Not crazy. I wouldn't let some old dude blow me even if they were really nice clothes, brand new Titleist woods/irons, and a brand new computer.
Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Not crazy. I wouldn't let some old dude blow me even if they were really nice clothes, brand new Titleist woods/irons, and a brand new computer.
I would argue that they were trying to protect PSU. Not by concealing anything, but by taking steps to prevent the conditions in the future that might leave them "vulnerable". IOW, Sandusky alone with a boy in the shower.
Spanier wrote "The only downside for us is if our message is not heard and acted upon and we then become vulnerable for not having reported this...."
As the "only" perceived downside was dependent upon a subsequent incident, Spanier is plainly saying that he's not the least bit concerned that CSA had occurred or had been reported. That's not what they thought they were dealing with. This was entirely about prevention. And yes, to protect PSU. That was their jobs!
They saw this incident as a repeat of what happened in 1998. And they also saw how "vulnerable" PSU was, should Sandusky be accused of any wrong doing while alone with a TSM kid in the PSU facilities. It would make no difference whether an accusation was true. PSU had deep pockets and would be "vulnerable" in civil court.
Not only is it ludicrous to think these men would protect a suspected child sexual predator, it's beyond implausible that they would be oblivious to the very real, very present risk that Sandusky's guest might go to the authorities all by himself. What could MM have told them for this possibility to not even be on anyone's radar?
Again, without the "anal intercourse" assertion, how does this play out? Seriously! We know the anal rape never occurred and was never reported. The boy is on record in several places defending Sandusky and claiming he was not abused that night or ever. The testimonies of Tim and Gary are consistent with the notes and emails. JR and Bruce Heim certainly did nothing to suggest they were concerned that there might be a victim. Who made this mole hill into a mountain?
Paterno clearly did nothing wrong. C/S/S's charges were baseless. How has the university failed to defend these good men and the university's reputation?
Again, who benefited from this? I started a list earlier. I'll add Matt Sandusky to it. However, I seriously doubt he's the evil mastermind. What's the real story? For Gladwell to be right, and I believe he is, what needed to happen? Who needed to do what, and why?
Last edited:
I know that many answers would be provided if we could have recorded the frequent and lengthy cell phone conversations between Corbett and Surma.
Corbett couldn't contain AF's Mother any longer.....she would have gone to press or FBI....she saw mula, as reported by her neighbor, I think that was a family tradition. So Corbett had his TSM buddies he needed to shield and he was somewhat culpable for lack of oversight as AG. The straw that stirred the narrative fell conveniently in his lap (Howard Stern) and he could now kill 2 birds with one stone (nail Spanier). I don't think he had JVP in his plans.....that was Surma's quid pro quo. Corbett's political career, IMO, would have survived if he hadn't brought Joe into this.
Dranov is right there with Moe and Larry.
As in -
Dr. Dranov recalled what McQueary had said to him that night. “He had gone into the Penn State football locker room. When he came in, he described to me what he heard as sexual sounds,” Dranov said. “I asked, ‘Mike what do you mean?'”
“He couldn’t go on. He just seemed to get more upset,” Dranov said. “He turned and looked toward the shower and made eye contact with a young boy.”
Dranov testified that he asked McQueary if the boy seemed startled or frightened. McQueary said no.
“An arm reached out and pulled the boy back,” Dranov said McQueary told him. “I can’t remember what he said next, but he looked into the shower, and a man came out. It was Jerry Sandusky.”
“It was clear in Mike’s mind that this was an incident that had to be reported. He knew that he had to report it. I encouraged him to report it to his supervisor that was Joe Paterno,” Dranov said.
“Did he describe any particular sex act?” Karl Rominger asked Dranov.
“No he did not.”
“Did he give me any kind of graphic description?” Rominger continued.
“No. His voice was trembling His hands were trembling, he was visibly shaken,” Dranov said.
“I kept asking him ‘What did you see?’ and he kept going back to the sounds. He would get upset when I asked him specifically what he had seen,” Dranov concluded.
Following Dranov’s testimony, a former Second Mile employee testified that McQueary was registered to attend Second Mile golf tournaments in the fall of 2001 and 2003, which would contradict McQueary’s testimony that he stopped participating in events with Sandusky after the 2001 incident.
