Spanier targeting Lubert
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
You don't need a "clear" witness report nor do you need to know if Sandusky was guilty or not. All you needed to know is if there was any indication that abuse may have occurred. They had that per their testimony. It up to the authorities to determine if it actually happened.
Well:
IIRC, and I don't have a transcript here in front of me, but I believe the question was posed to TC wrt "other incidents of abuse".....or something along those lines (though I am certainly NOT interested in parsing every word)
Given that someone with even rather detailed familiarity of "1998" - - - - - which really shouldn't be the case, given the "supposed" procedures in place when investigating such allegations.......but I think we all agree that in the "real world" those procedures are not always as "letter of the law" as they are written.....so for the sake of argument lets assume that TC WAS aware - with a fair amount of depth and breadth - of the 1998 incident - - - - He would reasonably be expected know it as something along the lines of:
__________
- 2nd Mile kid's Mother upset to find that JS was taking post-workout showers w Kid
- Cops/Welfare Agencies (of some sort) notified and investigate
- Upon investigation, no reasons found to pursue.....non-issue/no charges/no repercussions"
__________
That doesn't necessarily read like an "abuse" incident....does it?
Now, maybe one could "debate" over it for hours (or years?).....
But in any case, given that the parameters for "Perjury" - - - - - Oath, Intent, Falsity, and Materiality - - - - are what they are, to use THAT (the questions/answers wrt "1998") as the sole (or primary) source of a Perjury claim - is just silly, IMO.
From time to time I "hear" of mountains of evidence piled up vav TCur, GSch, and GSpan.....(and - from time to time - JVP).
But....I never see it.
If it exists, I would certainly like to see it........truly.
I won't say "Id be more interested than ANYONE involved, in having that evidence come forward" - because there may be folks who would be EVEN MORE interested than I.......but, rest assured, I'd be in that "upper centile" of folks who would like to see it ALL spilled out on the deck (like the guts of that Louisiana shark in Jaws).
Given the long track record of the Prosecutors who have been involved in this case - - - in every "high-profile" case they have ever F-ed up....which would be ALL of them - - - the absence, to date, of that mountain of evidence is - to say the least - disconcerting.
Just in case you want to parse words....
-----
What did Curley know of 1998?
--- From 3/30/2012 Bill of Particulars, 13th item of alleged perjury by Curley:
Q: At the time of the incident in 2002, were you aware of any other incidents involving alleged sexually inappropriate misconduct by Mr. Sandusky anywhere, on university property or otherwise?
A: No ma'am.
[To be fair, there were three follow-up questions on this same topic that were alleged to be perjurious, the last among them whether Curley heard anything about prior "inappropriate" conduct, but this was the first question that brought the topic of "sexually inappropriate misconduct" to the forefront. I mention this because perjury (while the charge has been dropped in this case) is not to be considered outside the scope of other testimony and context.]
--- Freeh Report, Exhibit 5C, p.219, Notes of Schultz on 2/12/2001:
Talked w TMC
Reviewed 1998 history
[Note - Schultz did ask Harmon if the 98 report was available (in an undisclosed communication); Harmon emailed Schultz that the 98 report was in their images archives on the same day as these notes. But there is no proof Schultz accessed or reviewed the 98 police report. His review of the 1998 history could simply have been a review of the notes he took in 1998, and any emails he retained on the topic.]
--- Freeh Report, Exhibit 2I, p.187, Notes of Schultz on 5/5/1998 [note that Tom Harmon testified that these notes are substantially what he told Schultz]:
Hugging from behind in shower
No allegation beyond that
[Compare the above note and compare with the specific question asked of Curley, noted as his 13th item of alleged perjury.]
--- Freeh Report, Exhibit 2E, p.176, Schultz email to Tim Curley, 6/9/1998
They met with Jerry on Monday and concluded that there was no criminal behavior and the matter was closed as an investigation.
Sadly, here, is one of the ONLY places they are getting a "huge pass".........
I guess the "huge pass" enjoyed by JVP, C/S/S here on this board, equals the same pass being given to all the other parties (CYS, TSM, OGBOT, Corbutt, Freeh, etc..) by everyone "outside" this board....
Maybe they are all to blame in one way or another? That's a pretty sophomoric response.
And this is why your hindsight bias is showing: because if the Second Mike does what it was supposed to do BY LAW in response to Curley's report, their solution works.
Would you agree that "outside the BWI board" the group I mentioned has received much more benefit of the doubt than JVP/C/S/S?.... Actually, Dranov and MM's dad have received much more of a pass than JVP/C/S/S, and the incident was directly reported to them. Why do you think that is??
Honestly, I don't know why that becomes such a debated point. They certainly could have gone to the police, which is exactly what McQueary should have done at that point in time. He didn't. When Paterno got the report there was no crime occurring. No victim, just an accused perpetrator. So at that point he certainly could have gone to the police. I would guess (which is all we can really do) that he thought he was doing one better by going to the head of the campus police.
Sorry, but the emails show that the story was changed to "horseplay" by the time the decision was made to go to TSM instead of authorities. Horseplay means nothing (legally). Something of a sexual nature means a lot more.
