Even for you that is a colossal load of crap. The guy who doesn’t like false narratives....unless it’s his false narratives. Your hypocrisy has no bounds.
Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Even for you that is a colossal load of crap. The guy who doesn’t like false narratives....unless it’s his false narratives. Your hypocrisy has no bounds.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
There's a distinct difference here. Your view would be reasonable if I had stated that McQueary TESTIFIED that he wasn't okay with Curley and Schultz actions. But I did not. I stated that I thought it was a reasonable assumption because of the way that the lawyer phrased the clarification. Others suggested that the lawyer phrased it that way to paint McQueary in the most favorable light. As I previously stated, that's a valid view too.
But when you flat out twist McQueary's words to suggest that he stated that he was okay with the administrators" actions, then you are creating a false narrative. That is not what his testimony states.
I'm curious about your thoughts on why McQ chose to not re-address the situation when JVP asked him about how he was holding up. Thanks.
That’s called a distinction without a difference. Textbook. Are we really back to I witnessed a little boy being ass raped in the shower and reported it but nothing was done about it, but yeah I’m super Joe? Use your head.
Curley testified at Spanier's trial that he understood the date to be 2/9/2001. Curley also testified that when he first talked to Sandusky, that Sandusky didn't think he was there on that date. The reason Curley accepted that is because Sandusky said he wanted to check his calendar. Curley testified that Sandusky came back within a day or two after checking his calendar and confirmed he was there.
I suspect, on a Friday evening, he was coming from happy hour somewhere, rather than his apartment.
Yeah the late December bit never made much sense to me...other than in a Frankie Valli song
I call BS on this! He could have made an anonymous report.
And if he didn't respect the men for whom he worked, he should have found work elsewhere.
Honestly, who is more credible here? The men who can be measured by lifetimes of honorable behavior? The men whose testimony mirrors the written evidence from 2001?......
......Or the man who wagered on PSU games while a player? The man who committed adultery with a college coed? The man who sent pictures of his junk to at least one woman using his university issued cell phone? The man whose GJ testimony is contradicted by every person he told of the incident?
Schultz testified at the Spanier trial that he only met with them one time. He also testified he has no recollection of having told them that they were continuing to investigate.
Dranov testified, at both the McQueary civil trial & at the Spanier trial, that Schultz told them that The Second Mile had already been notified and somebody from PSU had talked to Sandusky.
This places their meeting with Schultz sometime after mid-March when Curley talked to Raykovitz.
And if it hasn't been mentioned, Dranov testified at the Spanier trial that 2/9/2001 was the night he went to the McQueary's house. He'd been on the phone with Randy Feathers, who was asking about the date, when he noticed his conference syllabus, which was dated 2/12/2001.
Another explanation for that is Curley assumed Sandusky checked his calendar, when the reality was Sandusky realized the unknown witness must have been referring to when he showered with Allan Myers in late December. Sandusky figured the exact date didn’t matter, all that mattered is the boy was willing to defend him. Curley may have misremembered this detail in the 10 year period that elapsed.
Why would Sandusky need to check his calendar to confirm he was there if the incident happened only a week or two before?
Last edited:
"Dranov testified that he and John McQueary later met with then-Vice President Gary Schultz, one of the two administrators to whom Mike McQueary had reported the shower incident, to work out an affiliation agreement between his medical practice and Penn State. After the meeting, John McQueary asked where the investigation stood."
https://onwardstate.com/2016/10/19/...estify-on-day-3-of-mcqueary-penn-state-trial/
EDIT: What's strange is the affiliation agreement was already announced by Spanier in September of 2000.
http://test.scripts.psu.edu/dept/ur/archives/intercom_2000/Sept14/medicine.html
Last edited:
It was a business meeting. Something about plans for their medical practice moving forward and their relationship with PSU. That's about the gist of it, from John McQueary's testimony. From the PSU side, they might have discussed a past due amount on a lease. That's from a footnote in the Freeh Report, which placed the meeting in mid-May 2001.
True, also seems absurd when you consider Joe Paterno did not like Sandusky. Wouldn’t exactly be career suicide to express concern to him that the university went too soft on Sandusky.
And Joe seemed to have given Mike several opportunities to do just that.
What appears to have happened, based on all other evidence, when Curley “talked it over with Joe” in the event Freeh uses to damn Paterno is that Curley told Joe that McQueary didn’t tell them about anything serious. Joe was a bit skeptical, but figured it wasn’t his job to get involved so he gave Curley his blessing. But Joe felt the need to follow up with McQueary, and when McQueary didn’t object, felt there was no longer a need to worry about the issue.
My theory is Mike simply wanted to “abort the mission” when he didn’t get the WR coach job and may have actually gave Curley and Schultz a softer version than he gave Joe. I know it’s just speculation, but it fits with the fact that Schultz appeared to see the issue as much more severe before talking to McQueary and much less severe afterward.
