Sandusky Scandal Costs Approach 1/4 Billion.

[Obliviax]

I guess I'm going to open up Pandora's box here, but the one thing that has always bothered me about this from Penn State's end (besides the actual crimes and possible, though not proven coverup) is how similar the 1998 and 2001 incidents were. They spoke to Jerry about the 98 incident regarding showering with boys, he said he'd stop doing it and admitted he was wrong. Three years later, he's caught showering with boys on their campus, and what was their response? This didn't raise a single red flag to any of the parties involved? We haven't seen any evidence that anything of significance happened to Jerry. It should be noted that if there was an investigation, the DPW would've deleted those records by now.

That, to me, is the biggest issue I have with the whole case from PSU's end. I just don't get why their suspicions may not have been raised at that time.

here is the problem...it is not illegal to shower with boys. 1998 was fully vetted by the police. 1998 included two "sting" operations intended to entrap JS. 1998 was dropped with no charges. So it is reasonable to assume, since (as you say) they are so similar, why wouldn't 2001 end up with the same conclusions as 1998? 1998 makes it that much more probably that 2001 was just an oversight.

And, IIRC, JS was granted access to psu facilities by way of his emeritus status. To restrict him, in anything more than word salad, would have taken someone to withdraw his emeritus status. And, if wrong, could have opened the up to law suits.

 

[greenmanRD]

here is the problem...it is not illegal to show with boys. 1998 was fully vetted by the police. 1998 included to "sting" operations intended to entrap JS. 1998 was dropped with not charges. So it is reasonable to assume, since (as you say) they are so similar, why wouldn't 2001 end up with the same conclusions as 1998? 1998 makes it that much more probably that 2001 was just an oversight.

And, IIRC, JS was granted access to psu facilities by way of his emeritus status. To restrict him, in anything more than word salad, would have taken someone to withdraw his emeritus status. And, if wrong, could have opened the up to law suits.

You are right that it's not illegal to shower with boys. But Jerry said it was wrong and that he'd stop. Then he did it on their campus a few years later.

Just because one investigation cleared someone doesn't mean, "oh that will be the same result if investigated again."

 

[LaJolla Lion]

They is obviously PSU in this context.

But if you can find anything that says PSU didn't know about 1998, I'd love to see it.

Some people knew about 98 for sure. You said they...who are they?

 

[bjf1991]

......from Penn State's end.......They spoke to Jerry about the 98 incident regarding showering with boys, he said he'd stop doing it and admitted he was wrong...... .

My biggest issue?

Folks who don't even have the basic "facts" (LOL) correct........who nevertheless, think they have interesting "takes".


“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

 

[Obliviax]

You are right that it's not illegal to shower with boys. But Jerry said it was wrong and that he'd stop. Then he did it on their campus a few years later.

Just because one investigation cleared someone doesn't mean, "oh that will be the same result if investigated again."

So what do you do? He said he'd stop and didn't. He has the right to use facilities as part of his emeritus status. You'd have to revoke that, and you'd have to have a reason to revoke that. So you are going to call a board meeting and say you want to pull his emeritus status because he used the facility with young boys. And then he pulls out his card saying he founded one of the best 'at risk boy charities' in the USA. Then the accuser looks around and sees that everyone there contributed to that very same charity?

Good luck with that.

 

[WeR0206]

here is the problem...it is not illegal to show with boys. 1998 was fully vetted by the police. 1998 included to "sting" operations intended to entrap JS. 1998 was dropped with not charges. So it is reasonable to assume, since (as you say) they are so similar, why wouldn't 2001 end up with the same conclusions as 1998? 1998 makes it that much more probably that 2001 was just an oversight.

And, IIRC, JS was granted access to psu facilities by way of his emeritus status. To restrict him, in anything more than word salad, would have taken someone to withdraw his emeritus status. And, if wrong, could have opened the up to law suits.

Exactly, a lot people seem to forget that THE child care experts in PA, CYS/DPW, told PSU admins and UPPD that JS' behavior was no big deal, normal coach behavior, etc. so when a similar situation happens a few years later they are most likely to think the same thing.

