This is all on MM, what am I missing...

[Cletus11]

So John McQueary, Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Schultz now all have testified under oath than MM never told them it was sexual. But MM 7 years after the incident gets in a room with some cops who put the heat on him and he then says that he although he didn't tell JM, Dranov or Joe (3 people who he would not want to get in trouble) that it was sexual, he did tell Curley/Schultz that it was sexual. And that even though he and his father were told what the plan was several months after the fact (ie...they reported it to the 2nd Mile and told JS no more coming to PSU with kids) that they had not told the cops or reported him to a state agency, both MM and JM were fine with it.

Makes no sense. What makes sense is that MM caught a couple second glimpse of JS and a boy naked in a shower but did NOT see a sexual act occurring. That is what he told everybody in the pursuing couple of days. When he finds out from the cops 7 years later that JS is a child molester, he has a massive guilt complex and the cops tell him that they need his testimony to put JS away. So MM has a choice between living with the fact he could have stopped a child molester if he had just manned up many years before, or he convinces himself that he did tell Curly/Schultz it was sexual as he cannot admit to telling the cops that he told his dad, Dranov, or Joe it was sexual as he cares for them to much to throw them under the bus.

Prosecution puts Curley/Schultz under a perjury charge to keep them quiet as if they testify in the JS trial that MM never told either one of them about it being sexual, MM is not seen as believable.

 

[Grant Green]

"I had been deficient in not reporting it myself," Schultz said. "I really thought we should report it to DPW."

Apparently MM was convincing enough that Shultz thought they should have reported it.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

It's actually all on Jerry....but much like the BoT/media/nation needed a villain for their witch hunt...PSU has their own.

 

[BobPSU92]

"I had been deficient in not reporting it myself," Schultz said. "I really thought we should report it to DPW."

Apparently MM was convincing enough that Shultz thought they should have reported it.

Of course, he said this after copping a plea when the corrupt oag turned the screws on him.

Oh, and he also said things that weren't damning.

Oh, and what did raykovitz admit to after the oag turned the screws on him?

 

[VaNtyLion]

"I had been deficient in not reporting it myself," Schultz said. "I really thought we should report it to DPW."

Apparently MM was convincing enough that Shultz thought they should have reported it.

Yet he was unconvincing enough for anyone to second guess any of this decision making for 10 years....

Can't understate the importance of how the investigation and trial of Sandusky distorts the way the '01 incident was viewed at the time by every single thing we know about actions and plans taken, not words describing it a decade later. It is quite patently absurd to say any of these men would have followed this plan had they thought an actual physical or sexual assault happened.

MM watched Jerry around kids for years after he (now says) witnessed whatever troubled him in '01 Yet he never lifted a finger. It is impossible to reconcile that with someone witnessing an assault of any kind. He never even thought Jerry should not be around the program until after he knew there was an investigation in 2010 (paraphrasing, but I believe this was from testimony in the C/S prelim hearing in December 2011.

Regardless of whether or not Schultz did enough, PSU is in this predicament because of the public perception not that they didn't do enough, but that they knew Jerry was a criminal and covered it up. This trial should put all of that nonsense to rest - emphatically - but I'm sure that will be largely ignored.

 

[Grant Green]

Yet he was unconvincing enough for anyone to second guess any of this decision making for 10 years....

How do you know that the decision wasn't second guessed? After reading what Shutlz said, you don't think he had second thoughts over the years?

 

[nits74]

"I had been deficient in not reporting it myself," Schultz said. "I really thought we should report it to DPW."

Apparently MM was convincing enough that Shultz thought they should have reported it.

That's what he says now, perhaps to please his new masters?

 

[WeR0206]

So John McQueary, Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Schultz now all have testified under oath than MM never told them it was sexual. But MM 7 years after the incident gets in a room with some cops who put the heat on him and he then says that he although he didn't tell JM, Dranov or Joe (3 people who he would not want to get in trouble) that it was sexual, he did tell Curley/Schultz that it was sexual. And that even though he and his father were told what the plan was several months after the fact (ie...they reported it to the 2nd Mile and told JS no more coming to PSU with kids) that they had not told the cops or reported him to a state agency, both MM and JM were fine with it.