For what it’s worth, Schultz is convinced the meeting happened in late February. Hopefully Ziegler will actually release his interview soon.
Maybe because he couldn't think straight and there were all kinds of things going through his mind and he didn't know what else to say? Maybe because he was trying to figure out which boy was in the shower with him that night?
From Ziegler's interview with Sandusky:
John: Why did you say it didn't happen the first time? Why was your first reaction to Tim to deny that it happened?
Jerry: Because I didn't know what I did. I was trying to figure out who was in the shower with me or whatever. And then time frames of when this happened. There was all kinds of things going through my mind.
Jerry: Because I didn't know what I did. I was trying to figure out who was in the shower with me or whatever. And then time frames of when this happened. There was all kinds of things going through my mind.
I don’t believe that Ziegler will release his interview with Gary Schultz until Gary is out of legal jeopardy. Per what Gary informed me, I don’t believe that will happen until next summer at the earliest.
For what it's worth, Schultz's theory requires that McQueary met Dranov and his dad on 12/29/2000. This is not consistent with all the evidence, despite Ziegler's claims.
I always double-check the testimony before I post about it here. I always do my own fact-checking when I see something on here that I never heard before or soemthing that makes no sense. I catch a lot of posts that have no basis in fact. Correcting all of them would be a full time job, and I simply don't have that kind of time to try to keep up.
So it was refreshing to me to see all of @UncleLar's posts over the past few days clarifying what's actually on the record vs. various common misconceptions that just get repeated into fact here. The question I have is, should I be surprised he's been getting attacked left and right? Just because he presented facts that didn't agree with people's beliefs?
Shouldn't we want to stick to the facts? All the facts? Even those that don't support our beliefs? Isn't that what we all screamed for from the media, and Freeh, the NCAA, the OAG, and the general public? Isn't that what we still want?
So it was refreshing to me to see all of @UncleLar's posts over the past few days clarifying what's actually on the record vs. various common misconceptions that just get repeated into fact here. The question I have is, should I be surprised he's been getting attacked left and right? Just because he presented facts that didn't agree with people's beliefs?
Shouldn't we want to stick to the facts? All the facts? Even those that don't support our beliefs? Isn't that what we all screamed for from the media, and Freeh, the NCAA, the OAG, and the general public? Isn't that what we still want?
I think we all agree on this point - facts are what matter. I think Lar is getting pushback (and some abuse, for sure) on some of his defense of McQ's actions. He, like the rest of us mere mortals, adds some conjecture in his responses as well. I'm seeing that as what he is being challenged on, not so much the facts he cites. At least I'm not noticing that he is getting challenged on the facts he states and cites, but could be that I am skimming some of the responses when they get too personal.
I admit this is an emotional thing for me, out of decades of immense respect for JVP, and decades of knowing Tim, who I think is as terrific a person as I could hope to know, and getting to know Gary a little bit lately, who I find him to be an outstanding person as well. Because of that, I really appreciate the facts being brought up and reminding us all, because I know I cannot keep it all straight. But I remain 100% certain there was no ill-intent on anyone's part regarding what was reported to them by McQ. And I believe they did not understand what they were possibly dealing with from the report they were given.
Yes that’s what we all want, but this is a message board and you are going to get some speculation and interpretation. And there is nothing wrong with that. UncleLar had plenty of inference and speculation in his own posts. It was his hypocrisy and poorly argued defense of McQueary that got him attacked.
The testimony was far from clear and there’s going to be attempts to connect dots and make inferences. The posts he and apparently you are critical of were just that. Changing actual testimony is one thing, but unless I missed it I didn’t see anyone say they were repeating actual testimony. And UL did the same thing several times, changing words and adding his own spin on what transpired.
I appreciate all the work you have done Jimmy, but don’t take yourself too seriously. There are plenty of wide gaps in the facts available in this case and there always will be. People are going to attempt to connect dots and fill those gaps. Again there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that on a forum like this in my view.
I question everything that's inconsistent with Schultz's notes and the email exchange between Curley, Schultz and Spanier. That's the only untainted evidence we have.
There's an email exchange between Mike and Jonelle Eshbach confirming that the OAG lied in the GJ report about Mike's testimony. And it also confirms that she told Mike he could not go public with the truth.
Where would we be right now if Mike had gone public with the truth? I hope the money was worth it!
I'm not even going to pretend that I've followed this as closely as someone like Jimmy. But Mixolydian, you said earlier what my point has been for nearly 8 years. McQueary is either a coward or a liar. He either saw a child being violently sexually assaulted and failed to help that child, which would make him a tremendous coward, or he saw something that made him uncomfortable and that's what he told people in 2001, only to tell a very different story in 2010, which would make him a liar. That's it for me. And Uncle Lar's seeming celebration of someone who can best be characterized as a liar or a coward and who IMHO is second only to Sandusky in the damage he has inflicted on several individuals and an entire university community, all while being enriched for that lying and cowardice, well it was all too much for me.
