Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"

[RussianEagle]

I Don't. It would be convenient for some people if V2 was dead.

As you point out, he'd be from a similar background. Let's just stipulate he's got limited family support.

It's not unheard of that a young man from that background might OD, otherwise die due to substance abuse, suicide, etc.

One might think that if he was sexually abused, that would increase the odds of the above.

C’mon man. If a boy who spent any amount of time one-on-one with Jerry Sandusky had later died via overdose or suicide, the media certainly would have discovered it and basically use it to claim Joe Paterno was an accessory to murder.

As I stated before, Jerry Sandusky did not keep the identities of the boys he spent time with a secret. Joe McGettigan and Frank Fina even acknowledge that seeing the photos in Sandusky’s autobiography was the major breakthrough of their case.

There was one boy who Jerry was close to that did die, Ryan Dixon, but he died in a motorcycle crash. Nevertheless, he’s too old to be victim 2, I think he was 17 or 18 in 2001. Interestingly, his sister testified for the defense at Sandusky’s trial, stating that Victim 4 (her brother’s former best friend) was a known liar and deceiver.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

C’mon man. If a boy who spent any amount of time one-on-one with Jerry Sandusky had later died via overdose or suicide, the media certainly would have discovered it and basically use it to claim Joe Paterno was an accessory to murder.

As I stated before, Jerry Sandusky did not keep the identities of the boys he spent time with a secret. Joe McGettigan and Frank Fina even acknowledge that seeing the photos in Sandusky’s autobiography was the major breakthrough of their case.

Oh, really?

Bullcrap.

The death could have been any time over a 10 year period. It would be shocking if there were no kids in TSM that died between 2000 and 2010.

If you can show evidence that no TSM kids died during that period, I'd love to see it.

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[RussianEagle]

Oh, really?

Bullcrap.

The death could have been any time over a 10 year period. It would be shocking if there were no kids in TSM that died between 2000 and 2010.

If you can show evidence that no TSM kids died during that period, I'd love to see it.

I’m not talking about any kid who may have went to a second mile camp, that doesn’t matter. I am specifically talking about kids who spent time with Jerry Sandusky 1 on 1.

Even people who believe Jerry to be guilty as hell say that his m.o. was to slowly groom these kids. Giving them gifts and taking them to events such a football games, often establishing a good relationship with the kids mother, then slowly becoming more physical with the boy until ultimately proceeding to sexual acts. No one is arguing that he simply snatched kids from his camps, quickly abused them, and then sent them in their way!

 

[Connorpozlee]

I also don't think McQueary is lying for one simple reason. Years before this all broke (I believe around 2006), I casually mentioned Sandusky's name to McQueary, talking about how great Sandusky's charity work was. McQueary went bat shit crazy, twice exclaiming "F*** Jerry Sandusky, f*** Jerry Sandusky" before regaining his composure. That never made sense to me until years later when this all broke. There's little doubt in my mind that he saw Sandusky doing something to a kid that he thought was an assault and it bothered him immensely.

So he was so disturbed by Jerry Sandusky in 2006 that he continued to do nothing about it and had to wait until he was approached by the police in 2011 before he said anything to them about it? Pretty despicable, really.

 

[UncleLar]

So he was so disturbed by Jerry Sandusky in 2006 that he continued to do nothing about it and had to wait until he was approached by the police in 2011 before he said anything to them about it? Pretty despicable, really.

Or he believed, as he testified, that by speaking with Gary Schultz, who oversaw the PSU police department, that he had already reported it to the police. Have you ever heard the expression "don't fight City Hall"? It's not the least bit unreasonable to think that, having alerted three senior people at the University, i.e. Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, having his father follow up with Schultz, and still seeing nothing done, that McQueary came to the conclusion that the powers to be were aligned against him. Without any clear cut options to pursue the matter further, he rightfully concludes that it would probably be personal and professional suicide to push the issue and chooses the path of least resistance, i.e doing nothing - something that I suspect 90% percent of the keyboard heroes on this board would have also done. Would it have been admirable had he made further attempts to bring down Sandusky? Certainly. It it understandable why he didn't? Absolutely.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I’m not talking about any kid who may have went to a second mile camp, that doesn’t matter. I am specifically talking about kids who spent time with Jerry Sandusky 1 on 1.

