Where did you find out they would not lie? Neither Curley or Schultz has publically commented at all. My understanding is they told the judge and DA they would testify to X, they then testified to Y and they got jail time as the result. The only surprise was they broke their informal agreement.
Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
You are really reaching on #2 and the cognitive dissonance is quite strong if you believe that.
You are advised to stop a particular behavior by LE after you were investigated by LE, come close to being charged with a felony that at a minimum destroys your reputation and most likely gets you removed from your professional and the charity you founded if it becomes public and continue to behave the same way.
If that does not scream problem I don't know what does. Only an irrational or desperate person would interpret the advice of Schreffler to mean stop showering with v6 but showering with other kids is okay.
It wasn't sexual? Certainly PSU thought it was a problem, else they don't get legal advice on a Sunday.
1) Unless you have a time machine and have traveled to the future, no you do not.
2) The truth might be uncomfortable, but it is never better than ignorance.
3) If that is true (and I disagree), then that is an indictment of how dumb people are.
They would not testify to X because it was untrue. So they told the truth in court and the DA lost her mind because DA's don't care about truth and justice they just care about "wins".
@francofan or @lubrano
Is it accurate that PSU continued to pay the attorneys for Curley and Schultz after their active employment with PSU had officially ended? I was never clear on who was paying post-employment.
If so, was there pressure from PSU on the attorneys and/or on Tim and Gary to settle, or was PSU obligated to keep hands off?
Thanks.
Is it accurate that PSU continued to pay the attorneys for Curley and Schultz after their active employment with PSU had officially ended? I was never clear on who was paying post-employment.
If so, was there pressure from PSU on the attorneys and/or on Tim and Gary to settle, or was PSU obligated to keep hands off?
Thanks.
I don’t for a second believe that Curley, Schultz, or Spanier ever thought that the 2000/2001 incident was sexual. I don’t believe that Dr. Dranov or John McQueary thought it was sexual. I don’t believe that Mike McQueary thought it was sexual in 2000/2001. More to the point, I don’t believe AM/v2 thought it was sexual.
I agree that Curley and Schultz saw it as an issue and potential liability down the road. They put a plan in place to tell Jerry to stop bringing kids on campus as well as informing the CEO of The Second Mile of the incident. That seemed to work until Nov. 2008 when v1 and his mother concocted their story which demonstrated that Penn State was correct to be concerned about liability. Considering everything we know about v1 and his mother, I don’t find their story at all convincing.
You are correct. There are many dumb people. Here is something for you and the other deniers
to contemplate. If someone is told to stop showering with young boys' there are only two reasons
to continue doing so. One is that the person is very stupid and the other is that he feels the rewards outweigh
the risks. I haven't seen anyone claim Jerry is stupid.
There was a point in time when everyone believed the earth was flat. How did that play out long term?
I have seen a number of people describe Jerry as naive. That could be confused with stupidity. For example, perhaps he thought the shower warning applied only to that boy (because his mother complained), or it didn't apply to victim two because that boy was like a son to him. I'm not saying those are "smart" lines of thought, but it's not as black and white as you'd like it to be.
I agree that Jerry showering with a youth after he was advised not to indicates that either he is naive and not that wise, or that he has a serious problem.
Jerry seemed like he was a pretty good defensive coordinator. That does not make him a wise man. His performance in the Bob Costas interview demonstrates that he was not always fast on his feet. Sandusky was naive if he thought that Joe Amendola could match up with the OAG in a big show trial with extensive media coverage. Amendola was in clearly over his head. Sandusky was also naive and did not exercise good judgment when he did not realize the risk that he took being in one-on-one unsupervised contact with at risk youths.
I don't believe that Jerry has a issue with CSA. He doesn't fit the profile. He has never been found to have possessed pornography. There is no physical evidence of CSA tied to Jerry Sandusky. There were 0 contemporaneous reports of CSA. He has consistently maintained his innocence from day1. Sandusky has unconditional support from his wife Dottie and 4/5 of his adopted children. Sandusky has been diagnosed with hypogonanism and a low testosterone level.
The primary reason I don't believe he has an issue with CSA is that there is no clear cut instance of Jerry engaging in a sex act with any youth. Yes Penn State made settlements with 32 claimants; however, everyone of the claimants stories have significant issues. Of the 6 identified accusers in the Nov. 2011 grand jury presentments, only 2 (v1 and v4) alleged explicit sex acts in the gjp and both v1 and v4's stories have issues. There were 2 additional accusers (v9 and v10) that were added as trial witnesses, but they were generally thought to be weaker stories than the other 6 trial accusers. The other 24 claimant stories all have problems, some worse than others. All of the claims were only superficially vetted and the aditional 24 were probably less credible than either v9/v10 or you would have thought the OAG would have added them as witnesses in the trial.
Last edited:
I have been accused of being flat earther. I am willing to take the mantle of flat earther in reverse in that I hold an opinion that is contrary to the accepted narrative and that I believe will eventually be the accepted narrative.
Not yet. I don’t presently see land, but I am hopeful to see it later this year.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and others obviously feel the same. It is also obvious
that I have a different view. Some of you would get bored with these threads if people like me didn't show up to voice the other side.
I'd be fine if you didn't feel the need to chime in on these threads. Just my personal opinion.
I don't mind having him chime in. I don't agree with his opinions, but it seems like he legitimately believes what he is saying. We have been getting the same what I believe is faulty logic used time and again. We can never debunk the false narratives enough. As we debunk the false narratives, we get more people questioning the established narratives. I have seen a small shift in public opinion over time. I hope it continues and then we get a break where there is a significant shift in public opinion. The truth is out there for anyone who wants to find it. The question I have is whether or not those who understand what actually happened will ever reach critical mass.