Mike had issue with the GJ report because he was taking a lot of heat. But I think it was pretty consistent with that he had testified and said in other police statements.
What about the phrase "Anal Rape"?
I absolutely want facts. I also want Joe Paterno's dying wish for the truth of what has happened in this entire fiasco to be evident.
@JmmyW - I appreciate your encyclopedia of knowledge that you bring relative to court proceedings and what people have said and not said related to what has happened in this saga.
I don't agree with a lot of your opinions and am interested in your thoughts on a number of what I believe are key issues in this story. Of course, you are free to ignore my request for your thoughts if you wish as you have often done previously.
1. Do you believe that Sandusky received a fair trial?
2. Do you think is was acceptable behavior to have Frank Fina ask Cymthia Baldwin to testify against her own clients?
3. Do you think it was acceptable for Jonelle Eshbach/Frank Fina to twist Mike McQueary's words and include in the grand jury presentment that he had witnessed an anal rape, a false assertion?
4. Do you believe it was acceptable for Leiter and Rossman to have asked leading questions of v4 and to tell him what other accusers had testified to?
5. Do you believe that AM is v2? If not, do you have any idea who it might be?
Last edited:
Sticking to the facts is a good policy.
I consider these things as fact:
1. Dranov, a mandated reporter, testified that Mike reported nothing that would concern him enough to file a report that he would have been required by law to do.
2. Mike lawyered up before he would speak to investigators. Are we going to say its not a fact that he had sent a photo of his penis to a young lady other than his wife?
3. If Mike had indeed witnessed something troubling (what ever the date) he testified that he returned to his office and called his father. The phone records would have been accessible to investigators and they could have easily nailed the date. Its likely, as with the victim, this didn't fit their narrative.
4. Its a fact that Mike objected to the GJP. Its not a fact to speculate why. In the email, he questions its accuracy.
This is opinion:
This is not a debate about Sandusky's guilt. To me it is about what Mike didn't see and later said he did.
Please refer to the drawings of the Lasch locker room. LOL
I'll take JVP, Curley and Schultz's word over a guy who IMO, has serious and compelling character flaws. To say nothing about the fact that had he not been such a model witness.....who is to say what the OAG might have done to Dad?
I consider these things as fact:
1. Dranov, a mandated reporter, testified that Mike reported nothing that would concern him enough to file a report that he would have been required by law to do.
2. Mike lawyered up before he would speak to investigators. Are we going to say its not a fact that he had sent a photo of his penis to a young lady other than his wife?
3. If Mike had indeed witnessed something troubling (what ever the date) he testified that he returned to his office and called his father. The phone records would have been accessible to investigators and they could have easily nailed the date. Its likely, as with the victim, this didn't fit their narrative.
4. Its a fact that Mike objected to the GJP. Its not a fact to speculate why. In the email, he questions its accuracy.
This is opinion:
This is not a debate about Sandusky's guilt. To me it is about what Mike didn't see and later said he did.
Please refer to the drawings of the Lasch locker room. LOL
I'll take JVP, Curley and Schultz's word over a guy who IMO, has serious and compelling character flaws. To say nothing about the fact that had he not been such a model witness.....who is to say what the OAG might have done to Dad?
he saw something that made him uncomfortable and that's what he told people in 2001, only to tell a very different story in 2010, which would make him a liar.
I'm thinking it is not so much whether or not he changed his story, but that he allowed the OAG narrative to go unchallenged. He praised JVP when questioned, yet sat by idly while the narrative about Joe's role in this went way off base. Joe defended him early on when others were not, yet he chose to stay silent for whatever reasons (and we have speculated about those reasons here) to the detriment of Joe and his legacy. Outside of the PSU community, McQ is hailed as a good guy in this saga. His public defense of Joe would have carried some weight. Inside, McQ was apparently viewed with wariness - e.g. not above targeting players he didn't like - and as a "me first and only" guy, from what I understand, that went back way earlier than 2011. (Although in contrast, I also heard that Bradley and he were close, and that Scrap would have taken McQ with him had he landed a head coaching job).
I cannot get past that McQe had ample opportunities, even now, to say some things on the record outside of his testimony, which of course is calculated and targeted.
I actually defend his suit vs. PSU because I think PSU (Fester) did try to screw him when they let him go. If Fester had had the business savvy to treat him like the other asst. coaches and their similar contracts, he would not have had much of a case, imo. But, of course, PSU shot itself in the foot again in the interest of who-knows-what. Lack of foresight, just as in Nov. 2011.
The lack of servant leadership at PSU post-2011 is a blight on the PSU name, imo.
Similar threads
