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

[rudedude]

Taking a step back and looking at the "big" picture, I want to throw my 2 cents in here. I work in a field where I have been a mandated reporter for over 37 years. Here is a really pertinent point: Let's play "what if". "What if " McQueary did call police? What would he have reported? Would the police take action or would they refer McQueary to call the child abuse hotline? (The typical procedure). If McQueary called the child abuse hotline, depending upon what he told them, would they even accept the call? I know this firsthand because there were times I have had to call the child abuse hotline and the call was not accepted as a report of child abuse. The system is only as good as how trained and knowledgeable the people who work in it are. Talk to anyone who has or who works on Child Protective Services. It can be a nasty thankless job and, most times, the folks who are the direct line interveners are the least clinically skilled persons because their pay grade dictates that! This means that even if McQueary called it in, I really don't believe it would have amounted to much once again like 1998. Even the unfounded 1998 report would have reinforced that.

 

[Madsol]

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.

You're either lying or are obtuse. Reading your posts for the past 5 years, I'd say you're lying. We have had numerous people in different trials specifically say McQueary did not say anything sexual happened. Plus you have the actions of at least a dozen people, including McQueary, who for 10 years either acted as if nothing sexual happened or are all monsters who knew a child had been sexually abused but didn't care. McQueary is either a liar or a coward. You are a liar...and maybe a coward too but that much isn't clear. But keep posting and maybe that will become clear.

 

[kgilbert78]

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?

I regret ever donating to Second Mile--in hindsight. That doesn't make me either a criminal or an enabler.

I do not regret that the then example of Second Mile encouraged me to develop a mentoring relationship with one of the kids I was coaching in youth soccer, who lost his dad at age 4. He's now a sophomore pharmacy student and doing well.

 

[Alphalion75]

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.

Let's not forget that MM had a motive to deflect the focus on Sandusky when he was approached by the police. He was was sexting with a PSU co-ed.

 

[LMTLION]

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.

Absolutely spot on. I am disturbed many on this board do not see the simple logic. This was a curley, shultz, spanier cluster f that allowed that monster to continue sexually assaulting boys. This is on them fully to handle the situation. They handled the situation like incompetent buffoons and we have all paid the price since.

 

[mn78psu83]

Absolutely spot on. I am disturbed many on this board do not see the simple logic. This was a curley, shultz, spanier cluster f that allowed that monster to continue sexually assaulting boys. This is on them fully to handle the situation. They handled the situation like incompetent buffoons and we have all paid the price since.

Yep. A screw-up, not a cover-up.

 

[Hotshoe]

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.

Not only that, but many DNA labs are run by the State, ie the prosecution side of justice.

 

[baconking1]

You're either lying or are obtuse. Reading your posts for the past 5 years, I'd say you're lying. We have had numerous people in different trials specifically say McQueary did not say anything sexual happened. Plus you have the actions of at least a dozen people, including McQueary, who for 10 years either acted as if nothing sexual happened or are all monsters who knew a child had been sexually abused but didn't care. McQueary is either a liar or a coward. You are a liar...and maybe a coward too but that much isn't clear. But keep posting and maybe that will become clear.

Schultz admitted in his testimony that mike described something like a naked bear hug. There's no way they should have ignored that. It's not on Mike .

 

[baconking1]

Schultz and Curley both indicated Spanier was aware of Jerry Sandusky's possible transgressions as early as 1998. A report that Sandusky was naked in the shower with a boy and "bear-hugging" was investigated with no charges filed.

This was 98, I do not believe these men when they said McQueary did not tell the sexual . Why did they initially lie about their knowledge of 98? Why did Joe not admit to knowing about 98?

 

[AWS1022]

Absolutely spot on. I am disturbed many on this board do not see the simple logic. This was a curley, shultz, spanier cluster f that allowed that monster to continue sexually assaulting boys. This is on them fully to handle the situation. They handled the situation like incompetent buffoons and we have all paid the price since.

Intent vs incompetence is important here though. They may be buffoons, but being a buffoon is not criminal (or a ton of people would be in prison- hello Bernie McCue). I tend to believe, given the circumstances, most university officials anywhere would have been equally incompetent and handled it the same way.

