving a statement to UPPD there wasn't much UPPD could do.
Now, if MM didn't want to treat this as a criminal matter b/c he couldn't verify anything criminal took place then having an informal chat with admins and being satisfied with the child care experts at TSM handling his vague report makes perfect sense.
Last edited:
Even if Mike thought he was talking to the police 10 days later during his interview with Schultz, that still doesn't explain why Mike thought it was ok to sleep on it that night (leaving the kid with Jerry) and then pursuing the HR route the next day when he reported to his superior.
I agree 100%. So much of MM's story doesn't make logical sense. To add on to what you pointed out, JM testified that he would call the police for a burglary but not for what MM reported that night and Dr. D testifying that he didn't consider what MM told him to be bad enough to warrant a call to police OR child services. Starting to sound to me like MM couldn't verify that a crime had taken place so they all decided to treat it as an inappropriate shower HR issue which is exactly what everyone else said in recalling what MM reported. Go figure!
