The Crux of Mike McQueray Matter.
- Thread starter pnnylion
- Start date
here are my 2 "doesn't pass the hinky smell test" issues
#2 - Schultz's notes/the emails presented in the Freeh report . . . it strains credulity that these men are discussing the sexual molestation of a minor boy in the locker room. There is no urgency to their language, no smoking gun, no mention of CSA, and you would think if they knowingly covered up the sexual assault of a minor, there would be at least ONE INCRIMINATING EMAIL that said something like, "holy sh*t fells, what we are doing is heinous. I hope to God we never never never never never get caught and someone PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell Mike to keep his g*ddam mouth shut about this!!!"
#1 - according to the "cover up" narrative, MM went to the coach's locker room, heard what he thought were sexual noises, assumed it was a coach getting it on with a coed . . . AND STILL WALKED INTO THE LOCKER ROOM. seriously, I don't know why more people aren't bothered by that. but more to the point:
#2 - Schultz's notes/the emails presented in the Freeh report . . . it strains credulity that these men are discussing the sexual molestation of a minor boy in the locker room. There is no urgency to their language, no smoking gun, no mention of CSA, and you would think if they knowingly covered up the sexual assault of a minor, there would be at least ONE INCRIMINATING EMAIL that said something like, "holy sh*t fells, what we are doing is heinous. I hope to God we never never never never never get caught and someone PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell Mike to keep his g*ddam mouth shut about this!!!"
Re: here are my 2 "doesn't pass the hinky smell test" issues
....according to the "cover up" narrative, MM went to the coach's locker room, heard what he thought were sexual noises, assumed it was a coach getting it on with a coed . . . AND STILL WALKED INTO THE LOCKER ROOM.
Guess he figured it was nothing he himself hadn't done, so it was no big deal.
....according to the "cover up" narrative, MM went to the coach's locker room, heard what he thought were sexual noises, assumed it was a coach getting it on with a coed . . . AND STILL WALKED INTO THE LOCKER ROOM.
Guess he figured it was nothing he himself hadn't done, so it was no big deal.
LOL! I tend to give some slack to Mike
but with that said, Mike's story falters on the fact that his reason for going to the locker room that night doesn't hold water, and his narrative once he got there is entirely unbelievable from the moment he approaches that first door.
we still don't know the full story of what a clearly corrupt state police/OAG did to get Mike to "enhance" his testimony.
but with that said, Mike's story falters on the fact that his reason for going to the locker room that night doesn't hold water, and his narrative once he got there is entirely unbelievable from the moment he approaches that first door.
Look at the facts Nut
I think we all agree that PSU administrators should have reported the alleged incident to police or DPW if they were told of anything potentially egregious. But they say that they were told of nothing more than horsing around. I don't think that's similar to hearing gun shots.
Furthermore, John McQueary & Dranov testified that MM didn't tell them about anything sexual.
It sounds like MM merely told C&S of horseplay and they responded by telling JS to keep kids away and reported the incident to TSM. With the benefit of hindsight they might have done more but there is no way to construe this as intentional coverup to protect football.
I think we all agree that PSU administrators should have reported the alleged incident to police or DPW if they were told of anything potentially egregious. But they say that they were told of nothing more than horsing around. I don't think that's similar to hearing gun shots.
Furthermore, John McQueary & Dranov testified that MM didn't tell them about anything sexual.
It sounds like MM merely told C&S of horseplay and they responded by telling JS to keep kids away and reported the incident to TSM. With the benefit of hindsight they might have done more but there is no way to construe this as intentional coverup to protect football.
Re: LOL! I tend to give some slack to Mike
I think he was told at first that Sandusky was a pedophile and they needed his help to put him away. but it seems pretty clear Mike was being set up (consider the source of the initial "tip" and the timing of when the police finally approached Mike)
I'm not sure Mike even remembers the truth at this point. But I also think there is something being held over his head that is keeping him from "doing the right thing" until the C/S/S trials are over.
you also have to consider . . . Penn State opened up its pocketbook to anyone claiming to be a victim of Sandusky. yet they pretty much ruined Mike's career and refuse to settle his whistle blower lawsuit. things that make you think.
my opinion is Mike was manipulated by the police/OAG, possibly pressured due to his personal issues
I think he was told at first that Sandusky was a pedophile and they needed his help to put him away. but it seems pretty clear Mike was being set up (consider the source of the initial "tip" and the timing of when the police finally approached Mike)
I'm not sure Mike even remembers the truth at this point. But I also think there is something being held over his head that is keeping him from "doing the right thing" until the C/S/S trials are over.
you also have to consider . . . Penn State opened up its pocketbook to anyone claiming to be a victim of Sandusky. yet they pretty much ruined Mike's career and refuse to settle his whistle blower lawsuit. things that make you think.
Re: LOL! I tend to give some slack to Mike
Simply put, Simmons, you are flat out 100 percent wrong.
Simply put, Simmons, you are flat out 100 percent wrong.
I've done a lot reading in the on the subject, I know there's more it.
That said, you guys have completely gone of the reservation. Not trying to flame of be disrespectful.
That said, you guys have completely gone of the reservation. Not trying to flame of be disrespectful.
Joe qualified that statement, making it completely ambiguous. By cutting out the qualifiers, you've shown to clearly have an agenda.
Other important points... Joe was not cross examined. We also didn't hear him say it, so the transcript may not be presented correctly. ("Let's eat, Grandma" vs. "Let's eat Grandma") I owe someone else credit for this example, I stole it.