Even people who believe Jerry to be guilty as hell say that his m.o. was to slowly groom these kids. Giving them gifts and taking them to events such a football games, often establishing a good relationship with the kids mother, then slowly becoming more physical with the boy until ultimately proceeding to sexual acts. No one is arguing that he simply snatched kids from his camps, quickly abused them, and then sent them in their way!

Right. Still, V2 is dead, and Jerry knew all about it, making it easy for him to push Allan as a substitute. And the free Jerry crowd eats it up like sheep.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Or he believed, as he testified, that by speaking with Gary Schultz, who oversaw the PSU police department, that he had already reported it to the police. Have you ever heard the expression "don't fight City Hall"? It's not the least bit unreasonable to think that, having alerted three senior people at the University, i.e. Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, having his father follow up with Schultz, and still seeing nothing done, that McQueary came to the conclusion that the powers to be were aligned against him. Without any clear cut options to pursue the matter further, he rightfully concludes that it would probably be personal and professional suicide to push the issue and chooses the path of least resistance, i.e doing nothing - something that I suspect 90% percent of the keyboard heroes on this board would have also done. Would it have been admirable had he made further attempts to bring down Sandusky? Certainly. It it understandable why he didn't? Absolutely.

That would make him despicable. When one chooses personal and professional goals over the well being of a child it is despicable. Honestly, I have probably been one of the least critical posters regarding McQueary but the scenario you lay out (if true) is pretty pathetic.

 

[AvgUser]

Or he believed, as he testified, that by speaking with Gary Schultz, who oversaw the PSU police department, that he had already reported it to the police. Have you ever heard the expression "don't fight City Hall"? It's not the least bit unreasonable to think that, having alerted three senior people at the University, i.e. Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, having his father follow up with Schultz, and still seeing nothing done, that McQueary came to the conclusion that the powers to be were aligned against him. Without any clear cut options to pursue the matter further, he rightfully concludes that it would probably be personal and professional suicide to push the issue and chooses the path of least resistance, i.e doing nothing - something that I suspect 90% percent of the keyboard heroes on this board would have also done. Would it have been admirable had he made further attempts to bring down Sandusky? Certainly. It it understandable why he didn't? Absolutely.

Except...

JoePa: Mike how are you doing? Are you satisfied with how The Lasch has incident was handled

McQ: yeah, I’m cool.

 

[Mixolydian]

Or he believed, as he testified, that by speaking with Gary Schultz, who oversaw the PSU police department, that he had already reported it to the police. Have you ever heard the expression "don't fight City Hall"? It's not the least bit unreasonable to think that, having alerted three senior people at the University, i.e. Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, having his father follow up with Schultz, and still seeing nothing done, that McQueary came to the conclusion that the powers to be were aligned against him. Without any clear cut options to pursue the matter further, he rightfully concludes that it would probably be personal and professional suicide to push the issue and chooses the path of least resistance, i.e doing nothing - something that I suspect 90% percent of the keyboard heroes on this board would have also done. Would it have been admirable had he made further attempts to bring down Sandusky? Certainly. It it understandable why he didn't? Absolutely.

If he witnessed what he claimed under oath that he believed he witnessed and didn’t report it to police that very night while the “victim” was still with the “perp”, he is a selfish, miserable POS. It’s either that or he is a liar. Don’t project what you would have done onto others.

 

[ChiTownLion]

Just stumbled across this letter that Joe left to Sue in his passing in my bookmarks file.