That being said, I don't appreciate when anyone makes ad hominem attacks and confuses someone trying to correct a perceived injustice as someone supporting NAMBLA and CSA.
You're not debunking anything. You're the Penn State version of the flat earth society but not taken as seriously. I credit Osprey Lion with that one. You fellows have your own little commune here that rails against the injustice of this situation but no one outside of that group cares.
Someone grounded in reality. Seriously show me one success? Something that has moved public perception. Some discernible progress.
I think Sandusky is as guilty of molestation as Joe Biden.
There is only one logical reason for Jerry not to have been charged in 1998, but to have been advised to change his behavior. The advice was to protect him, not the kids. And if you examine what C/S/S did, you'd see they were attempting to do the same. Keep Jerry out of a potential he said/he said situation in the future.
Methinks you are someone grounded in the OAG false narratives.
If you will, please answer some basic questions.
1. Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape in the Lasch building shower in 2000/2001?
2. Do you believe the Freeh Report is factual?
3. Do you believe that Curley, Schultz, and Spanier engaged in a conspiracy and/or a cover-up?
1. I believe that question was answered by the trial. He could not determine if there was penetration .
However rubbing your adult pelvis against a child’s bottom is still illegal.
2. Factual? Of course it’s factual , it exists . However accurate it is is up for debate. The report was a mea culpa for PSU to show they’re serious.
3. Definitely. They damn well knew what they were doing and lucky Baldwin messed that whole situation up.
4. You’re insane . I believe you are crazy.
Get back to me when this actually becomes newsworthy and some solid legal change happens.
Hey, the Central Park Five got their cash, maybe Jerry will too ? In 2042 or so.
However rubbing your adult pelvis against a child’s bottom is still illegal.
2. Factual? Of course it’s factual , it exists . However accurate it is is up for debate. The report was a mea culpa for PSU to show they’re serious.
3. Definitely. They damn well knew what they were doing and lucky Baldwin messed that whole situation up.
4. You’re insane . I believe you are crazy.
Get back to me when this actually becomes newsworthy and some solid legal change happens.
Hey, the Central Park Five got their cash, maybe Jerry will too ? In 2042 or so.
Why would they report outside the university if they wanted a cover-up?
- Outside legal counsel
- TSM
On the contrary, I have seen people on her describe Jerry Sandusky as basically being an adult with special needs, though somehow capable of harnessing all that mental power to shut down the best offenses in the nation year after year. You’re seeing some of that mentality here where people believe Jerry thought it would be OK to continue showering with children alone as long as it was not with the child from the ‘98 incident. No adult in their right mind would have missed that message. None.
Indy, let me tell you from experience that there are many times when a situation is investigated and the investigators believe there is a problem. But without proof they cannot take action. The fact that Sandusky was told to stop showering with kids is not a benign act. It is a sign to me, again from my experience, that they believed something was up but at the moment that was all they could advise. Also, wasn’t there a report from a psychologist that she believed Sandusky was engaging in grooming behaviors with that boy? That seems to get left out when issues with the ‘98 incident are discussed (granted, I think that is francofan more than you).
Again, the key word is 'alone'.
From Schultz's notes: "Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone to Lasch." The only reason to stress "alone" is to keep Jerry out of a repeat of '98. The mom of V6 could have sued Jerry and PSU in civil court even though there wasn't enough there to bring criminal charges. How long do you think it would have taken PSU to settle that, especially given what we know now?
From Spanier's email: "...The only downside for us is if our message is not "heard" and acted upon...." It would appear that C/S/S believed another "message" was in order. They were trying to protect Jerry from himself and to protect PSU from him.
It should be absolutely clear by now that C/S/S had no concern that any abuse had occurred. However, if it is not, Spanier's characterizing the missing of their message as the "only" downside automatically precludes any concern that the boy w/Jerry might have been sexually abused. That lack of concern was doubled down by Jack (Captain Swimtrunks) Raykovitz and Bruce Heim.
I have edited your quote to focus on these two points.
1. Jerry Sandusky is in jail for life as a result of his showering with children. By definition, that is a serious problem.
2. You often point to the pedophilic profile. Finding yourself alone multiple times naked, with underage boys and having physical contact with them trumps the other points. The only times in my life that I have showered alone with another person and had physical contact with them was with a woman and the purpose was not to help get shampoo out of her hair. I suspect you are the same. I would guess Jerry Sandusky is the same, except with boys instead of a woman.
Inform him of what? That they suspect that Jerry Sandusky may be a pedophile? I’m not sure that they are allowed to do that.
I don’t think they were trying to protect Jerry from himself. They were trying to protect the university.
There are plenty of logical reasons why he was not charged in 1998, a big one being that you are not going to trial against an icon with a troubled 10 or 12 year old boy as your star witness. It is also possible that the boy would not agree to testify. It is also possible that Gricar did not believe charges were not warranted. You don't know and neither do I.
The State rarely states why they did not charge someone and do not offer an opinion or guilt or innocence if charges are not brought (exception for Mueller).
1. Outside legal counsel advised them to report the incident, they did not. Also, counsel would have no reason to follow up if it was reported or report it themselves.
2. TSM and PSU were basically attached at the hip. Tell TSM about the incident and have them keep an eye on Jerry and not have to worry at TSM reporting it.
They were legally obligated to inform TSM that a report was made and an investigation had occurred.
Don't you think the most important piece of information is that the boy said nothing sexual occurred?
That's not even against the law, let alone worthy of a life sentence!