Harrisburg Patriot News reporter Sara Ganim was called to testify next, but her lawyer requested a short recess before she took the stand
I know I wouldn't plead guilty if I was innocent. Obviously Curley believed the preponderance of evidence indicated the former. And there is nothing you understand more than I.
Perhaps you should have read the post to which I replied before you started one of your childlike rants.
Last edited:
If that is your position, then Obviously there is a lot more he understands than you!
That is only obvious to morons who capitalize words in the middle of sentence.
Why don't you slow it down for us and explain what really happened. You sure seem to think you have all the answers.
Last edited:
Why do you guys waste your time with him? He couldn't connect two dots with a ruler.
Even though you’ve apparently recovered from your most recent alcoholic coma, you should wait until the effects of the hangover have fully dissipated before you start posting again in the future! #yourwelcome!
I’m really not into name calling, especially when typing on a phone.
But “obviously” you don’t read this board enough because if you did, my little inside joke would be OBVIOUS.
So now it becomes more Obvious that you are a single-issue voter here and are oBLivIOus to the obviousNESS of the points, with proper context, others are trying to make.
In other words, it’s obvious that you have no desire to learn from experts, like me, and truly try to make the world a better place.
Take it easy on him man, he’s a little “slow”.
You have no idea what Curley believed but I doubt that was it.
You say you wouldn't plead guilty if you were innocent, but I call BS. If you were older, in poor health and wanted to avoid jail time, there is 100% chance you would plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Either that or you are a moron. (checks notes)....hmm, OK maybe you wouldn't accept a plea.
Nice to see you are getting paid by the post again.
And his pension would have been at risk.
ost have him on ignore
Only an idiot would not understand this. If pensions are anything like NYS, Tim probably had the option of giving his wife a survivor option. So he wouldn't have just been gambling with his pension, but risking his wife's future security as well. No one in their right mind would do this, especially over a misdemeanor.
So yes, he took the plea....endangering the welfare of a child......a statue that we all know does not apply to him AND regarding a child that NO ONE in the Commonwealth OAG who prosecuted him can or will identify. This child is known only to God. LOL
All those who think this is justice, please find a similar conviction anywhere in the United States.
All those are good points and I don’t disagree with them. But when you take a plea you are agreeing to carry that label with you for the rest of your life.
The label of being convicted of a misdemeanor?
And anyone who knows me (or knows the case) knows it's BS?
It's not like he is applying for jobs.
I'd be fine with that.
C'mon, CPL. I know you're capable of understanding the complexities of this.
Right. You’d be fine with that, he is probably fine with that. I may be fine with that though possibly not. Regardless, he chose to be known as one who is guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child.
I’m not taking about the complexities of it though. I’m just pointing out the simple fact that he is guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child. Whether he or you or I or anybody else on this board believes it is so, he is officially guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child. I mean, it’s not even deniable.
From what I have read of the law, I don’t think he is guilty of that. But he agreed to it. Once he agreed to it, that gets attached to him.
Yes, because the only real consideration going into that decision was flipping a fair coin.
Sorta like he chose tails, it came up heads. Too bad. Now off to do the jail time that he was told would not be in play. Geez.
Less thinking involved than taking the ball or kicking after winning the flip before a football game.
Yes, because the only real consideration going into that decision was flipping a fair coin.
Sorta like he chose tails, it came up heads. Too bad. Now off to do the jail time that he was told would not be in play. Geez.
Less thinking involved than taking the ball or kicking after winning the flip before a football game.
Again, I understand why he did it. But you don’t get to take the plea, then walk away from it without it being attached to you.
You are conflating pleading guilty with actually being guilty.
If my spouse was arrested on a bogus DUI charge (which I know was bogus because I was with her all night and know she wasn't drinking), but because of corruption in the legal system decides to plead down to reckless driving to avoid jail time, she knows the truth, I know the truth, and our friends will know the truth. She isn't guilty of reckless driving even though she plead guilty to it.
Has someone taking part in this discussion suggested that it is not attached to him? The discussion seems to be centered more on why the choice was not much of a true choice for him, not that he doesn't now have that unfair label attached to him. Still, the larger point is that anyone who understands the case and/or knows Tim does not attach it to him outside of it being an enormous miscarriage of "justice".