http://www.espn.com/pdf/2012/0402/espn_otl_paternostatement.pdf

Let me begin by offering Sue and my prayers for all of the people impacted by these events. I know it is small comfort given the circumstances. I also understand that there are a lot of questions regarding the events involving former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. However, because of the status of these ongoing legal matters, I will not speculate or answer questions about the charges or the people involved beyond this brief statement. As the Grand Jury report notes, I was subpoenaed last January to testify regarding an incident in 2002. As my very brief testimony established, my role was limited to a single report made to me by an assistant coach in 2002. The coach in question came to my house on a Saturday morning and informed me that he witnessed former coach Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a young boy. The coach made it clear that he felt strongly that there was something inappropriate going on and that he was very upset by what he saw. The coach made no specific allegations of any identified sexual act, nor did he use any graphic terms – just the idea that what he saw was wrong and that he did not know what to do next. At that time I told the coach that he had done the right thing and that I would take the appropriate next step. After consideration I determined that, given Sandusky’s status as a retired employee governed by a retirement package negotiated with the administration, I had no authority to act directly. The next day, in accordance with University policy, I contacted the head of my department and related what was told to me. That was the last time the matter was brought to my attention until this investigation and I assumed that the men I referred it to handled the matter appropriately. I know that there are many other questions that people want to ask, but I ask that we all be patient and give the judicial process time to do its deliberate work. Finding the truth is what will benefit the victims most of all, and that is who we should all keep in mind as we deal with this tragedy. In order to give that process adequate time I will not be answering any questions on this matter, nor will I have further comment, until the legal process is completed.​

 

[RussianEagle]

Right. Still, V2 is dead, and Jerry knew all about it, making it easy for him to push Allan as a substitute. And the free Jerry crowd eats it up like sheep.

Holy shit, you are a ****ing moron. That’s all I have to say in response to that!

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Holy shit, you are a ****ing moron. That’s all I have to say in response to that!

Why? You were the one who pointed out that V2 is dead.

 

[RussianEagle]

Why? You were the one who pointed out that V2 is dead.

No, the possibility that V2 is dead was YOUR response to my insistence that V2 had to be Allan Myers and any other option was absurd!

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

No, the possibility that V2 is dead was YOUR response to my insistence that V2 had to be Allan Myers and any other option was absurd!

So you are now trying to backtrack?

The odds of a sexually abused, poor kid from a broken family being dead are not insignificant, my friend. It's really the only scenario that fits the facts. Allan couldn't even sketch the locker room.

 

[PSU2UNC]

. Allan couldn't even sketch the locker room.

If you asked me to sketch the bathroom from my dorm hall in East Halls, I could probably do that. I might not get the exact number of sinks/urinals/stalls/showers correct, but it would be close. However, I was in that room three (or more) times per day, every day for 2 years.

If you asked me to sketch the locker room at the IM building, a room that I was probably in 20 or 30 times while in school, I couldn't even begin.

Even if AM had been in the that locker room 10 times, it does not surprise me that he couldn't accurately sketch it 10 years later.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

If you asked me to sketch the bathroom from my dorm hall in East Halls, I could probably do that. I might not get the exact number of sinks/urinals/stalls/showers correct, but it would be close. However, I was in that room three (or more) times per day, every day for 2 years.

If you asked me to sketch the locker room at the IM building, a room that I was probably in 20 or 30 times while in school, I couldn't even begin.

Even if AM had been in the that locker room 10 times, it does not surprise me that he couldn't accurately sketch it 10 years later.

Kind of weird then that Allan told Jerry's investigator he vividly remembered that night, swore to the date in 2002, recalled a locker door slamming, and also did not see anyone else in the locker room "lock eyes" with him.

I can understand why YOU might not be able to sketch the IM locker room, but I also assume you aren't claiming you vividly remember some event there (at least 10 years ago), up to and including a locker slamming while you were showering innocently, where nothing of any significance happened.

 

[Chris92]

Kind of weird then that Allan told Jerry's investigator he vividly remembered that night, swore to the date in 2002, recalled a locker door slamming, and also did not see anyone else in the locker room "lock eyes" with him.

I can understand why YOU might not be able to sketch the IM locker room, but I also assume you aren't claiming you vividly remember some event there (at least 10 years ago), up to and including a locker slamming while you were showering innocently, where nothing of any significance happened.

How did the janitor do describing that same locker room at trial? He worked in Lasch for over a year.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Kind of weird then that Allan told Jerry's investigator he vividly remembered that night, swore to the date in 2002, recalled a locker door slamming, and also did not see anyone else in the locker room "lock eyes" with him.

I can understand why YOU might not be able to sketch the IM locker room, but I also assume you aren't claiming you vividly remember some event there (at least 10 years ago), up to and including a locker slamming while you were showering innocently, where nothing of any significance happened.

None of those details mean he should have been able to sketch the locker room.

Only that there were lockers and he did not see anyone else.

I know you refuse to admit that you might be wrong, but your grasping at straws here is really starting to become comical.

