ADVERTISEMENT

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

He has stated that:

Sandusky’ autobiography “Touched” was specifically written as a way to confess his crimes

Dottie Sandusky worked out some sort of agreement with her husband where so agreed to ignore her husband raping boys in exchange for providing her children.

I’m sure there are several others

Do you recall where he said that?
 
Frederick Crews, Professor Emeritus of English at Cal-Berkely, writes an excellent article on Malcolm Gladwell's chapter on the Penn State fiasco and desribes how Galdwell in effect proves that Sandusky is innocent. Because the topic is so toxic, he could not get anybody to publish the article so he self-published. He takes Gladwell to task for stating that he has no idea if Sandusky is guilty as charged. Crews published an epic review of Mark Pendergrast's well reserached "The Most Hated Man in America" in Skeptic magazine and follows it up with another well researched piece on what happened and what didn't happen in the Penn State/Sandusky saga.


John Horgan refers to Frederick Crews as a literary scholar and calls his essay fascinating where Crews says that Gladwell treated Jerry Sandusky unfairly in "Talking to Strangers."

 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
Frederick Crews, Professor Emeritus of English at Cal-Berkely, writes an excellent article on Malcolm Gladwell's chapter on the Penn State fiasco and desribes how Galdwell in effect proves that Sandusky is innocent. Because the topic is so toxic, he could not get anybody to publish the article so he self-published. He takes Gladwell to task for stating that he has no idea if Sandusky is guilty as charged. Crews published an epic review of Mark Pendergrast's well reserached "The Most Hated Man in America" in Skeptic magazine and follows it up with another well researched piece on what happened and what didn't happen in the Penn State/Sandusky saga.


Very interesting article, I believe by Jerry Coyne titled "The case of Malcolm Gladwell vs. Jerry Sandusky" that discusses Frederick Crew's essay criticizing Gladwell not going far enough in exonerating Sandusky in his book "Talking to Strangers." Coyne strongly recommend's reading Crews's essay and mentions the following exculpatory factors for Sandusky that Crews identifies.
-----------

Read Crews’s article to see how Gladwell, despite having hit on exculpatory factors for Sandusky, tiptoes around the issue. Here are some of the concerns raised by Crews and others:

1.) “The boy in the shower”, the linchpin of the case against Sandusky, swore in a written statement to Sandusky’s attorney that no sexual contact had occurred. After he hired a lawyer, the boy (now older) recanted. This may be because he wanted a slice of the generous settlement offered by Penn State to Sandusky’s victims—a settlement that turned out to be about $140 million, making any claimed victim a multimillionaire.

2.) None of the eight boys who eventually said they were molested by Sandusky ever told anyone about his misconduct before they spoke to police, and many continued to associate with him in the interim.

3.) Some of the accusations, like Sandusky locking a boy in the basement for three days and repeatedly raping him, with Sandusky’s wife, one floor above and oblivious to the screams, strain credulity.

4.) Some or all of the boys (it’s not clear from the piece) were subject to “recovered memory therapy”, and didn’t remember the molestations until therapists “helped” them remember the details.

The above is only a sample of other exculpatory data offered by Crews.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...jerry-sandusky/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
It was a gut-wrenching decision for each of them to make. They each felt their backs were to the wall, and the way out via being found not guilty was an excessively narrow path. While I would guess there are aspects of their legal ordeal that they might have done differently in hindsight, imo, once they got to the point they did, they had no other choice except to take that plea. I can't see how or why they would change that decision given the same circumstances. Also keep in mind they did not expect to receive any jail time as part of that plea - the judge took them by surprise with that.

These are two men who never would think of doing anything besides what they thought was the right thing to do in any aspect of their lives. They are still that way. They took the information they were given at the time and made their best choices. As Curley said, he wishes he had asked more questions. But really, considering JS to be a pedophile at that time with the information they had was just not something they considered. I'm not certain that more questions would have yielded a different conclusion regarding what happened in the locker room. If they had different info, their actions would have been different, I am certain.

One of their biggest mistakes was not having McQueary document exactly what happened in the shower.
 
One of their biggest mistakes was not having McQueary document exactly what happened in the shower.

I don’t believe that McQueary knew exactly what happened in the shower. It is my understanding that Curley, Schultz, and Dr. Dranov all asked Mike in 2001 what he saw in the shower and Mike was unable to say what he witnessed and did not say he witnessed a sexual assault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78
I don’t believe that McQueary knew exactly what happened in the shower. It is my understanding that Curley, Schultz, and Dr. Dranov all asked Mike in 2001 what he saw in the shower and Mike was unable to say what he witnessed and did not say he witnessed a sexual assault.

