That's not what he told anyone at the time.
Allan Meyer told Sandusky's investigator that Mike lied. He said he was not sexually abused that night or ever.
Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Allan Meyer told Sandusky's investigator that Mike lied. He said he was not sexually abused that night or ever.
Do I really have to spoon feed you this answer? Isn't anyone and everyone a potential liar?
I'm sure the most legendary head coach in the history of CFB routinely came up to Mike and asked about his "general well-being". So why on earth would Mike make a connection that it had anything to do with the conversation Mike recently had with Joe at Joe's house. That's crazy talk!
The simple fact that he remembers Joe asking about his "general well-being" ten years prior is very telling. How many times in your life have you been asked about your general well being? Do you remember each and every one?
Thank you for answering my question, Lar.
Imo, to not think about his actions beyond the initial report he made, limits any defense of him wrt his taking the initial actions. It's a continuum that is all tied together so closely, I think, when considering the entire saga.
As Tim said at his trial, he wished he had asked more questions. That's no doubt what every person wishes who even remotely touched this case. In the case of C/S/S, certainly an understandable and human reaction, but not anywhere criminal in any sense of the word, given what they did do, imo.
And that includes McQ, I'm sure. He must have tossed and turned countless nights over this. Yet as the only eyewitness, did not follow up all the way til the fit hit the shan in 2011.
Jimmy's answered those above questions, wrt to facts, several times.Are you hoping to get different answers?
I applaud your attention to detail. I occasionally rely on memory (dangerous I know) when quoting something.
However, merely staying faithful to the testimony is not the be all end all to understanding what happened here. Please see my post a few pages back about how jurors should be evaluating testimony. Not all testimony is created equal.
McQ said that consistently under oath, though, right? Yet many of us believe, including C/S/S, that he did NOT state that back in 2001. He mildly protested the misleading Grand Jury presentation in that regard in a letter to the OAG, but upheld it under oath. That's where many of us find a huge inconsistency that is nearly impossible to reconcile from my pov.
If the rumors about McQ are true wrt gambling and cell phone pics, that may explain some things, but certainly does not excuse anything. By the time he was under oath for the JS trial and his own suit, he had seen what the damage was to his coach, to his school, and to some extent, to his hometown.
At some point emotional intelligence comes in to play and says 'enough. Think beyond yourself'. No? Maybe not.
Mike McQueary wasn’t certain about anything. His testimony just isn’t credible imho.
John Snedden was not actively involved in the case. He wrote an outside evaluation, like Freeh. I’m talking about people actively involved.
Who else?
Here are the quotes from McQueary at trial:
""I did not see insertion or hear screaming or yelling" (not consistent with sodomy)
He did say under oath that he believes Jerry was molesting him, but he did not say that he believed anal rape was occurring (in fact his testimony contradicts that notion).
Which means that the GJP contained falsehoods, which Mike complained about, which the OAG then told him to shut up about.
Boy, you have a much higher opinion of McQueary than I do. Someone who would let the reputation of a man he idolized be destroyed, all the while being in a position to defend him, AND SAY NOTHING, he doesn't strike me as someone who had a lot of sleepless nights questioning his actions. In fact, his failure to defend Joe just continued his cowardice that started in Lasch.
Only 3 people have direct knowledge of the V2 shower incident.
Only one testified.
In the context of the trial, very significant.
Well, if he is a sociopath, perhaps you're right. And I don't now him personally, but I guess I would not be surprised if he was, based on what we have heard. And then you're right.... not so many sleepless nights after all. All that said, I do not have a very high opinion of him, but I am trying (struggling?) to be as objective as I can be.
As for the suit, I blame PSU/Fester, not McQ. I do not blame McQ for filing, and I'm not disappointed that he won. Again trying to be objective, I thought he had a good case, and it turned out to be so. Plus, it makes Fester look like even more of a clown than what he already had 'merited', so that is a petty little benefit for me that I am not proud of. More or less.
In the context of the trial, Sandusky was acquitted of the most serious charges from the V2 incident. But I guess that doesn't fit your narrative so let's just ignore that, I guess?