Makes no sense. What makes sense is that MM caught a couple second glimpse of JS and a boy naked in a shower but did NOT see a sexual act occurring. That is what he told everybody in the pursuing couple of days. When he finds out from the cops 7 years later that JS is a child molester, he has a massive guilt complex and the cops tell him that they need his testimony to put JS away. So MM has a choice between living with the fact he could have stopped a child molester if he had just manned up many years before, or he convinces himself that he did tell Curly/Schultz it was sexual as he cannot admit to telling the cops that he told his dad, Dranov, or Joe it was sexual as he cares for them to much to throw them under the bus.

Prosecution puts Curley/Schultz under a perjury charge to keep them quiet as if they testify in the JS trial that MM never told either one of them about it being sexual, MM is not seen as believable.

Add Wendell Courtney to the list of people who did NOT corroborate MM's version. Courtney said he was never told about a sexual incident, etc.

 

[VaNtyLion]

How do you know that the decision wasn't second guessed? After reading what Shutlz said, you don't think he had second thoughts over the years?

I can't get into the head of Schultz and his conscience between 2001 and 2010. What I do know based on timeline and testimony is that none of the men with knowledge - either first hand in the case of MM, or hearsay in terms of his father, Dranov, Paterno, Schultz, Curley, Courtney and Raykovitz - of the 2001 incident seemed to think Jerry's being around kids presented enough of a problem to speak up and put him under criminal suspicion. So either at least 7 men are indifferent to child abuse or they weren't told of child abuse.

I've long considered that the '98 police report is key to all of this because if you're taking the consistent testimony of what other claim MM described, it's no different than what Sandusky was thoroughly investigated for in '98 when there were no charges filed. If you're Schultz and you see that, I'd imagine it's easier to go along with what Curley proposed even if your personal feeling is DPW should be called. As the head of campus police, Schultz probably has had the toughest role to explain his own decision making but it is consistent with the '98 findings and what others claim MM described to them.

 

[Obliviax]

"I had been deficient in not reporting it myself," Schultz said. "I really thought we should report it to DPW."

Apparently MM was convincing enough that Shultz thought they should have reported it.

Not really. Schultz said that to complete his plea bargain...lest he would have said that 5+ years ago.

 

[AvgUser]

What are you missing?

The obvious, of course.

Rather than point the fingers, crucify and hold accountable where the real root cause of Sansudky's antics were allowed to escape, the commonwealth drifted to the next moment in time when they thought they could pin the blame elsewhere. And, the dimwitted public knows no better. They would love to see Dear Old State and the administrators get hammered because, after all, they truly care about CSA.

In direct terms, the ignition switch was thrown in 1998. All the right organizations were involved. Sandusky more or less confessed to law enforcement. Incredibly, they all let him walk right through the door with a big grin on his face. That, as we know, set the stage and heavily influenced how 2001 was handled.

That said, Mike McQuery also did no favors for anyone. The exact words and phrases are immaterial. The actions of separate and distinct people who heard the news direct from Mike were not alarmed enough and thought CSA/Call Police. BUt, for the commonwealth, they now gained a stooge in the process: "Penn State". The commonwealth could finally get the monkey off their own and social services backs.

The public buys it hook line and sinker.

 

[Grant Green]

Not really. Schultz said that to complete his plea bargain...lest he would have said that 5+ years ago.

He didn't say anything 5 years ago because his lawyer told him not to say anything. He doesn't have to say it now to complete a plea bargain. You can't make someone testify to something under oath to satisfy a plea bargain.

Bottom line as far as this thread goes. It's not ALL on MM. I'm not completely absolving him, but he really is a patsy in all of this.

 

[Grant Green]

I can't get into the head of Schultz and his conscience between 2001 and 2010. What I do know based on timeline and testimony is that none of the men with knowledge - either first hand in the case of MM, or hearsay in terms of his father, Dranov, Paterno, Schultz, Curley, Courtney and Raykovitz - of the 2001 incident seemed to think Jerry's being around kids presented enough of a problem to speak up and put him under criminal suspicion. So either at least 7 men are indifferent to child abuse or they weren't told of child abuse.