As for you understanding his reasons, you repeatedly breaking it down into a binary choice indicates that perhaps you are just more interested in driving home a moot point than actually carrying a worthwhile discussion. Imo, of course.
You’re doubling down on a bad argument again CPL. I didn’t think you used to be like that?
Either someone did something or they didn’t. A plea bargain is nothing but a negotiation based on risk management and almost by definition has little to do with the actual truth. Those that understand the case and know Tim Curley get that. I doubt that he cares about anyone else at this point.
Ugh.
Many have commented that you're better than what your acting like on this specific topic/item. The entire situation was not fair and corrupt from the get-go. The law did not even apply to him yet the corrupt state would not toss it out. Why is that? [rhetorical]
His choices were:
1. Take a plea and a promise of no jail time; a minor slap on the wrist, etc
2. Test his fate with a jury
Spanier opted for door#2 despite the fact that the jury survey indicated that the majority of prospective jurors believe someone should pay for this alleged crime. Guess what? Despite the state not proving their case at all, despite the fact that Jack Raykovitz admitted he knew of the incident (and hence Reporting was performed), despite the fact that the law did not even apply to Spanier, he was still found guilty of a misdemeanor.
So, When you speak of Graham Spanier, to you refer to him as the man who was convited of a misdeamnor for FTR only for it to be tossed on a 'technicality'?
Your insistence and berating that Tim Curley chose this and will be forever be blemished as a human being is odd.
You may ask...why doesn't Curley fight seek this to be overturned as did Spanier? I obviously do not know, but give his life situation, age, the fact that he'd be debating this with the same crooks who screwed him over in the first place, it just is not worth it.
No it doesn't. As I posted earlier in the thread, under cross examination, that very same employee cleared up what that list meant. He said that just because you were on the list doesn't mean that you played in the tournament, it was a list of people who were invited. He then added that if McQueary had played in the tournament, he would have remembered him being there. Then he stated that he doesn't remember McQueary playing, so the conclusion to draw is that, despite being on the list, McQueary didn't play.
McQueary playing in the Second Mile golf tournament is another example of a false narrative that refuses to go away.
You are fine with pushing the stigma of failure to protect to Curley for the rest of his life even tho he reported up to TSM but Mike’s Dad, Dr. D and Raykovitz should receive no such attachment. Seems fair. Lol. These three did nothing.
Sorry, I mangled it somehow......I understand and respect your point of view. I disagree. My position is that in life, one size does not fit all.
Let's use the Commonweath approach....do we have proof that MM did not play? Some guy saying he would have remembered doesn't cut it. How about flag football....? Didn't we have some young man talk about a hardy greeting between the two at a FB camp? All we need is rumor and innuendo. OAG rules, I didn't make them.....just playing by them. Just because Sandusky was in the shower with a kid, doesn't mean he molested him either. LOL
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
There seems to be some setting on my account preventing me from reading whatever you were responding to.
Hmph. Weird.
Just curious, what are you feelings on O.J. Simpson?
No, he chose to stop being harassed by malicious prosecutors. Being guilty of a misdemeanor is a by product.
The only one attaching it to him is you, and it makes you seem like you have an agenda. As I said in an earlier example, I plead guilty a traffic violation that I did not commit. Nobody refers to me as one who is guilty of failing to follow a traffic control device. Do you really think others see Curley and think, there is that guy who endangered the welfare of child. Yes, just one child who is known only to god, and wasn't under his care. He endangered that child so bad, that even though it happened before the law applied to Curley, he decided to plead guilty... even though the victim went on record saying no abuse occurred in the shower.
No, he chose to stop being harassed by malicious prosecutors. Being guilty of a misdemeanor is a by product.
The only one attaching it to him is you, and it makes you seem like you have an agenda. As I said in an earlier example, I plead guilty a traffic violation that I did not commit. Nobody refers to me as one who is guilty of failing to follow a traffic control device. Do you really think others see Curley and think, there is that guy who endangered the welfare of child. Yes, just one child who is known only to god, and wasn't under his care. He endangered that child so bad, that even though it happened before the law applied to Curley, he decided to plead guilty... even though the victim went on record saying no abuse occurred in the shower.
Similar threads