That would be why a competent manager would take notes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan
I don’t believe that McQueary knew exactly what happened in the shower. It is my understanding that Curley, Schultz, and Dr. Dranov all asked Mike in 2001 what he saw in the shower and Mike was unable to say what he witnessed and did not say he witnessed a sexual assault.
What?? Seriously....
In an email sent that same day, McQueary complained to Eshbach about "being misrepresented" in the media. And then McQueary tried to straighten out a couple of misconceptions, writing that he never went to Coach Joe Paterno's house with his father, and that he had never seen Sandusky with a child at a Penn State football practice.

"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."

That email exchange, divulged in a couple of posts by Penn State blogger Ray Blehar, have people in Penn State Nation talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Naturally, the A.G.'s office has nothing to say about it, as an office spokesperson declined comment today.

reported on by Blehar was not turned over by the prosecution to defense lawyers during the Sandusky trial and the trial of former Penn State president Graham Spanier.

While we're on the subject of prosecutorial misconduct, at the Spanier trial, it was McQueary who testified that during the bye week of the 2011 Penn State football season, he got a call on his cell phone from the attorney general's office, tipping him off that "We're going to arrest folks and we are going to leak it out."

The fact that Mike McQueary didn't see a naked Jerry Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy isn't the only erroneous assumption that came out of that shoddy 2011 grand jury report, Blehar wrote.

"The Sandusky grand jury presentment of Nov. 4, 2011 provided a misleading account of what eyewitness Michael McQueary reported to Joe Paterno about the 2001 incident," Blehar wrote. "Rather than stating what McQueary reported, it stated he reported 'what he had seen' which led the media and the public to erroneously conclude the specific details were reported to Paterno."

Keep in mind what the grand jury report said McQueary had seen -- a naked Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy -- never actually happened, according to McQueary.

The grand jury report said:

"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen . . . The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."

Blehar cited the words of Joe Paterno, who issued a statement on Nov. 6, 2011, saying that McQueary had "at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report."

McQueary agreed.

On Dec. 6, 2011, McQueary was asked under oath whether he had ever used the term "anal sodomy" in talking to Paterno.

"I've never used that term," McQueary said. "I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, but it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the word anal or rape in this since day one."

So what exactly did you tell Paterno, the prosecutor asked McQueary.

"I gave a brief description of what I saw," McQueary testified. "You don't -- ma'am, you don't go to Coach Paterno or at least in my mind and I don't go to Coach Paterno and go into great detail of sexual acts. I would have never done that with him ever."

Blehar also points out that not even the jury in the Sandusky case believed that Sandusky had anally raped Victim No. 2 in the Penn State showers, because they came to a not guilty verdict on the count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
Thanks. I wonder ir Curley & Shultz regret their plea.

Of course innocent people "regret" having to plea to a misdemeanor to avoid having to go to court to defend themselves against much more severe felony charges of a clearly corrupt and out-of-control prosecuting govt law-enforcement agency (the Pennsylvania AG in this case, the most powerful law-enforcement agency in the State) - that is the nature of "tyranny" and why our forefathers literally put their lives and all their possessions on the line committing to one another to fight to the death if necessary, so they - nor future generations of Americans - would have to live under this horrendous and immoral condition.

It amazes me that people can sit here and blithely ask such ridiculous questions rather than thank their lucky stars they have not been targeted by Pennsylvania's corrupt and broken political system (which includes both the Pennsylvania AG and Court System).... rather than be appauled at the tyrannous highly-threatening and corrupt tactics used to leverage these pleas from clearly innocent parties. It is beyond provable that the AG intentionally made false statements (i.e., lied, prevaricated, etc...) in the "Presentment Statement of Facts" (making it more accurately a "Presentment Statement of Lies"). The prosecution released this information to the public (early it turns out against the law) which completely poisoned the Jury Pool across the entire State as theses INTENTIONAL AND TYRANOUS FALSEHOODS were established in public consciousness prior to any defendants opportunity for a fair trial (and the Pennsylvania AG absolutely coordinated a National Press Conference for this purpose including having every major national broadcaster at their PC which was nothing more than the AG raising a "lynch mob" for their witchhunt using their completely bullshit, corrupt and tyrannous "Presentment Statement of Lies" and the indictments predicated upon it.).
 
Pinkhippo PeanutButter said:
That would be why a competent manager would take notes.

Which manager are you talking about... Raykovitz? Because the admins at PSU were not managers, they were executives... who are way busier, with way more responsibility than a lowly manager. When a guy tells them a story that seems like nothing, especially since what he saw didn't warrant a call to the police by himself or Dranov, and you pass that info outside the university to a properly trained manager with responsibility for the teen and Sandusky... I'm not surprised that they didn't take the time to document "nothing".
 