I've long considered that the '98 police report is key to all of this because if you're taking the consistent testimony of what other claim MM described, it's no different than what Sandusky was thoroughly investigated for in '98 when there were no charges filed. If you're Schultz and you see that, I'd imagine it's easier to go along with what Curley proposed even if your personal feeling is DPW should be called. As the head of campus police, Schultz probably has had the toughest role to explain his own decision making but it is consistent with the '98 findings and what others claim MM described to them.

So you think it's all on MM?

 

[Obliviax]

He didn't say anything 5 years ago because his lawyer told him not to say anything. He doesn't have to say it now to complete a plea bargain. You can't make someone testify to something under oath to satisfy a plea bargain.

Bottom line as far as this thread goes. It's not ALL on MM. I'm not completely absolving him, but he really is a patsy in all of this.

Not true. Your notion of what is "true" and "untrue" is naeve. Lawyers and politicians exploit these grey areas on a daily basis. For example, Schultz hasn't been sentenced yet. So the judge can do whatever he/she wants. Prosecution can make recommendations. And if you didn't already know, judges and prosecutors have eachother's backs. They are both employed by the govt and often party together (follow the contribution money trail).

 

[Bayou Lion]

He didn't say anything 5 years ago because his lawyer told him not to say anything. He doesn't have to say it now to complete a plea bargain. You can't make someone testify to something under oath to satisfy a plea bargain.

Bottom line as far as this thread goes. It's not ALL on MM. I'm not completely absolving him, but he really is a patsy in all of this.

The state needed MM to get PSU. Without MM they had nothing on PSU.

 

[Grant Green]

Not true. Your notion of what is "true" and "untrue" is naeve. Lawyers and politicians exploit these grey areas on a daily basis. For example, Schultz hasn't been sentenced yet. So the judge can do whatever he/she wants. Prosecution can make recommendations. And if you didn't already know, judges and prosecutors have eachother's backs. They are both employed by the govt and often party together (follow the contribution money trail).

Ok, just so I have this straight. Shultz makes a plea deal. Judge says, we aren't sentencing you yet, but when you are called as a witness, you have to say that you thought DPW should have been called? Sorry, I find this utterly ridiculous.

 

[marshall23]

Gotta love the way The Commonwealth OAG works. IMO they squeezed MM to embellish his original story. Then they indicted TC and GS so they could not testify in the JS trial. After almost 6 years they get Curley who has cancer and Schultz, whose wife is ill, to cop to a misdemeanor, so they can avoid jail time & require them to testify against Spanier. The cherry on the topping, bring in perhaps the most culpable person after Sandusky- Raykovitz to testify for the prosecution. Incredible!

 

[WPB_lion]

What are you missing?

The obvious, of course.

Rather than point the fingers, crucify and hold accountable where the real root cause of Sansudky's antics were allowed to escape, the commonwealth drifted to the next moment in time when they thought they could pin the blame elsewhere. And, the dimwitted public knows no better. They would love to see Dear Old State and the administrators get hammered because, after all, they truly care about CSA.

In direct terms, the ignition switch was thrown in 1998. All the right organizations were involved. Sandusky more or less confessed to law enforcement. Incredibly, they all let him walk right through the door with a big grin on his face. That, as we know, set the stage and heavily influenced how 2001 was handled.

That said, Mike McQuery also did no favors for anyone. The exact words and phrases are immaterial. The actions of separate and distinct people who heard the news direct from Mike were not alarmed enough and thought CSA/Call Police. BUt, for the commonwealth, they now gained a stooge in the process: "Penn State". The commonwealth could finally get the monkey off their own and social services backs.

The public buys it hook line and sinker.

If they weren't going to report it, why didn't they at least try to contact the child? At the very least, ask Sanduskey who the child was and call the child's parents. I suspect they were either afraid of the answer or afraid of what the parents would do.

 

[VaNtyLion]

So you think it's all on MM?

Not that simple. To say "blame" implies bad intent. I don't think MM set out to bring down anyone when he gave his interviews and testimony a decade after the incident.


But IF there was an assault witnessed then the lack of action not only at the time of the assault but in the subsequent months and years leaves MM with perhaps the most explaining to do. He was not some naive 20-something powerless to help a victim.

