And it was all a bunch of shit concocted for political purposes. Tell us why you think TSM and everyone associated with it got off scott free. And why the shredder trucks were there in record time.
Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
And it was all a bunch of shit concocted for political purposes. Tell us why you think TSM and everyone associated with it got off scott free. And why the shredder trucks were there in record time.
My point is that even if Sandusky is somehow guilty, trying to say Joe enabled him or didn’t do enough to stop it is absurd
What Joe actually said was “with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more”. Is there anyone, anywhere, who knew, met, saw, or ever was within a 100 yard radius of Sandusky who shouldn’t say the same thing? I met him a few times... with the benefit of hindsight I wish I had castrates him. Does that make me an enabler now?
Fact is, Joe was the only one w the courage to say it. And he didn’t care that his words would be forever twisted and misquoted into idiots saying “he admitted he should have done more himself!”
When people use the abridged version of Joe's quote, they are either stupid or being disingenuous.
Bingo.
I have said a number of times in this forum that I wish I had done more, when all I knew was what I thought was a silly, jealousy-bred, but occasional rumor right here on BWI through the early/mid-00s regarding JS and him 'liking little boys'.
In hindsight, what could I have done? I could have mentioned something to Tim about it when I saw him at some point instead of blowing it off as some whack job (or maybe McQ?) throwing things out on a message board that seemed to always be deleted, further reinforcing my thought that it was just meaningless tripe. And then maybe Tim would have thought about how the rumor was extending outside of PSU, and that would have spurred him to ask a few more questions.
But it is hindsight, meaning it's a wish, and not a plea of guilty-for-not-having-done-so.
When somebody in general says it, it might be one of those two options. Either that or just being too lazy to look comprehend the whole statement. When somebody in here says it, it is clearly just being disnegenuious.
Last edited:
I am friends with Gary Schultz and he has let me know that he doesn't believe that Sandusky is guilty of the charges that he was convicted of. Gary has recorded an interview with John Ziegler that I believe will be released as soon as Gary if off of probation, which I believe will be in July. Ziegler has said it is one of the best, if not the best interview that he has done. He said that Gary explains why he knows that Sandusky is innocent. Part of the reason is that he knows that the v2 incident happened on Dec. 29, 2000. I can't wait for this interview to be released.
John Ziegler has stated that Spanier told him that he believes that Sandusky is innocent.
I am not aware of any comments that Tim Curley has stated publicly or privately one way or the other whether he currently believes that Sandusky is guilty or not. On advice of counsel, Curley refused to discuss the particulars in his interview with Snedden for Spanier's security clearance renewals unlike both Schultz and Spanier who did. That being said, it is clear that Curely did not believe that Sandusky was a pedophile in 2001 and I don't believe there has been anything that has come to light since then that would have changed his opinion. I am fairly certain that if Curley speaks on the subject in the future, he will not say anything that will contradict Schultz or Spanier.
Schultz stated his opinion on the pages of Snedden's report. I have included some snippets from that report where Schultz explains his opinion.
Source (Schultz) stands by everthing he said in his grand jury testimony. (page 86)
Curley, Source (Schultz), and Subject (Spanier) jointly felt that it (the 2000 incident that McQueary reported) was not appropriate, but not criminal. (page 87)
The information reported was not appropriate behavior for Jerry Sandusky but, it was not criminal. No one said it was criminal. (page 87)
McQueary told source (Schultz) and Curley that he saw Jerry Sandusky in the shower with a kid involved in horseplay and wrestling and they were in the shower in the evening and they were alone or something to that effect. McQueary said it was inappropriate that Jerry Sandusky was there alone with a kid.
McQueary did not say anything of a sexual nature took place. McQueary did not say anything indicative of a serious sexual nature. (page 88).
If Mike McQueary told them Jerry Sandusky was in the shower alone with an underage boy, wrestling with him they absolutely should have called and had it investigated. If Schultz has the power to authorize the Penn State police department to start an investigation on the situation he absolutely should have.
Gary Schultz actually did speak to police chief Tom Harmon after Paterno called him. The Freeh report actually contains an email from Harmon to Schultz in which he tells him about the location of the files for the 1998 incident. We don’t know how detailed the discussion got. I believe Harmon testified he did not remember talking to Schultz. Harmon has been revealed to have a poor memory in general as he was also not able to recall the Black Caucus protest at the Blue White Game that occurred that same spring, when asked about it years later.