Now, that being said, the admins still took MM's report seriously. They contacted OUTSIDE counsel, spoke to MM, confronted JS to see if he would admit his behavior was wrong and needed to stop (if he didn't then they would loop in DPW to drive home that message), and informed the mandatory reporters and child care experts at TSM responsible for both JS and the kids he was with and whom had direct control over JS' access to kids.

Yet people/the media still want to direct their outrage towards PSU admins that had zero control over JS' access to kids. Sure, that makes sense...smh

 

[GTACSA]

So what is my narrative of what happened? Enlighten the board

I suspect your narrative is that no one at Penn State received a report from McQueary that he believed he had observed Sandusky interacting with a young boy in a sexual manner that night in the shower.

 

[getmyjive11]

yes...you can ignore their sworn testimony....because their actions in 2001 show that their sworn testimony IS NOT consistent with their actions/lack of actions. Personally, I don't care much for words. I love the line "I am sorry, I can't hear your words because your actions are speaking too loudly".

I am noting your resistance in answering my simple question. So, I'll ask it again:

OK. But that would be to say that Dr. Dranov (for one) broke the law. Yet, for some reason, has never been cited or arrested. You have to ask yourself why that is. And, on top of that, there has been no investigation of the Second Mile. Why is that? Why the disparate treatment of Dr. Dranov as compared to Paterno, Curley and Schultz?​

So all of them are willing to commit perjury (including Paterno) because....?

 

[Obliviax]

So all of them are willing to commit perjury (including Paterno) because....?

Your question makes no sense. Everyone in 2001 did the same thing...basically nothing. Yet, two were prosecuted. Why, do you think, Curley and Schultz were selectively prosecuted (trials pending after over five years) and Dad, Dranov, MM were not?

 

[getmyjive11]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/transcript-joe-paternos-grand-jury-testimony/

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.



Q: To whom or with whom did you share the information that McQueary had given you?

Paterno: I talked to my immediate boss, our athletic director.

Q: What is that person’s name?

Mr. Paterno: Tim Curley.

Q: How did you contact Mr. Curley?

Mr. Paterno: I believe I did it by phone. As I recall, I called him and I said, hey, we got a problem, and I explained the problem to him.

Q: Was the information that you passed along substantially the same information that Mr. McQueary had given you?

Mr. Paterno: Yes.



Paterno DID NOT testify that he used the term "sexual nature" with Curley. He doesn't say anything about what he told Curley, other than agreeing that it was "substantially the same information" that McQ had given him.

So you are saying that he just forgot that part when he talked to Curley? LOL!

The mental gymnastics being done here is fantastic. Repeatedly flawed but fantastic.

 

[getmyjive11]

Your question makes no sense. Everyone in 2001 did the same thing...basically nothing. Yet, two were prosecuted. Why, do you think, Curley and Schultz were selectively prosecuted (trials pending after over five years) and Dad, Dranov, MM were not?

It makes perfect sense. Was their testimony truthful or not?

 

[getmyjive11]

How could Mike tell C & S or Paterno or anyone for that matter that he saw something sexual when moments after he saw Jerry in the shower with the boy he told his dad he saw nothing more than that?

Moments after the 2001 incident Mike McQueary called home and told his father Twice he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy and did not witness anything sexual.

John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.

Also if Joe was so clear in his testimony that it was a sexual nature, why was the follow up question this and not referencing sexual?
Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?

You don't need to see penetration to know if the act is sexual or not. There are many other illegal sexual acts that Sandusky could do to the boy without anal rape.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Doll, if you have so much information about this grand conspiracy, why don't you take it to the Washington Post or NY Times instead of indulging the rubes on this board.

Doll. LOL

 

[Obliviax]

It makes perfect sense. Was their testimony truthful or not?

We don't know. The two that were arrested, and most of their charges dropped, have yet to be tried and cross examined. But we do know that they performed similarly but were treated differently by the police. Why?

 

[bjf1991]

It makes perfect sense. Was their testimony truthful or not?