 

[baconking1]

Intent vs incompetence is important here though. They may be buffoons, but being a buffoon is not criminal (or a ton of people would be in prison- hello Bernie McCue). I tend to believe, given the circumstances, most university officials anywhere would have been equally incompetent and handled it the same way.

They weren't found guilty of criminal into , but I won't call them exonerated either.

 

[Madsol]

Schultz admitted in his testimony that mike described something like a naked bear hug. There's no way they should have ignored that. It's not on Mike .

Yep Mrs. McQueary, your little Mikey was a big tough guy slamming his locker and running home to daddy, then staying quiet for 10 years. What a hero!

 

[Obliviax]

Schultz and Curley both indicated Spanier was aware of Jerry Sandusky's possible transgressions as early as 1998. A report that Sandusky was naked in the shower with a boy and "bear-hugging" was investigated with no charges filed.

This was 98, I do not believe these men when they said McQueary did not tell the sexual . Why did they initially lie about their knowledge of 98? Why did Joe not admit to knowing about 98?

A reasonable post. I think this falls on Schultz, who owned campus security. But before him, it falls on MM/Dad/Dranov. By the time it got to Curely and Schultz, it was almost too late. There was no way to know who the child was and MM's story, at that time, we scattered and incoherent. Regardless, C&S should have done more, as they both said. Raykovitz, IMHO, is the most culpable of all of them and he hasn't even gotten a traffic ticket.

Paterno did what he should and must do. It is what any coach has to do today to follow university and NCAA guidelines. Spanier was simply told a watered down version so I have no idea why he would be found guilty of anything other than making a poor decision with what he knew at the time.

Regardless of all of that, good men made a bad decision.

At the end of the day, one has to wonder about all of the damage done and lives ruined over three misdemeanors. One also has to wonder why the uneven application of the law. Those prosecutors declared victory for a misdemeanor but can forget running in a state-wide election.

 

[AWS1022]

They weren't found guilty of criminal into , but I won't call them exonerated either.

They made a mistake and handled a situation poorly, no more no less. That doesn't make everyone involved with the university horrible or make the culture of the university horrible. Everything PSU was fried for was based on a myth and the trials proved that. Unfortunately our university won't get that message out because we still have buffoons in charge.

 

[Legion of Lions]

"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.

Uh...maybe it was the 2017 OAG that was convincing - not the 2001 MM report. Using Time misalignment has been a cornerstone of the PA OAG deception.

This fact is MUCH more credible interpretation than the 20017 Schultz (coerced by the plea ageement??) message - YOU CAN'T DISPUTE FACTS - actions by MULTIPLE independent persons (in 2001) speaks much loader more than words you attempt to validate.

 

[baconking1]

They made a mistake and handled a situation poorly, no more no less. That doesn't make everyone involved with the university horrible or make the culture of the university horrible. Everything PSU was fried for was based on a myth and the trials proved that. Unfortunately our university won't get that message out because we still have buffoons in charge.

You're right. Years ago I thought I don't believe them . I don't own their actions and never did something similar .

I don't care what people say about penn state or own staters. I'll correct them and say it was a few people not all of us. And for is who had no part in it , we have different opinions and that's okay in my book .

We didn't screw up and differing opinions don't mean we did wrong . It's all in those other guys.

 

[baconking1]

A reasonable post. I think this falls on Schultz, who owned campus security. But before him, it falls on MM/Dad/Dranov. By the time it got to Curely and Schultz, it was almost too late. There was no way to know who the child was and MM's story, at that time, we scattered and incoherent. Regardless, C&S should have done more, as they both said. Raykovitz, IMHO, is the most culpable of all of them and he hasn't even gotten a traffic ticket.

Paterno did what he should and must do. It is what any coach has to do today to follow university and NCAA guidelines. Spanier was simply told a watered down version so I have no idea why he would be found guilty of anything other than making a poor decision with what he knew at the time.

Regardless of all of that, good men made a bad decision.

At the end of the day, one has to wonder about all of the damage done and lives ruined over three misdemeanors. One also has to wonder why the uneven application of the law. Those prosecutors declared victory for a misdemeanor but can forget running in a state-wide election.

Many over the years have criticized mike but pointed out that Joe followed the rules and told his superiors. They both did correct there imo .

Joe will be criticized for 98 and 01, but that's in the past now for me. Screw up to saying don't report it I don't care anymore . Imo he expressed regret and apologized for whatever he did. I literally don't care anymore .