 

[RussianEagle]

How did the janitor do describing that same locker room at trial? He worked in Lasch for over a year.

Heck, he changed his story to a completely different locker room than he described in his grand jury testimony.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

None of those details mean he should have been able to sketch the locker room.

Only that there were lockers and he did not see anyone else.

I know you refuse to admit that you might be wrong, but your grasping at straws here is really starting to become comical.

Um. I guess you haven't seen his sketch.

L

 

[UncleLar]

Except...

JoePa: Mike how are you doing? Are you satisfied with how The Lasch has incident was handled

McQ: yeah, I’m cool.

That is not the way that the question was phrased. He was never asked about whether he was satisfied with the way that it was handled. He was asked how he was holding up.

People are quick to point out whenever Joe's response "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more" is misquoted, but they rarely do the same when McQueary's response is misquoted.

From his testimony at Curley/Schultz trial:

Q: So, in other words, you never spole with them (Paterno, Schultz, Curley) again about this - - about Jerry Sandusky and what you had seen.

A: No. Let me correct that . . When you say them, Coach did ask me in recent months after that, two or three months, a couple of times if I was okay.

Q: Asking about your general well-being?

A: Yes, in relation to what I had saw and if I was handling it okay.

 

[AvgUser]

That is not the way that the question was phrased. He was never asked about whether he was satisfied with the way that it was handled. He was asked how he was holding up.

A: Yes, in relation to what I had saw and if I was handling it okay.

To-may-to / To-mah-to in this case.


Same discussion; Same response

 

[Mixolydian]

That is not the way that the question was phrased. He was never asked about whether he was satisfied with the way that it was handled. He was asked how he was holding up.

People are quick to point out whenever Joe's response "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more" is misquoted, but they rarely do the same when McQueary's response is misquoted.

From his testimony at Curley/Schultz trial:

Q: So, in other words, you never spole with them (Paterno, Schultz, Curley) again about this - - about Jerry Sandusky and what you had seen.

A: No. Let me correct that . . When you say them, Coach did ask me in recent months after that, two or three months, a couple of times if I was okay.

Q: Asking about your general well-being?

A: Yes, in relation to what I had saw and if I was handling it okay.

Wrong again as usual. Joe’s response with regard to hindsight was in a written statement put out by him. That is right there in black and white and can be misquoted, and in fact it has been misquoted quite often on this board and especially by lazy and disingenuous members of the media.

It is not some vague recollection by a dope of conversations that occurred a decade earlier. One can misquote his testimony given a decade later but no one can misquote what was actually said in “a couple” of actual conversations many years earlier, as they weren’t presented as quotes in the first place. In your own post, MM himself characterized those conversations two slightly different ways in two successive sentences under oath.

Joe: Hey Mike. With regard to that thing we talked about a couple of months ago in my kitchen, are you OK?

MM: Yeah coach. I’m sure I saw a young boy getting butt plugged by Jerry in the shower at Lasch and it appears that nothing was done to bring him to justice by you, Tim or Gary. But I’m totally fine with it.

 

[RussianEagle]

None of those details mean he should have been able to sketch the locker room.

Only that there were lockers and he did not see anyone else.

I know you refuse to admit that you might be wrong, but your grasping at straws here is really starting to become comical.

I put that moron on ignore.

The fact that he absurdly claimed the “real victim 2” was dead, and then after I refuted his claim, tried to say I was the one making that absurd claim, proves he is not interested in rational discussion.

 

[francofan]

I put that moron on ignore.

The fact that he absurdly claimed the “real victim 2” was dead, and then after I refuted his claim, tried to say I was the one making that absurd claim, proves he is not interested in rational discussion.

hippo is not worth your time. He may know a lot about the case, but he is often not rational and makes incredible claims. Dennis might be right as it seems very possible that he is part of the pl cabal.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Um. I guess you haven't seen his sketch.

L

I have.

What's your point?

 

[BobPSU92]

View embedded media

So she can go f*ck herself, twice.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I put that moron on ignore.

The fact that he absurdly claimed the “real victim 2” was dead, and then after I refuted his claim, tried to say I was the one making that absurd claim, proves he is not interested in rational discussion.