Yep......makes "perfect sense".....like mayonnaise on a peanut butter sandwich

 

[moofafoo]

I suspect your narrative is that no one at Penn State received a report from McQueary that he believed he had observed Sandusky interacting with a young boy in a sexual manner that night in the shower.

No one did until Mike was tracked down ten years later. Care to try again?

 

[getmyjive11]

We don't know. The two that were arrested, and most of their charges dropped, have yet to be tried and cross examined. But we do know that they performed similarly but were treated differently by the police. Why?

They were treated differently because the testimony of four men pointed to them being untruthful.

 

[Osprey Lion]

They were treated differently because the testimony of four men pointed to them being untruthful.

For Oblivious you have to spell everything out word for word. And after you have done that,
he will ask you to start again.

 

[PSUMATT85]

They is obviously PSU in this context.

But if you can find anything that says PSU didn't know about 1998, I'd love to see it.

Yet in 98 it was the second mile who told to " shower with young boys with a swimsuit on", and did nothing in '01.

Yet Bruce helm is still a community pillar

 

[Obliviax]

They were treated differently because the testimony of four men pointed to them being untruthful.

Those same four men were the same ones that did nothing in 2001! Wouldn't that be a good reason for them to lie?

At the same time, since those for men did nothing, didn't they also break the law? Why were they not prosecuted?

By the way, those charges were dropped.

 

[Obliviax]

So all of them are willing to commit perjury (including Paterno) because....?

Who was convicted of committing perjury?

 

[Obliviax]

For Oblivious you have to spell everything out word for word. And after you have done that,
he will ask you to start again.

sorry I hurt your feelings, doll.

 

[psudukie]

Obli...

To my knowledge no one has been convicted of perjury but on this board it's common place to say Mike lied Mike embellished Mike is a liar. I guess it just depends On what side you support to be allowed to call one a liar etc. In the trials thus far it seems jury's seem to think Mike has been honest and credible.

Those accused are simply that accused... They are presumed innocent till proven guilty. That has yet to play out and in fact perjury is no longer an issue do to those cheated being dropped due to rights being violated.

 

[Osprey Lion]

sorry I hurt your feelings, doll.

My feelings aren't hurt. It's just every time I read your posts you remind me of Fun.
You should be smart enough to understand what people are saying, but you pretend you don't.
And no one can ever answer enough questions for you. As soon as one is answered, you ask another.
That's why I rarely bother interacting with you. I had enough of those conversations with Fun.

 

[delcoLion]

Those same four men were the same ones that did nothing in 2001! Wouldn't that be a good reason for them to lie?

At the same time, since those for men did nothing, didn't they also break the law? Why were they not prosecuted?

By the way, those charges were dropped.

Both McQ Sr. and Dranov should have been charged with numerous counts of endangerment, etc..

 

[getmyjive11]

Those same four men were the same ones that did nothing in 2001! Wouldn't that be a good reason for them to lie?

At the same time, since those for men did nothing, didn't they also break the law? Why were they not prosecuted?

By the way, those charges were dropped.

They were not prosecuted because they took the correct actions, legally. The three men charged made the ultimate decision to not report the incident.

 

[getmyjive11]

Who was convicted of committing perjury?

No one, that's my point. Their testimony was found to be truthful. Only CSS were charged with perjury, which is one of the hardest charges to get a conviction for. Especially when this much time has gone by.

 

[Obliviax]

Obli...

To my knowledge no one has been convicted of perjury but on this board it's common place to say Mike lied Mike embellished Mike is a liar. I guess it just depends On what side you support to be allowed to call one a liar etc. In the trials thus far it seems jury's seem to think Mike has been honest and credible.

Those accused are simply that accused... They are presumed innocent till proven guilty. That has yet to play out and in fact perjury is no longer an issue do to those cheated being dropped due to rights being violated.

Very good....I've read your posts with great interest and respect your point of view. It all comes down to what Mike told all of those that fateful evening, what they did, and then what Mike to Paterno, Curley and Schultz. As i said, all of those people acted similarly (Father, DD, MM, Curley and Schultz). Why some were prosecuted and some were not has me puzzled. I wonder why. I suspect that the eyewitness accounts were all different, muddled, filled with emotion, and time has rendered them as vague (as we know, after a year of investigation and a complete GJ hearing, they had the WRONG YEAR). So counting on anyone's memory to recall they used any specific words is foolish....but again, why the five year which hunt on Curley and Schultz? Why nothing about the Second Mile.