TY JW
As I said (and meant) I have zero interest in the 5 year long C-J word parsing....but clearly, in broad terms, what you listed shows that trying to prove the 4 elements of "Perjury", from a purely legal sense, out of that testimony is ludicrous (at least it is ludicrous IMO)
All the rest of the 5 year C-J? ...... just noise
Last edited:
Because they aren't Joe Paterno. I get it and I don't disagree... Dranov and MM's father are just as much at fault. That doesn't mean that we should give the others a pass on here though.
I admire the absolute nature of your sense of certainty on this. But even so: Why are you so determined to end this discussion?
As I said before, it annoys me how this case is portrayed on this site. I think the narrative here ignores/excuses basic fundamental testimony in order to make the conspiracy theories work. I also think it is wrong to throw more anger at the people trying to clean up the mess (who admittedly did a pretty poor job) than the ones who caused it.
Jive you are missing the point entirely. Forgetting the specific actions by CSS JVP for a perhaps the reason some here tend to give them more of a pass is because they are the ONLY ones who have had to the consequences of lost jobs and charges and a ruined reputation. Perhaps if Dranov Mr M Raykovitz Heim Nynorsk else from TSM who knew, OAG, DPW faced loss of jobs and criminal charges as well C/S/S wouldn't get as much a pass on this board.
It's a problem, I agree. I have never said that wasn't an issue. But again, that doesn't mean that you just excuse the actions/inactions of CSS and JVP.
Why is it important to you that this relatively small section of society(BWI board posters) shouldn't give JVP/C/S/S a "huge pass"? Curious why you're devoting so much energy trying to "convince" people on this board that "the men MM told" should be held more responsible than many posters here are doing....
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
JimmyW, Thanks for this above. You just connected a couple of the handful of dots I've been hoping to see connected.
Because people from the outside come on here and are shocked and horrified by some of the stuff they see (particularly the pro-Sandusky views that a few of the posters have). It's embarrassing for PSU that people here ignore sworn testimony in favor of conspiracy theories. It puts us in a bad light.
Simply put, the actions (or lack there of) by Schultz and Curley were no different than those of the CYS, DPW and LE that "properly" investigated the complaint in 1998. Anyone indicted for the earlier failure? Anyone reprimanded, demoted or fired at a state agency?
Buddy, if you're genuine concern is worry about putting us in a bad light with people outside this board, that ship sailed more than five years ago. That can't be your reason for keeping up this fight of yours. C'mon, really.....fess up. What's your agenda?.. I don't think the people on this board are worried about what the "outside world" thinks, and I don't think you are going to get them to change their mind.
Getmyjive and his conspiracy theories are exactly the reason we have an ignore button. Everyone should use it.. and much like Black Elmo, he too will go away.
Q: At the time of the incident in 2002, were you aware of any other incidents involving alleged sexually inappropriate misconduct by Mr. Sandusky anywhere, on university property or otherwise?
A: No ma'am.
Was there any alleged sexual misconduct in 98? If not TC didn't lie.
Then I'll ask the question a different way: why do you care so much about what happens at this site?
And what is it exactly that the people who refuse to acknowledge a problem for 5+ years are fixing?
I care because this site makes PSU fans/alumni look like loons. Supporting Sandusky, victim blaming and event denying all go on here with regularity.
OK. If that is your answer, than I guess you'll have to live with it. It is even more annoying/concerning to me that people in the "outside world" either refuse, are too ignorant or just plain hate enough, not to provide individuals with "due process" You are so concerned about people on this board giving JVP/C/S/S a "huge pass" but you don't seem to concerned about how society has "condemned" the same individuals without so much as a trial. That is really scary. Why don't you expend some of your concern and energy for this board and contact the OAG, CYS and any other child protective service and ask them what they did with respect to the 14 year old girl who was recently raped and murdered by her adoptive foster parents? I'm sure glad, as I'm sure you are, that bringing the whole Sandusky nightmare to light and punishing PSU has corrected the problems with the system. Oh, by the way, multiple instances of abuse were reported, and look what still happened..... When, if ever, will the TRUE criminals, then and now, be held accountable for their IN-actions and pay the price?????
It's amazing what a little perspective can do to a view. How would you describe a person who claims perfect certainty about what are obvious gaps of information to an objective observer?
And why didn't MM CALL THE POLICE BASED ON WHAT HE HEARD or saw (OR DID NOT SEE) in 2001?
There are other sites that you can find that might be less "loony". You could always go there.
Because he was too busy making "sex sounds" with himself in a stall next to gmj.
well I was actually talking about the investigator's report but I obviously didn't make that clear and I will concede that even the investigators report would only be paraphrasing what was asked and what was answered so the gj testimony would probably be better to go by.
a Truthful answer to any question about any previous "situations" or "incidents" should have been Yes..... but if you want to explain away that so be it.
It is nice of you to chime in as if some big gottcha moment finally did me in. lol
Just trying to point out that your previous "gotcha" of BJF was inaccurate.
Due process pertains to criminal charges - that's not what I am talking about.