Actually, I was typing that response before your response popped up. I don’t want you think my response was an attempt to avoid you. I haven’t really shied away from anything here.
I am not assuming a kangaroo court because I am not assigning some questionable things in a courtroom to be a complete joke of the judicial process.
I’m out.

I'm going to assume your answers based on what I believe to be common sense, you can correct me if I am wrong.
  • If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit, and walked into a kangaroo court and were instantly declared guilty, would you be satisfied? Would you say "aww shucks, I didn't commit the crime, but at least I had my day in court"? - Assumed answer: You would not be satisfied, you would not feel like you "had your day in court", even though you literally spent your day in court.
  • You are 100% literal on this one? They (some random person) set foot in a court, had some form of trial with an outcome? So you have no assumption that the person (not Sandusky) had a fair trial? - Assumed answer: The person had a fair trial, and not that they literally just set foot in a courtroom.
 
IMO McQueary was concerned by what he experienced but he couldn't be sure exactly what it was. He felt obligated to tell someone but he didn't want to accuse Sandusky falsely. That's why he didn't tell his dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, or Shultz specifically about sexual assault.

Years later the authorities pressured him during questioning and he didn't want to be accused of not doing enough to stop Sandusky. That's when he started to embellish his story and hang the PSU administrators out to dry.[/QUOTE



No Dranov? He is key.

Most people following the events at Penn State already know that Dr. Dranov stated publicly and in his grand jury testimony, that Mike McQueary gave him a totally different account of what he saw in the showers at Penn State than what he testified to in his grand jury testimony.

According to Dr. Dranov, McQueary told him that as he approached the showers, he "heard the shower running" and saw a young boy poke his head out around the corner of the stall, then saw a male adult arm pull the boy back. He then says he saw Sandusky wrapped in a towel leave the shower with the boy.

Dr. Dranov testified to the grand jury that he asked McQueary three times if he had seen any sexual activity between the boy and Sandusky and all three times McQueary answered "no".

Based on McQueary's answers Dr. Dranov advised him not to go to the police but to report what he saw to Joe Paterno. For the record the Philadelphia Daily News has not run a picture of Dr. Dranov on the front page with the word "Shame". And Jay Bilas at ESPN has not demanded that Dr. Dranov lose his license for "failing to do enough". And I have not heard Stuart Scott on ESPN say of Dr. Dranov, "doesn't he get it"?

While Joe Paterno said from the beginning that he was never told any of the things by McQueary that McQueary told the grand jury, Paterno was not given the opportunity to say exactly what he was told. Penn State canceled Paterno's press conference where he was going to tell what he knew.

Without knowing what McQueary told him but knowing that Paterno had said he wasn't told details or specifics of what McQueary saw, the press simply invented and fabricated what Paterno knew, or just as bad, assumed it, then accused Paterno of not "reporting it" or "doing enough" based on their fabrications, and demanded he be dismissed because of it.

Now with Dr. Dranov's statement, it is a certainty that McQueary never told Paterno anything more in substance than he told Dr. Dranov. If Dr. Dranov advised him to go to Paterno and not the police based on what McQueary told him, it is not possible that in going to Paterno he would have given him a different and more specific account of what he saw.

Dr. Dranov's statement and grand jury testimony makes a few more things clear as well for those too factually and logically challenged to have not seen this from the beginning: Mike McQueary, as Joe Paterno said in his first statement never told him anything about any sexual contact involving Sandusky and a young boy and it's clear from what McQueary told Dr. Dranov, that he was much too uncomfortable to give anyone, Dr. Dranov or Joe Paterno, the whole story about what he had seen. Until he testified to the grand jury.

McQueary's grand jury account is undoubtedly the correct account. It is highly unlikely McQueary would have fabricated what he saw to a grand jury. But now, for those who foolishly swallowed the initial press accounts and believed what they read and heard and not Joe Paterno, there is corroborating evidence that McQueary did not relay exactly what he saw, or thought he saw, whether to Dr. Dranov or Joe Paterno.

What impact it will have on the legal proceedings involving Curley and Schultz remain to be seen. If they were told the same thing by McQueary that he told Paterno and Dranov, it will be hard to prosecute someone for not reporting a crime they were never told about in the first place.

But as it relates to Joe Paterno, and those who unthinkly swallowed the nonsense the media was peddlng there is a lot of soul searching that needs to be done, though its always hard for people to admit they were made fools of. And among those that need to do the soul searching are the Penn State trustees and two U.S. senators from Pennsylvania.

Paterno was the media cash cow in all this. His name and picture were seen more than twice as much as Jerry Sandusky's. He became the story and all as a result of of incompetence, dishonesty and greed and of course the phony facade of protecting children if you dont think it was phony try finding a media outlet demanding the resignation of the Pope over the institutional child abuse committed by priests with the knowledge of the Pope and other higher ups in the church heirarchy.)