If he witnessed an assault, why did he leave the child there (i.e., on what planet does he believe slamming a locker and leaving the premises "ends" an encounter?)

If he witnessed an assault, why do none of the men he told of the incident within 1) an hour or so 2) within 24 hours or 3) within the first month of the incident when it's freshest in your mind, conclude he witnessed anything rising to the level of criminal investigation by the authorities?

..and more importantly how do you stay idle for 10 years when by your own admission no one told you to keep quiet about what you saw and you continue to see Sandusky around children, golf in his charity outings, etc.

None of this - not one shred of it - is consistent with MM witnessing a crime or telling anyone in 2001 he witnessed a crime.

Now if he accurately relayed witnessing an actual crime to Curley and Schultz then of course they enter the equation and their decisions should be scrutinized....and as mentioned before I don't think that means they had bad intent in the plan they formulated.

However, there is simply nothing in any testimony for the past 6 years that leads me to believe anyone Mike told his story to believed they were looking at a criminal situation. What we know about their actions speaks at the time a lot more than what we know about his words starting in 2010 describing it.

 

[Obliviax]

Ok, just so I have this straight. Shultz makes a plea deal. Judge says, we aren't sentencing you yet, but when you are called as a witness, you have to say that you thought DPW should have been called? Sorry, I find this utterly ridiculous.

Then you don't know much about the US court system, seriously. Prosecutors are in front of judges on a day in and day out basis. In many counties, they share the same office building. They commonly associate at bar association, charity events, and reelection parties. Defense does to but has far less access. Much is done on a nod and a wink. They are politically connected and aligned. Good prosecutors run for judge, when positions pop open. its just the way it is.

 

[AvgUser]

If they weren't going to report it, why didn't they at least try to contact the child? At the very least, ask Sanduskey who the child was and call the child's parents. I suspect they were either afraid of the answer or afraid of what the parents would do.

You missed my point.

The failure wasn't Curley or Schultz or Spanier or Paterno or even the Year2000 janitor. It all goes back to when the powderkeg was lit.

CYS or DPW and Law Enforcement. They all froze! The big bang happened right there!

C&S could have done lots of things It does not matter at this point. 1998 paved the way and influenced all future actions.

 

[KCLion]

He didn't say anything 5 years ago because his lawyer told him not to say anything. He doesn't have to say it now to complete a plea bargain. You can't make someone testify to something under oath to satisfy a plea bargain

Maybe not, but they sure can imply that his testimony can help him help himself. You don't think they discussed what he was going to say and then had some input into what they would like for him to say?

Not a plea bargain, but weren't detectives caught on tape telling a "victim" what others were saying and what they needed him to say?

 

[WeR0206]

Gotta love the way The Commonwealth OAG works. IMO they squeezed MM to embellish his original story. Then they indicted TC and GS so they could not testify in the JS trial. After almost 6 years they get Curley who has cancer and Schultz, whose wife is ill, to cop to a misdemeanor, so they can avoid jail time & require them to testify against Spanier. The cherry on the topping, bring in perhaps the most culpable person after Sandusky- Raykovitz to testify for the prosecution. Incredible!

Fantastic summary, well said!

 

[Lisa1994]

My opinion with limited info from trial consisting of news reports, reports here, blogs, etc.

The whole thing goes back to the gray area-it's hard to make these calls, for anyone, because so rarely is it certain. In this case, no child to question makes it even harder. McQ told both scenarios, the one he instinctually thought was happening and the one that was descriptive of what he actually saw. These judgment calls happen all the time and usually with actual victims reporting (see MSU)

Hearing both scenarios (likely the reality) enabled people to make judgments based on their own perspectives, straight on down the line:

McQ Sr, probably most influenced by looking out for his son then addressing the situation at hand, calls knowledgeable friend
Dranov, doctor accustomed to looking for visible signs of abuse-"what did you see?"

Paterno-obviously out of his league, 50's sensibility, look up what procedure is. He also noted that he wasn't in charge of JS by then and that he didn't want to influence either way. I've always believed that seemed very Joe and very true to the situation of "not knowing."