Even Curley and Schultz who I believed aren't being truthful to some degree seem to have remorse , so that's fine by me. It's time to let this stuff go, there's nothing better coming out of this .

 

[baconking1]

A reasonable post. I think this falls on Schultz, who owned campus security. But before him, it falls on MM/Dad/Dranov. By the time it got to Curely and Schultz, it was almost too late. There was no way to know who the child was and MM's story, at that time, we scattered and incoherent. Regardless, C&S should have done more, as they both said. Raykovitz, IMHO, is the most culpable of all of them and he hasn't even gotten a traffic ticket.

Paterno did what he should and must do. It is what any coach has to do today to follow university and NCAA guidelines. Spanier was simply told a watered down version so I have no idea why he would be found guilty of anything other than making a poor decision with what he knew at the time.

Regardless of all of that, good men made a bad decision.

At the end of the day, one has to wonder about all of the damage done and lives ruined over three misdemeanors. One also has to wonder why the uneven application of the law. Those prosecutors declared victory for a misdemeanor but can forget running in a state-wide election.

Anyone could have called in a report . Once Mike went to the administration he rightly believed they would handle it. I don't think they had any obligation to give him updates so I could see him not doing more:

 

[LMTLION]

A reasonable post. I think this falls on Schultz, who owned campus security. But before him, it falls on MM/Dad/Dranov. By the time it got to Curely and Schultz, it was almost too late. There was no way to know who the child was and MM's story, at that time, we scattered and incoherent. Regardless, C&S should have done more, as they both said. Raykovitz, IMHO, is the most culpable of all of them and he hasn't even gotten a traffic ticket.

Paterno did what he should and must do. It is what any coach has to do today to follow university and NCAA guidelines. Spanier was simply told a watered down version so I have no idea why he would be found guilty of anything other than making a poor decision with what he knew at the time.

Regardless of all of that, good men made a bad decision.

At the end of the day, one has to wonder about all of the damage done and lives ruined over three misdemeanors. One also has to wonder why the uneven application of the law. Those prosecutors declared victory for a misdemeanor but can forget running in a state-wide election.

Anyone could have called in a report . Once Mike went to the administration he rightly believed they would handle it. I don't think they had any obligation to give him updates so I could see him not doing more:

I struggle with Mike's actions in that moment of time of being the witness. Mike could have intervened more definitively or even forcefully but like many in those witness situations he walked away. All of us can puff out our chests out and say we would have smashed sanusky's skull into into the floor but that largely does not happen in society. I guess to Mike's credit he at least reported it when unfortunately not everyone does.

 

[BBrown]

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.

C'mon he (MM) apparently had "fits of rage" whenever JS's name was mentioned so there is that.

 

[mn78psu83]

C'mon he (MM) apparently had "fits of rage" whenever JS's name was mentioned so there is that.

 

[Obliviax]

Anyone could have called in a report . Once Mike went to the administration he rightly believed they would handle it. I don't think they had any obligation to give him updates so I could see him not doing more:

I don't disagree. But these guys getting together and making a poor decision does not mean there was an institutional coverup and that it was associated with a football program that was out of control. I don't feel like PSU fans are that upset about CS&S as they are the damage that was done to the reputation of the university, its football program, and at the cost of over $200,000,000 (not to mention the damage done to retailers and small businesses that support the university and its football program).

 

[WeR0206]

Schultz admitted in his testimony that mike described something like a naked bear hug. There's no way they should have ignored that. It's not on Mike .

Except that in 98 CYS/DPW ignored the same naked bear hug from behavior and told anyone who knew the details of 98 that it was normal coach behavior, nothing to see here. The state set the bar in 98 as to what was considered "a-ok" behavior.

This is crucuial context when trying to evaluate how the admins handled a very similar (but less definitive) report a few years later.

Also Schultz and none of the other admins invovled in 2001 didn't ignore MM's report. They took it seriously and reported OUTSIDE of PSU to the people at TSM who actually had control over JS' access to kids. The buck ultimately should have stopped with JR and TSM but the state didn't want to peel back that onion layer now did they?

 

[BUFFALO LION]

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.

You're right. Courtney did NOT "corroborate" Mike McQueary's 2011 version. But Courtney DID "corroborate" Allan Meyer's version of the 2001 shower incident in his 2001 notes almost to a T.