Mike McQueary reported inappropriate horseplay in the shower that was not criminal. Curley and Schultz investigated it. Curley and Schultz developed a plan and they at least partially implemented that plan. The Second Mile was notified of the incident and Jerry Sandusky was told not to bring Second Mile kids on campus.
Schultz believes a report was filed with DPW and CYS. (page 87 of Snedden's report)
This is a giant crock of dung. Truly unbiased people admit they don't know the truth and probably never will know the truth. Anyone stating otherwise has an agenda.
And anyone that has researched this knows the full quote from Joe and not the abridged version that some of you A-holes use for convenience to try and influence those that don't know better. Well, we know better, so get lost.
You are welcome to your own opinion. My opinion is that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and I would like the facts of story to become evident.
What is your agenda?
My opinion about JS is that he got railroaded. I think he is about as creepy as Joe Biden, but not capable of raping anyone.
I don't know whether your ignorance is genuine or feigned.
Joe said, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."
Joe made this compassionate remark while under the impression the grand jury presentment's "anal intercourse" allegation must have been true. Before we learned that the AOG had knowingly fabricated that allegation. Before we learned that Alan Meyers claimed he was not abused by JS that night or ever. And before we knew C/S/S didn't conceal any crime, but were merely intending to prevent a civil suit pursuant to a subsequent incident.
I think that is a giant leap that cannot be made to suggest immediate police involvement.
To this day and at Sandusky's trial, McQ has said he had two quick glances at whatever was occurring (or maybe three, but why quibble). Quick Glances. With quick glances McQ could not have ascertained that they were engaged in wrestling, engaged in whatever horseplay is, or actually witnessing CSA. No way. No how. Do not forget the fact that McQ left the scene to run home and talk to dad. He. Left. The. Boy.
By the time McQ talks to Schultz and Curley, a couple weeks or possibly (likely?) a couple months pass by. I have no idea what McQ actually told C&S, but the urgency of the matter is certainly diminished simply due to the elapsed time and the likely unspecific details from McQ. [Rhetorical] Exactly what did MCQ say to C&S? That will forever remain a mystery.
You may ask but I will preempt by stating that I don't have a good reason why Sandusky would shower with the boys. He was a foster parent. He apparently was this type of person.
You said the Snedden report says Schultz stated that McQueary reported that Sandusky and a boy were wrestling in the shower. If that was reported to him, an investigation should have begun. Whether it was by the school police or the local police I don’t know. Horseplay allows for a little less clarity.
All good and fair points. But, if Franco is correct that the Snedden report says Schultz was told by McQueary that Sandusky was wrestling around with a boy in the shower then a report to police should have been made. There really isn’t a question about that, is there? Don’t the results of having not done that show this to be true?
I guess there kinda is a question... there obviously was a question in the mind of McQueary, his Dad, Dr. Draenov (trained as a mandatory reporter), JVP, C/S/S and Dr Jack Reykovic (PhD Child Psychologist).
Some would contend that if NONE of them thought calling the police was needed, that maybe what was seen or told was not concerning enough to be considered possibly criminal. Every single one of them acted as if what they saw or heard was strange and inappropriate, not evil. EVERY ONE OF THEM! But we know better now that if we were in their shoes and were told what they were told or saw what they saw it would obviously be a no brainer to call the police. Right.
Some would contend that if NONE of them thought calling the police was needed, that maybe what was seen or told was not concerning enough to be considered possibly criminal. Every single one of them acted as if what they saw or heard was strange and inappropriate, not evil. EVERY ONE OF THEM! But we know better now that if we were in their shoes and were told what they were told or saw what they saw it would obviously be a no brainer to call the police. Right.
Last edited:
They are separate things. I agree with you that actions taken by all the adults point to McQueary not being clear with what he said. More along the lines of the “horseplay” line. If Schultz was told by McQueary that he saw Jerry wrestling with a boy in the shower then that verbiage sounds much more damning to me.
All this information having been discussed 10+ years later doesn’t help matters at all.
I guess we can agree to disagree there... i don't hear much difference between 'wrestling around' and 'horseplay', especially considering that it could easily have been one of JS's foster kids.
The reason I still discuss it 10+ years later is because as long as people think the right thing to do was obvious to a dozen or more good men, and that because they didn't call police they obviously must have been intentionally covering it up, it keeps kids in danger. There are other JS's out there, and none of them are obvious. Just the opposite. And there is noone covering up for them.