I don't need you to see my posts. You've essentially admitted your reasons for supporting and defending Jerry, Michael Jackson, and the like. It's part of your nature and won't change unless you seek help.

 

[indynittany]

Too much emphasis on JVP's words given his health and age at the time.

I would argue too much emphasis on people's memories of what was at the time a minor, decade old event.

The notes and emails are their own words at that particular point in time. When read from the perspective that Curley and Schultz testified truthfully about what Mike said and that entire episode becomes clear as a bell.

 

[UncleLar]

Wrong again as usual. Joe’s response with regard to hindsight was in a written statement put out by him. That is right there in black and white and can be misquoted, and in fact it has been misquoted quite often on this board and especially by lazy and disingenuous members of the media.

It is not some vague recollection by a dope of conversations that occurred a decade earlier. One can misquote his testimony given a decade later but no one can misquote what was actually said in “a couple” of actual conversations many years earlier, as they weren’t presented as quotes in the first place. In your own post, MM himself characterized those conversations two slightly different ways in two successive sentences under oath.

Joe: Hey Mike. With regard to that thing we talked about a couple of months ago in my kitchen, are you OK?

MM: Yeah coach. I’m sure I saw a young boy getting butt plugged by Jerry in the shower at Lasch and it appears that nothing was done to bring him to justice by you, Tim or Gary. But I’m totally fine with it.

The discussion has nothing to do with how accurately McQueary is remembering a conversation that occurred a decade earlier. It's about AvgUser misrepresenting what McQueary testified to. It's in as much black and white as JoePa's written statement. McQueary testified that Joe asked him about his mental well-being and Mike responded he was doing okay. That is completely different than the words that you and AvgUser are trying to put in his mouth.

 

[Mixolydian]

The discussion has nothing to do with how accurately McQueary is remembering a conversation that occurred a decade earlier. It's about AvgUser misrepresenting what McQueary testified to. It's in as much black and white as JoePa's written statement. McQueary testified that Joe asked him about his mental well-being and Mike responded he was doing okay. That is completely different than the words that you and AvgUser are trying to put in his mouth.

That’s the whole point dummy. Nobody knows exactly what was said in real time. Anyone can speculate as to how exactly those conversations went and not be at odds with McQueary’s vague testimony. You’re the one that equated it to Paterno’s exact words being misquoted. And by the way McQueary never used the words “mental well being”. Those are your words. Good grief.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I would argue too much emphasis on people's memories of what was at the time a minor, decade old event.

The notes and emails are their own words at that particular point in time. When read them from the perspective that Curley and Schultz testified truthfully about what Mike said and that entire episode becomes clear as a bell.

I think the actions taken by all involved indicate that none of the people viewed it as a “nothing” event. McQueary saw something that he at least felt compelled enough to tell his father about. They felt compelled to have him speak to Joe about it. Joe got him in touch with the people at the university who handle such situations. Those people spoke with legal counsel about the situation. Really, nobody treated it as a minor event.

 

[Mixolydian]

I think the actions taken by all involved indicate that none of the people viewed it as a “nothing” event. McQueary saw something that he at least felt compelled enough to tell his father about. They felt compelled to have him speak to Joe about it. Joe got him in touch with the people at the university who handle such situations. Those people spoke with legal counsel about the situation. Really, nobody treated it as a minor event.

Agree. Yet nobody treated it as something that needed to be immediately (or even subsequently) reported to the police, including the ear witness, his father and a doctor, all of whom could have reported it in basically real time.

 

[pandaczar12]

I think the actions taken by all involved indicate that none of the people viewed it as a “nothing” event. McQueary saw something that he at least felt compelled enough to tell his father about. They felt compelled to have him speak to Joe about it. Joe got him in touch with the people at the university who handle such situations. Those people spoke with legal counsel about the situation. Really, nobody treated it as a minor event.

Mike could have just viewed it as a means to get face time with Paterno. "Hey dad, saw something weird tonight at Lasch... you think I could get some face time with Paterno out of this?" This is almost a certainty if he waited a few weeks to report it.

 

[indynittany]

I am certain that both Tim and Gary are certain that they were never told of a "sexual in nature" crime by McQ. They did the best they could with the info and the assumptions they were handed, and brought it to the attention of Raykovitz, who Tim felt would know what to do with the report (such as it was). Jack said it was a nothing burger, and that was his expert advice.