How would Courtney and Meyers have the same recollection of the shower incident, 10 years apart, unless that was the ORIGINAL version relayed by Mike?

 

[BUFFALO LION]

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.

For what? "Wrestling" and "sliding around on the floor" as Courtney has it in his notes?

They told Raykovitz. Raykovitz knew who the kid was. He told Sandusky to wear swim trunks.

HE was the State licensed, trained Child Psychologist, and mandated reporter.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

So you think it's all on MM?

Yes, unless you think the cops, when called immediately, would have also gone to Joe Paterno for advice on how to proceed. MM is the only eye/ear witness to anything. His inaction was the first of several poor decisions, noting his was the poorest. Of course, he did listen to his dad and doctor friend before doing anything, so on them too for being stupid.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Schultz admitted in his testimony that mike described something like a naked bear hug. There's no way they should have ignored that. It's not on Mike .

Actually, we need the official transcripts.

Gary was either prepped to lie, got confused on the facts, or his testimony was misreported on a couple of things. One was the bear hug. That sounds more like the description he got in 1998, not 2001.

Another is when he got the Report from Curley. Reports from the Courtroom are that he testified that he didn't know about the incident until Monday. Curley never gave him a Report until then and he never met with Joe.

We know for a fact that is false in relation as to when he found out because of Courtney's documented records. A lot of what Schultz reportedly said in court this week just doesn't add up. We will see.

 

[Grant Green]

His inaction was the first of several poor decisions, noting his was the poorest.

By your own statement it can't be ALL on MM if his was only one of several poor decisions.

 

[UncleLar]

Schultz admitted in his testimony that mike described something like a naked bear hug. There's no way they should have ignored that. It's not on Mike .

Not really. He never said that that was what Mike said. He said that was what he pictured in his mind. That's two different things

And that's an interesting statement, for a couple of reasons. One, it's Schultz trying to recollect what he was thinking of over a decade earlier (that's almost impossible to do and is one of the reasons that there are statutes of limitations on crimes). Two, the naked bear hug scenario is EXACTLY the words that were used to describe the 1998 incident. So, one of two things is happening. Either Schultz is trying to remember the mental image he had in 2001, but is in fact recalling the 1998 incident. Or, if that really was what he pictured as going on in 2001, then the mental image that he portrayed was swayed by what had actually happened in 1998 - something that many people have suggested might have happened to both Curley and Schultz. They weren't listening to what Mike was saying, they were already mentally picturing a repeat of 1998 (the here we go again, Jerry being Jerry with the kids scenario).

McQueary thought he was conveying the message but his failure to be specific opened the door up to Schultz and Curley imagining that this was just 1998 all over again. That was compounded by the fact that neither Curley nor Schultz had the wherewithal to have McQueary document his story.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

By your own statement it can't be ALL on MM if his was only one of several poor decisions.

Ok - if the poor decision making is like a Jenga game with the worst decision at the bottom, Mike's is the foundation. All the other bad decisions are only because of his. If he chooses differently after leaving the gym, no one else is in a position to keep screwing things up. So while others made bad decisions, Mike enabled them.

 

[Bob78]

Not really. He never said that that was what Mike said. He said that was what he pictured in his mind. That's two different things

And that's an interesting statement, for a couple of reasons. One, it's Schultz trying to recollect what he was thinking of over a decade earlier (that's almost impossible to do and is one of the reasons that there are statutes of limitations on crimes). Two, the naked bear hug scenario is EXACTLY the words that were used to describe the 1998 incident. So, one of two things is happening. Either Schultz is trying to remember the mental image he had in 2001, but is in fact recalling the 1998 incident. Or, if that really was what he pictured as going on in 2001, then the mental image that he portrayed was swayed by what had actually happened in 1998 - something that many people have suggested might have happened to both Curley and Schultz. They weren't listening to what Mike was saying, they were already mentally picturing a repeat of 1998 (the here we go again, Jerry being Jerry with the kids scenario).

McQueary thought he was conveying the message but his failure to be specific opened the door up to Schultz and Curley imagining that this was just 1998 all over again. That was compounded by the fact that neither Curley nor Schultz had the wherewithal to have McQueary document his story.

The '98 fauz pas by LE and others contributed greatly to the '01 actions / reactions, imo. Boy crying "wolf" come to real life.