Snedden was actively involved in the case against Spanier. He did a federal investigation into whether Graham Spanier should be trusted with the nation's highest secrets and concluded that he should. He is a former NCIS Special Agent of the Year. In his 110 page report, he catalogued the evidence that led him to conclude that McQueary wasn't credible.
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/04/federal-agent-no-sex-scandal-at-penn.html
Tim Curley.
The testimonies of C/S/S are consistent with the notes and emails from that time.
Tim Curley plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of failing to protect children. Do you consider that credible?
Here's what Tim and Gary were facing when they took the plea deal. But yes, they were and are credible with what they maintained for years about what they were told by McQ.
So if you are taking them as credible then you have to take them at their word that they failed to protect the welfare of children, don’t you?
Yes, I do.
Polling showed the jury pool was hopelessly polluted. He (and Gary) knew they couldn't win (even thought they are innocent) so they cut a deal with the OAG to avoid jail time which then OAG then reneged on because they wouldn't lie on the stand to support the OAG narrative.
So yeah...
In the big picture, somebody at PSU was going to be sacrificed to save the narrative.
Tim was sent to prison because he would not flip on Spanier. Why didn't he? And if Tim gave Spanier poor information, why didn't Spanier flip on him?
Tim suffers with lung cancer and had he been convicted of a felony, he would have lost his pension. What would you have done?
That is a rather feeble strawman argument, CPL, and just detracts from a good conversation.
As you already know, that's not the way the plea game works, especially after years of maintaining one's innocence. The charges were not credible to begin with.
And regarding what they maintain McQ said to them in 2001, yes, they are as credible as can be.
As I have said many times, if they can figure out a way to put very good, very honorable men such as Curley and Schultz in jail, they can figure out a way to put you and me in jail.
No, I do not. Falsely accused people cut deals with the prosecution to avoid jail all the time.
It’s not a question of what I would have done. It’s a question of credibility and cherry picking. If we are saying somebody is credible than we take them at their word, not only when it fits what we want to believe. Curley’s word is that he failed to protect the welfare of children.
Do I think Curley and Schultz were guilty of that? I don’t think so, but I do not know all the nuances of the law. But if we are going to take them at their word in other things then we have to take them at their word that they failed to protect the welfare of children.
So in the instance of pleading guilty in a court of law, you do not find them to be credible?
Not "children"....."child"!
One count of failing to protect the welfare of a child who, in his own words, was not then or ever in danger.
To add perspective, Tim and the others executed steps to prevent Sandusky from showering alone with young boys going forward. When informed of the same incident, Jack Raykovitz took steps to ensure that Jerry could continue showering alone with young boys.
Tim was initially charged with five felonies. Raykovitz has yet to be charged with any wrong doing at all. What does that say about how this thing went down?
Last edited:
Strawman arguments are unproductive and a waste of time, imo.
I'd prefer to see posters state their case and their reasons why they disagree with another person, rather than try to put words into another's mouth when it is clear that is not what the other person means.
Classic strawman = classic poor approach to a discussion. But then, maybe you are saying you want a low-quality discussion?
You don’t have to convince me that the Second Mile folks skated away pretty easily from this.
He was an objective investigator who was paid to find out what happened unlike Freeh who was paid to offer an opinion that was consistent with his client's (old guard BOT and former Governor Corbett) wishes.
Snedden was ready to be a witness at Spanier's trial, but Spanier's defense decided not to call him because they thought the State had not made their case. In hindsight, Spanier regreted not calling him to the stand.
This speaks to the "credibility" of the system and the process. You question Tim's credibility without acknowledging how corrupt Corbett and the OAG have been from day one.
How can anyone be guilty of endangering a child that has never been identified?
I don't understand the question.
Are you implying that people accused of crimes never plead guilty to lesser crimes (even though they are innocent) because they do not want to "roll the dice" with a jury and risk more severe penalties?
Or are you implying that by using this very common tactic that they lose credibility?
Please clarify.
Similar threads