I don't think Tim and Gary even blame Jack (I do, though!) - I think they all simply did not know what they were (potentially) dealing with, and acted based on what they knew they knew at that specific time.... that now two different times ('98 and '01) the people who were experts at this type of thing said there was nothing to see there wrt JS. That made sense to them at that time.

How many of us would have done something different back in 2001? It is tough to take away what we now know and how we think we would act/react, but in 2001.... I'm not sure any of us would have that collection of info and do something different. Certainly in 2011 we all wish we would have, of course, but no one knew what all they did not know in 2001. Just imo.

Excellent!

For Joe to have failed to meet his moral obligations, he would have had to have believed Tim, Gary and Graham had mishandled the situation. There's absolutely no evidence of that.

All the appropriate entities investigated the '98 incident. Without evidence of sexual intent, they chose not to pursue the matter criminally. However, they also had an opportunity at that time to indicate Jerry, yet did nothing to restrict his access to young boys.

In 2001, Jack Raykovitz was informed of a similar incident by Tim Curley. As Exec. Dir. of TSM, he was responsible for both Jerry and the boy. He was also a mandatory reporter. Not only did he fail to document the incident with the appropriate governing agencies, as required by law, he lobbied Curley to reinstate Jerry's PSU guest privileges. A TSM trustee would then provide the use of the facilities at a local hotel, in which he was a part owner, so that Jerry might continue to shower alone with young boys.

Jerry could be the serial pedophile most people believe him to be and there's still no justification for turning this into a Penn State matter. Those men did nothing wrong.

I believe it would have been more logical to have written this narrative with The Second Mile as the focal point. That's where all the evidence leads. However, the OAG focused on a report of anal rape, which it knew to be untrue, in order to manipulate the press and the public into thinking PSU is the bad guy here.

If you believe Jerry is guilty, the narrative should be that Joe's report up the chain of command led to his arrest. Joe died a hero!

Powerful people went to great lengths to craft a false narrative. We know who and what was harmed. It's time somebody started looking at who and what benefited.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Agree. Yet nobody treated it as something that needed to be immediately (or even subsequently) reported to the police, including the ear witness, his father and a doctor, all of whom could have reported it in basically real time.

True. It is definitely an odd situation all around.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Mike could have just viewed it as a means to get face time with Paterno. "Hey dad, saw something weird tonight at Lasch... you think I could get some face time with Paterno out of this?" This is almost a certainty if he waited a few weeks to report it.

That’s not what anybody has said though. He was advised to talk to Joe.

 

[francofan]

Mike could have just viewed it as a means to get face time with Paterno. "Hey dad, saw something weird tonight at Lasch... you think I could get some face time with Paterno out of this?" This is almost a certainty if he waited a few weeks to report it.

Ziegler's premise is that Mike wanted face time with Joe to discuss the opening of the wide receiver coaching job that he was interested in. I believe that Kenny Jackson announced his resignation as WR coach around Feb. 8. The Feb. 10 Saturday morning vist by Mike to Joe's house dovetails with that development. The only problem is that means that it had been 6 weeks since Mike saw Sandusky in a shower with a young man and heard noises that were either sexual or fooling around/horseplay. The length of time would suggest he heard noises of fooling around/horse play especially in light of the actions or inactions of the five people Mike had told contemporaneously of the incident (his Dad, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz).

 

[UncleLar]

That’s the whole point dummy. Nobody knows exactly what was said in real time. Anyone can speculate as to how exactly those conversations went and not be at odds with McQueary’s vague testimony. You’re the one that equated it to Paterno’s exact words being misquoted. And by the way McQueary never used the words “mental well being”. Those are your words. Good grief.

Forget about what was or was not said ten years prior. This isn't a discussion about 2001. It's about the correctly quoting McQueary's testimony. People regularly come on this, and other public forums and claim that McQueary testified that he was okay with the way that Curley and Schultz handled the situation. He did no such thing. To claim that he did is twisting his words.

But you are correct in that I said "mental well being". The actual words were "general well being" which is more inclusive and includes both mental and physical well being. But what it does not include is his opinion on whether he approved and was satisfied with Curley and Schultz's actions, so people should quit trying to make the claim that it does.