What strikes me is why Schultz said he should have called DPW, as opposed to simply talking to Harmon? He probably met with Harmon multiple times each week, at least casually if not in formal meetings. Turn it over to Harmon as a campus incident and let him make the recommendations on what steps to take.
That is, given he trusted Harmon would take the right steps wrt his old buddy Jerry.

I will always believe this was a sad case of good people at PSU who made what turned out to be the wrong choices given hindsight. No intent to do wrong, no intent to harm anyone, no intent except to handle a situation far out of the norm, and not fully executing on getting the outside help needed to share the burden, especially once TSM dropped the ball.

This will always be a TSM issue imo. That org., and the TSM-associated State College and PSU BOT folks who were going to be personally liable if the fit hit the shan, are far more culpable here than anyone except Sandusky.

 

[maxxedout]

Yep. A screw-up, not a cover-up.

YES. For ****s sake thank you.

 

[PSUisBack2017]

The only "witness", a grown man, walked away...slammed a locker....saw the boogie man....had a gambling problem...not sure which is right, but MM is pathetic. The problem with our society, a guy who blows it, gets millions.

 

[baconking1]

I don't disagree. But these guys getting together and making a poor decision does not mean there was an institutional coverup and that it was associated with a football program that was out of control. I don't feel like PSU fans are that upset about CS&S as they are the damage that was done to the reputation of the university, its football program, and at the cost of over $200,000,000 (not to mention the damage done to retailers and small businesses that support the university and its football program).

We'll never know now. Legally there was no cover up according to criminal law. I'm fine with that . It's the rule of law . Legally it's a screw up. Imo is might be worse , but it doesn't matter anymore .

Bad stuff happened that could have been prevented and it wasn't. I feel no better now than a month ago. All the damage is done and things overall are on the upswing for the school so I'll let it go.

Joe expressed regret at the end for whatever. I'm good with that . What people chose to think about a public figure who did a lot of good and maybe did something bad or stupid is on them . You want to focus ( general you , not you personally go ahead) on the

Not really. He never said that that was what Mike said. He said that was what he pictured in his mind. That's two different things

And that's an interesting statement, for a couple of reasons. One, it's Schultz trying to recollect what he was thinking of over a decade earlier (that's almost impossible to do and is one of the reasons that there are statutes of limitations on crimes). Two, the naked bear hug scenario is EXACTLY the words that were used to describe the 1998 incident. So, one of two things is happening. Either Schultz is trying to remember the mental image he had in 2001, but is in fact recalling the 1998 incident. Or, if that really was what he pictured as going on in 2001, then the mental image that he portrayed was swayed by what had actually happened in 1998 - something that many people have suggested might have happened to both Curley and Schultz. They weren't listening to what Mike was saying, they were already mentally picturing a repeat of 1998 (the here we go again, Jerry being Jerry with the kids scenario).

McQueary thought he was conveying the message but his failure to be specific opened the door up to Schultz and Curley imagining that this was just 1998 all over again. That was compounded by the fact that neither Curley nor Schultz had the wherewithal to have McQueary document his story.

Or they were lying like they initially did

Not really. He never said that that was what Mike said. He said that was what he pictured in his mind. That's two different things

And that's an interesting statement, for a couple of reasons. One, it's Schultz trying to recollect what he was thinking of over a decade earlier (that's almost impossible to do and is one of the reasons that there are statutes of limitations on crimes). Two, the naked bear hug scenario is EXACTLY the words that were used to describe the 1998 incident. So, one of two things is happening. Either Schultz is trying to remember the mental image he had in 2001, but is in fact recalling the 1998 incident. Or, if that really was what he pictured as going on in 2001, then the mental image that he portrayed was swayed by what had actually happened in 1998 - something that many people have suggested might have happened to both Curley and Schultz. They weren't listening to what Mike was saying, they were already mentally picturing a repeat of 1998 (the here we go again, Jerry being Jerry with the kids scenario).

McQueary thought he was conveying the message but his failure to be specific opened the door up to Schultz and Curley imagining that this was just 1998 all over again. That was compounded by the fact that neither Curley nor Schultz had the wherewithal to have McQueary document his story.

That's plausible, however it it is also very plausible he was trying to carefully craft a response so he wouldn't lie on the stand but be as unclear as possible.