Curley, most unsure of where his perspective would be, but he regrets his actions today in hindsight
Schultz, had the best idea of what 98 + 01 could mean (from overseeing police things? risk mgmt?) he was believing McQ's instincts rather than lack of undisputed "proof" because you don't typically have that anyway-turns out he was right, much like Chambers, and he regrets not reporting, but did he "know"? Doubtful.
Spanier, ???, he sounds like he had only one version perhaps or he left the weighty decision with others.

Raykovitz, child psychologist working with at risk kids...SHAME ON HIM. These boundary issues would actually mean something to him. He had an obligation and I believe he failed. I also believe he would have seen other signs. I really wonder about him. An ethical psychologist wouldn't have stayed in that position, no way. He should have had waaaay more angst with the benefit of hindsight had he been "fooled." I wish more victims spoke about him and his role at TSM like Matt Sandusky did in his book.

But re: 2001...blatant malice by PSU? Nah.

And McQ shouldn't be crucified. The conversation just went in the wrong direction from the very beginning. What gets to me is I don't know if he learned anything. If I were him, I would give voice to the uncertainty of these situations, though probably too late for that. Also people don't like hearing the reality.

 

[Grant Green]

Then you don't know much about the US court system, seriously. Prosecutors are in front of judges on a day in and day out basis. In many counties, they share the same office building. They commonly associate at bar association, charity events, and reelection parties. Defense does to but has far less access. Much is done on a nod and a wink. They are politically connected and aligned. Good prosecutors run for judge, when positions pop open. its just the way it is.

So, Shultz didn't actually think they should have called DPW all those years, but the judge tells him that he has to say something to that effect on the witness stand? Essentially, the judge is suggesting that he lie on the witness stand to help the prosecutions case. I don't think so.

 

[Obliviax]

So, Shultz didn't actually think they should have called DPW all those years, but the judge tells him that he has to say something to that effect on the witness stand? Essentially, the judge is suggesting that he lie on the witness stand to help the prosecutions case. I don't think so.

no. you are terribly naive. the prosecution expected them to say that they gave spanier enough information to lead him to the conclusion that he (spanier) should have directed them to report it to dpy or whatever. the prosecution will now suggest to THAT judge that the two did not fully fulfill their obligation relative to the plea. that gives the judge cover to give the maximum sentence. the judges usually follow the prosecution's recommendations. so the prosecution can simply change their recommendations up until the judge actually makes his/her ruling. nothing has changed, on paper. the judge can do whatever he wants within the constraints of the law (min and max term).

 

[marshall23]

So, Shultz didn't actually think they should have called DPW all those years, but the judge tells him that he has to say something to that effect on the witness stand? Essentially, the judge is suggesting that he lie on the witness stand to help the prosecutions case. I don't think so.

This is The Commonwealth. Now go ahead and tell us that Pa. is not corrupt.

 

[BoulderFish]

So you think it's all on MM?

Speaking for myself, I think it's 95% on MM. Aside from the obvious (Sandusky), MM's actions, non-actions, accounts, and/or conflicting accounts have lead to all this damage. He is a first-rate POS in my book.

 

[NittPicker]

Speaking for myself, I think it's 95% on MM. Aside from the obvious (Sandusky), MM's actions, non-actions, accounts, and/or conflicting accounts have lead to all this damage. He is a first-rate POS in my book.

Give the guy a break. He slammed his locker. What more could he be expected to do?

 

[psu1969a]

So John McQueary, Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Schultz now all have testified under oath than MM never told them it was sexual. But MM 7 years after the incident gets in a room with some cops who put the heat on him and he then says that he although he didn't tell JM, Dranov or Joe (3 people who he would not want to get in trouble) that it was sexual, he did tell Curley/Schultz that it was sexual. And that even though he and his father were told what the plan was several months after the fact (ie...they reported it to the 2nd Mile and told JS no more coming to PSU with kids) that they had not told the cops or reported him to a state agency, both MM and JM were fine with it.

Makes no sense. What makes sense is that MM caught a couple second glimpse of JS and a boy naked in a shower but did NOT see a sexual act occurring. That is what he told everybody in the pursuing couple of days. When he finds out from the cops 7 years later that JS is a child molester, he has a massive guilt complex and the cops tell him that they need his testimony to put JS away. So MM has a choice between living with the fact he could have stopped a child molester if he had just manned up many years before, or he convinces himself that he did tell Curly/Schultz it was sexual as he cannot admit to telling the cops that he told his dad, Dranov, or Joe it was sexual as he cares for them to much to throw them under the bus.