The world lost the greatest opportunity in history to understand and prevent child sexual assault, all because people wanted to scream about how obvious it was, and how Joe Knew, and coverup, and other nonsense. And that sucks.
It is 2000-2001 time frame. In 2007 you COULD make a case that the police could have been called and this "observation" by MM FORMALLY reported.
However....it is 6-7 years BEFORE a police report was required. The State of PA's OAG knew this from day one and they STILL convinced a jury that a report to police was REQUIRED BY LAW.
This is almost as pathetic as the Frank Noonan (a Corbett buddy and head of the PERJURING PSP) saying "...Paterno did the legal minimum, but he had a a moral duty to do more..." - Since when is fully conforming to the law something you have any responsibility to "...do more than the minimum..." .
In fact - C/S/S were all "convicted" in a PA court by a "Retired" (and hand-picked) judge under a law that did not exist until 6 years LATER than the supposed "crime". This only proves that the court that "convicted" the "Penn State 4" (actually 3 - Sandusky was an employee of TSM at the time) was possible only because of criminal abuses of power, obstruction of justice and the theft of $$$$$$$ PSU Public Funds.
Really, Sandusky's trial was a farce ----- manufactured to feed the ego of a governor and former OAG chief - and when the "collusion of convenience" created by the state created criminal fantasy was carried out - the others made sure they profited. That means Freeh, the NCAA,B1G, and "gravy train" political overseer appointees allowed the opportunity for robbing $100+M from the university - everyone was on board for their piece of the mugging!
TRUTH....the legal case in a fair courtroom with competent legal representation and processes was just not there! Without the distortions created by the State of PA AND the collusion of PSU's own OAG BOT, this all would never have happened.
The 10+ years I was talking about was in reference to the memories of those involved. I just spent ten minutes trying to remember what I had for lunch yesterday (answer was that I didn’t have lunch. Had a large brunch. Delicious) so the memories of those involved ten years later are hard to take too seriously. Or at least, the details of those memories.
I agree with most of your post. The reason I keep at this is because I believe there are still lessons to be learned.
To parse the difference between horseplay and wrestling, wrestling by definition obligates direct skin-on-skin contact. Horseplay could be splashing water, snapping a towel, sliding around, etc.....
Fair enough. But wouldn’t you say the outcome of having not reported it shows that they would have been better off if they had reported it? Just because they weren’t required to report it doesn’t mean that weren’t allowed to report it. The result of them having not reported it was that they were convicted of crimes.
Harmon and Courtney got the kid gloves treatment from the OAG. Harmon, a life long law enforcement officer, would have us believe that Gary asked if he still had the 98 file and Harmon never queried why the interest? LOL....to this day, I believe it was TH who Gary thought touched base with CYS.
In hindsight, they should have rented a billboard. But in real time, they did report outside the university to TSM in the person of its CEO Jack Raykovitz. Jack was not only responsible for Jerry and the children in "the program," but he also did contract work for CYS/DPW. Jack was/is a mandated reporter. He even testified that Tim reported the incident to "the right place."
We will never know if any further reports or calls were made. There would be no record. Let's not pretend that if every police agency and child care agency in the county had been called that something would have come of that report.
This incident of 12/29/00 only became important to MM many weeks later and to the Commonwealth OAG when Corbett decided he had a grudge to settle.
Your last two sentences say a great deal. They were not required to report, yet they were convicted of crimes. Yet Jack Raykovitz and Dr. Dranov, both of whom had the same information were never bothered. Hell, Raykovitz became a prosecution witness..........LOL
I think there is a question about it.
It doesn't seem like at the time, anybody thought the incident was criminal.
I believe the question that Curley and Schultz had was whether this incident was criminal and whether Penn State had any present or future liability. Schultz states in the report that Curely, Spanier and himself thought the incident was inappropriate but not criminal. I believe Curley and Schultz thought Penn State's present liability was minimal, but seemed more concerned about future liability. In hindsight, Curely and Schultz should have more concerned about future liability. They should have done a better job of documenting the incident and should have been able to demonstrate that they filed a report with DPW and CYS if they did in fact file those reports which I believe they did.
Please read Snedden's report. I have provided the link on numerous occasions. I get the sense that Schultz remembers that it was horsing around or wrestling or something along that line. The facts are that :
1. Curely, Schultz, and Spanier thought it was inappropriate but NOT criminal.
2. John McQueary and Dr. Dranov both do not recall a report of a sexual assault in 2000/2001 and they would have remembered it if it had been reported that way.