I believe it was shown that they all knew about 98 at this point which they denied back in 2011.

For me I don't trust them and this trial didn't clarify the situation 100% , but I believe more strongly now that they knew what was going on.

 

[wensilver]

I sat at the trial. I listened to Dr. Dranov. I took notes of his testimony.

​

Mike didn't see anything. A young boy looked around, made eye contact with Mike, an arm reaching around and pulling the boy. Highly innappropriate at best - at worst a sexual assault. Mike did not see it.

So for all the "skin on skin", the "slapping sounds" "the stomach to back" "the hips slowly moving" "a prepubscent boy" - all that imagery of the kind of things Frank Fina and his porn-addled gunslingers in the AG's office were fascinated with.... that Laura Ditka wanted to pollute the jury's mind with... it still comes down to Dr. Dranov's testimony of this:

Mike didn't see anything.

​

So why Randy Feathers - who clearly spoke with Dr. Dranov, interviewed the doctor and thusly determined the date of the incident by doing so, allowed Frank Fina and Jonelle to write the " a young boy with his hands up against the wall engaged in anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky" into the grand jury presentment, when it clearly was a lie - needs to be answered by our Office of Attorney General.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Taking a step back and looking at the "big" picture, I want to throw my 2 cents in here. I work in a field where I have been a mandated reporter for over 37 years. Here is a really pertinent point: Let's play "what if". "What if " McQueary did call police? What would he have reported? Would the police take action or would they refer McQueary to call the child abuse hotline? (The typical procedure). If McQueary called the child abuse hotline, depending upon what he told them, would they even accept the call? I know this firsthand because there were times I have had to call the child abuse hotline and the call was not accepted as a report of child abuse. The system is only as good as how trained and knowledgeable the people who work in it are. Talk to anyone who has or who works on Child Protective Services. It can be a nasty thankless job and, most times, the folks who are the direct line interveners are the least clinically skilled persons because their pay grade dictates that! This means that even if McQueary called it in, I really don't believe it would have amounted to much once again like 1998. Even the unfounded 1998 report would have reinforced that.

I also work in this field and can echo a lot of what you are saying. The main difficulty in calling in to CPS would be that he had no name for the child, no address for the kid. From my experience, that would not be investigated.
However, if he had called the police on the spot he had the perpetrator, victim, and witness (himself) there on the scene. Police absolutely would have shown up for a crime in progress. He screwed up.

 

[wensilver]

I fixed it for you. Seeing that I actually sat at the trial and heard testimony.

Absolutely spot on. I am disturbed many on this board do not see the simple logic. This was a RAYKOVITZ, GENOVESE, HEIM & POOLE cluster f that allowed that monster to continue sexually assaulting boys. This is on them fully to handle the situation. They handled the situation like incompetent buffoons and we have all paid the price since.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Absolutely spot on. I am disturbed many on this board do not see the simple logic. This was a curley, shultz, spanier cluster f that allowed that monster to continue sexually assaulting boys. This is on them fully to handle the situation. They handled the situation like incompetent buffoons and we have all paid the price since.

You did not report Osprey... You Are guilty.

 

[Mixolydian]

I sat at the trial. I listened to Dr. Dranov. I took notes of his testimony.

​

Mike didn't see anything. A young boy looked around, made eye contact with Mike, an arm reaching around and pulling the boy. Highly innappropriate at best - at worst a sexual assault. Mike did not see it.

So for all the "skin on skin", the "slapping sounds" "the stomach to back" "the hips slowly moving" "a prepubscent boy" - all that imagery of the kind of things Frank Fina and his porn-addled gunslingers in the AG's office were fascinated with.... that Laura Ditka wanted to pollute the jury's mind with... it still comes down to Dr. Dranov's testimony of this:

Mike didn't see anything.

​

So why Randy Feathers - who clearly spoke with Dr. Dranov, interviewed the doctor and thusly determined the date of the incident by doing so, allowed Frank Fina and Jonelle to write the " a young boy with his hands up against the wall engaged in anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky" into the grand jury presentment, when it clearly was a lie - needs to be answered by our Office of Attorney General.

Mike sure backed up their imagery and story when he took the stand in December 2011 and thereafter.

 

[bdgan]

"

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

Or else Shultz was afraid that a sympathetic would falsely accuse him so he decided to plea and accept a fine + probation.