Prosecution puts Curley/Schultz under a perjury charge to keep them quiet as if they testify in the JS trial that MM never told either one of them about it being sexual, MM is not seen as believable.

MM is a coward.

 

[WDLion]

If they weren't going to report it, why didn't they at least try to contact the child? At the very least, ask Sanduskey who the child was and call the child's parents. I suspect they were either afraid of the answer or afraid of what the parents would do.

I think an attempt to contact the victim would have been frowned upon by law enforcement. Maybe even illegal.

 

[clickhere 01]

I think an attempt to contact the victim would have been frowned upon by law enforcement. Maybe even illegal.

If it wasn't reported ,how could LE frown on it? The number one concern should have been the child. I don't see where anyone involved expresses concern for his well being.

 

[WDLion]

If it wasn't reported ,how could LE frown on it? The number one concern should have been the child. I don't see where anyone involved expresses concern for his well being.

And get blamed for tampering with the victim. Pay off.

 

[Indian rocks rich]

Can someone please tell me why MM gets off the hook during all this He is the witness that should of immediately called police and did nothing. And to this day has no charges brought against him. How can that be possible. He was an adult age wise at the time right??? I dont care who he work for he should of called the police Don't get it. And this has probably been brought up a thousand times before How bout 1001

 

[Osprey Lion]

So John McQueary, Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Schultz now all have testified under oath than MM never told them it was sexual. But MM 7 years after the incident gets in a room with some cops who put the heat on him and he then says that he although he didn't tell JM, Dranov or Joe (3 people who he would not want to get in trouble) that it was sexual, he did tell Curley/Schultz that it was sexual. And that even though he and his father were told what the plan was several months after the fact (ie...they reported it to the 2nd Mile and told JS no more coming to PSU with kids) that they had not told the cops or reported him to a state agency, both MM and JM were fine with it.

Makes no sense. What makes sense is that MM caught a couple second glimpse of JS and a boy naked in a shower but did NOT see a sexual act occurring. That is what he told everybody in the pursuing couple of days. When he finds out from the cops 7 years later that JS is a child molester, he has a massive guilt complex and the cops tell him that they need his testimony to put JS away. So MM has a choice between living with the fact he could have stopped a child molester if he had just manned up many years before, or he convinces himself that he did tell Curly/Schultz it was sexual as he cannot admit to telling the cops that he told his dad, Dranov, or Joe it was sexual as he cares for them to much to throw them under the bus.

Prosecution puts Curley/Schultz under a perjury charge to keep them quiet as if they testify in the JS trial that MM never told either one of them about it being sexual, MM is not seen as believable.

So after Paterno and Curly both said they are sorry they didn't do more and Shultz said he should have
reported the incident you believe MM told them nothing sexual happened. It is obvious what you are missing.

 

[Osprey Lion]

Can someone please tell me why MM gets off the hook during all this He is the witness that should of immediately called police and did nothing. And to this day has no charges brought against him. How can that be possible. He was an adult age wise at the time right??? I dont care who he work for he should of called the police Don't get it. And this has probably been brought up a thousand times before How bout 1001

MM getting absolved is absurd. But it doesn't clear the names of those he told.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

MM is the ultimate liar-coward

 

[First Last]

So after Paterno and Curly both said they are sorry they didn't do more and Shultz said he should have
reported the incident you believe MM told them nothing sexual happened. It is obvious what you are missing.

In hindsight anyone who now believes Jerry is guilty and had any previous suspicion probably wishes they had done more, regardless of what they saw or were told. So what is Cletus11 missing?

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Socrates You ain't.

 

[Locolion]

Ok, just so I have this straight. Shultz makes a plea deal. Judge says, we aren't sentencing you yet, but when you are called as a witness, you have to say that you thought DPW should have been called? Sorry, I find this utterly ridiculous.

You truly are naiive. No one, no one wants to do hard time. No matter where or for how short of a time span.