Finally, I personally am happy the MM was awarded several million. To me, that's not about what he said but how he was treated (and the rest of the football coaching staff and team).

 

[Thus Spake Mainer]

For Oblivious you have to spell everything out word for word. And after you have done that,
he will ask you to start again.

Hey Crybaby, out of your crying room finally? How about having a beer together a week from Friday.

 

[Obliviax]

They were not prosecuted because they took the correct actions, legally. The three men charged made the ultimate decision to not report the incident.

No they didn't. For example, if we are to believe MM's testimony, Dr. Dranov (being a trained individual and mandatory reporter) was as or more guilty than Curley and/or Schultz.

 

[Obliviax]

Hey Crybaby, out of your crying room finally? How about having a beer together a week from Friday, and we'll watch the coronation of the Trumpster.

Right...he can't answer the questions so starts to take personal shots....same as it ever was.

 

[ChiTownLion]

How come MM was in the PSU Playbook chat days after the event in 2001 stating he saw something? Most of those posters are still on Scout that attended those nightly chats, but he was in there saying the sky was about to fall...never did though until 9 years later. I love the black and white takes on this as if there is no gray area. It is odd looking back now as you were expecting something to come of it and it never did until 8-9 years later. Oh well...carry on as some have this story written in stone and know everything.

You're saying Mike McQueary was talking about this in chat rooms since 2001? I can't believe nobody was ever able to get a transcript (or even a simple screenshot). Those chats would fill in a lot of the blanks.

 

[greenmanRD]

Yet in 98 it was the second mile who told to " shower with young boys with a swimsuit on", and did nothing in '01.

Yet Bruce helm is still a community pillar

Nothing of what I said absolves the Second Mile either, btw.

 

[greenmanRD]

My biggest issue?

Folks who don't even have the basic "facts" (LOL) correct........who nevertheless, think they have interesting "takes".

So that isn't right? Presumably you didn't read the Freeh Report exhibits then.

 

[moofafoo]

Nothing of what I said absolves the Second Mile either, btw.

Get lost already.

Fool.

 

[didier]

Anyone know what or who TLH stands for? One of Schultzs notes from 1998 says "ckw TLH re: their report". I presume ckw is shorthand for check with. But who or what is TLH? It's not Tom Harmon...he's TRH.

 

[greenmanRD]

So what do you do? He said he'd stop and didn't. He has the right to use facilities as part of his emeritus status. You'd have to revoke that, and you'd have to have a reason to revoke that. So you are going to call a board meeting and say you want to pull his emeritus status because he used the facility with young boys. And then he pulls out his card saying he founded one of the best 'at risk boy charities' in the USA. Then the accuser looks around and sees that everyone there contributed to that very same charity?

Good luck with that.

I feel like we are speaking about two different issues now. Sure, taking away emeritus status would've been a pain, and as you mentioned, could've lead to lawsuits and been a pain as well. That isn't what concerns me.

What concerns me is the conduct MM alleged Sandusky was participating in. For Sandusky to be doing the same thing that he already admitted doing and apologized for before is a red flag to me. Maybe some see it differently.

And if they were concerned about making a decision about reporting the incident, then they could've at least recused themselves and let someone else take over the investigation.

 

[greenmanRD]

Get lost already.

Fool.

This is probably good advice for everyone in this thread.

 

[bjf1991]

So that isn't right? Presumably you didn't read the Freeh Report exhibits then.

Well, either you can't read.....or you can't write (though one shouldn't preclude the option of "both")

 

[colt21]

Sorry but even Paterno disagreed with you. It wasn't just Paterno's reputation that took a hit, everyone
who MM told about the incident was tarred. It's just that Paterno's rep was so much bigger that
it took a harder fall.

What - he disagreed with me?
I have no idea what you are taking about

His reputation took a hit because of some very evil people not named JS