3. AM/v2 gave a statement that he had been snapping towels and horsing around with Sandusky and there had been nothing untoward then or at any time.
There is no real evidence that the v2 incident was sexual in any way. The only evidence we have is the evidence manufactured by the OAG:
1. False grand jury presented that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape
2. Mike McQueary did not say a sexual assault had occurred in 2000/2001, but 10 years later when the OAG having evidence of college football gambling and cell phone photos hanging over his head said it was definately sexual
3. Jonelle Eschbach's email to Mike McQueary concerning her twisting Mike's words and that Mike would not be able to correct the record
4. OAG's trumped up charges againt Curley and Schultz so that they wouldn't be able to testify for Sandusky's defense at trial.
This manufactured evidence is all prosecutorial misconduct and is proof of the political corruption that took place.
In fairness to Jack, he was receiving third hand information.
Your point about a report possibly producing no results is a fair point. But purely from the CYA perspective as far as Penn State goes, if a call had been made and been documented it would have likely saved a lot of trouble and money. It may not have stopped Sandusky at all, but it would have protected Penn State.
A long response that doesn’t really deny what I said. If they had made a call or initiated an investigation, it would have kept them all out of any trouble. I didn’t make a statement about whether or not they thought he was guilty or “just” inappropriate. Just that if they had either called police or initiated a police investigation it would have kept them out of trouble. Can you agree with that?
Any report to CYS, assuming it wasn't coming from MM would be a third hand report. I fail to see how Raykovitz can be any less culpable than Tim. It involved his employee, his organization and a child (that likely was associated with TSM).
WTF....What are you saying????
THE LAW (remember this is what causes convictions in all states but Corrupt PA) ....You state that "The result of them having not reported it was that they were convicted of crimes..."
FACT - The law that they were convicted of DID NOT EXIST at the time and therefore can not be applied. It can be argued legally that the Judge involve committed a crime by allowing and then supporting a case BASED ON AN UN-APPLICABLE version of the law.
The "Crimes" which they were convicted of were illegal as the law the courts based its decision on could NOT BE LEGALLY APPLIED. The Judge knew that...the courts knew that - but the State of PA got away with a CERTIFIED CRIME itself and it is the State of PA OAG, the Governor (at the time) and the collusive team that was assembled that should be in jail.
Forget the Sandusky speculations - LEGALITY is where the real crimes exist and as a result the real crooks are in Harrisburg!
I don’t disagree with this. But, if they had reported it and documented having done so, they couldn’t have been found guilty right? I think the point is fairly simple. It doesn’t justify the OAG and what they did.
Last edited:
I was just questioning whether it made sense to call police or try to initiate a police investigation.
I can agree that documentation that Penn State made a report to CYS/DPW (which I believe that they did) would have helped to kept them out of trouble. I am willing to concede that a call to police would not have hurt.
However, I don't believe a call to police or a police investigation was necessary. I believe if that a CSA investigation was necessary, it should be done by CYS/DPW and the call of whether an investigation should also be done by CYS/DPW. The key is to report to CYS/DPW. The Second Mile had more of a reporting duty than Penn State IMO. There is a real question of whether Penn State reported it to CYS/DPW. Schultz remembers that they did. Pennsylvania law is to delete any unfounded reports of CSA, so if a report had been made to CYS/DPW, it may have purged the report from its records if it had been determined to be unfounded.
I would disagree with your last paragraph on the simple basis that they did not have a victim to report. From my experience (which may be different in PA), you have to have a victim to report. No victim, no report taken. That is why I say a police report instead of protective services.
And yet ironically, 3 men were convicted of crimes.....without a known victim? God only knows.....doesn't that send shock waves?
I believe that they did have a potential victim to report. I believe that Sandusky in his interview with Tim Curley about the incident offered to provide the name and contact info of the boy in the shower (AM). He contacted AM to Inform him that Penn State might be calling. That call never came. CYS/DPW could have found the boy in the shower if they wanted. I believe it is likely that Penn State did file a report and CYS/DPW decided that CSA was unfounded without tracking down and interviewing the boy in the shower (AM).
One of the key false narratives in this case that the OAG has sold the public is that v2 is unknown. I say hogwash. AM is v2. There is no doubt in my mind. If anyone ever did a real investigation it would be crystal clear.
I'm not sure I can. This was manufactured to get them and PSU "in trouble", and to keep inquiring minds away from TSM. The OAG would have simply manufactured something else.
Similar threads