As has been said here before, this is bigger than Joe Paterno. The country is poorer because of a news media with no journalistic standards, populated by incompetents on every level and motivated by nothing except profits and self interest. Which makes these journalists, the way they practice journalism, and those who believe what they sell a real threat to democracy and American values. In other countries in other times it was called propaganda. And it was very effective.

In Joe Paterno's case we saw journalists like Sean Gregory at Time magazine, Jason Whitlock, Jemele Hill and others report as fact things they knew for a fact they didn't know, and then pontificate about these things, for the sake of a big story as if they inhabited some delusional moral high ground. This time it was Joe Paterno who suffered the temporary consequences. But unless something is done about the media we will all suffer greater consequences. In fact a case can be made that just about all the problems the country has now and has had for the last 15 years can be traced to a news media too incompetent and too cowardly to do the job the Founders envisioned for the news media when they wrote the first amendment. Because the media will not hold politicans accountable for anything if they think it's not in their self interest.and when it comes to government accountablity, self interest for the media is money and access. And they wont endanger either one. For anything.
 
"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."

Every time I read, see and think about this it makes my blood boil.

It is this crap right here the reason why a lot of this thread has defended the notion that Tim Curley is Guilty. It is a gross miscarriage of justice. If one wants to go to their grave believing and asserting he is guilty, have at it. You would be 100% wrong.
 
Every time I read, see and think about this it makes my blood boil.

It is this crap right here the reason why a lot of this thread has defended the notion that Tim Curley is Guilty. It is a gross miscarriage of justice. If one wants to go to their grave believing and asserting he is guilty, have at it. You would be 100% wrong.
That email exchange just boggles the mind. The weak-minded McQueary was “coached up” by the prosecution. There is very little doubt about that.
 
That email exchange just boggles the mind. The weak-minded McQueary was “coached up” by the prosecution. There is very little doubt about that.
Without the "anal intercourse" allegation, this would have never become a PSU scandal. Joe would have been deemed to have done exactly what he was supposed to have done. Tim's and Gary's testimonies would have been believed. More importantly, their actions would have been seen as perfectly reasonable. There would have been no grounds for any of the charges and they would have been available to testify on Sandusky's behalf. Spanier would have been spared any of this and Joe would have retired with the honor he deserved.

When you think of that email exchange and couple it with the stage show the OAG put on at the press conference, it's hard not to think PSU was implicated deliberately.

Regardless of Jerry's guilt or innocence, there's another story here and the OGBOT's behavior, including their commission of the Freeh report, is central to understanding what this has been all about. Rolling over as it did, PSU gave the press free rein to write anything it wanted. Who brought in Lanny Davis and what was his role in their actions?

Tom Corbett's fingerprints are everywhere. Why aren't we talking about that?
 
John Horgan refers to Frederick Crews as a literary scholar and calls his essay fascinating where Crews says that Gladwell treated Jerry Sandusky unfairly in "Talking to Strangers."


Professor Crews's essay is indeed fascinating. I would encourage everyone who is interested in developing an informed opinion of whether or not the OAG fed the public false narratives to read the essay. The following excerpt is Crews's response to the I believe the accusers who testified at trial, they couldn't all be lying. Crews concluded that they are all not credible!
---------------

“I grant you all this,” some readers will say, “but what about the eight accusers who swore that Sandusky had molested them on multiple occasions? Their testimony, after all, is what put him in prison, and no amount of horseplay in the shower can gainsay it.”

Agreed. But that testimony would have looked unbelievable without the poison cloud of revulsion that enveloped it. Not one of Sandusky’s accusers, to begin with, had ever told anyone about misconduct on his part. More tellingly, most of them had remained on cordial terms with him, and some had even volunteered expressions of gratitude for his help in steering them away from trouble. They could hardly have said that about their serial rapist. And even after alleging subjection to brutal assaults, no former Second Miler could bring himself to claim that Sandusky’s many exhortations to clean living had been hypocritical. It was as if, absurdly, the young men needed to charge him with awful crimes but persisted even now in remembering him as their kindly protector.

The testimony that sealed Sandusky’s fate had been carefully shaped by attorneys who wished to remove anomalies and contradictions from their clients’ initial reports. Courtroom embarrassment was further minimized by having each young man concisely assent to propositions that would be read aloud to him. Even so, jurors who hadn’t already made up their minds (but there weren’t any!) would have been taken aback by stark implausibilities among the charges.

One accuser, Aaron Fisher, affirmed the claim that Sandusky had forced oral copulation on him more than twenty-five times. Another, Brett Houtz, attested to over forty violent assaults, occurring two or three times weekly. A third, Sabastian Paden, was supposedly molested in Sandusky’s home about 150 times. On one occasion Sandusky was said to have locked Paden in the basement for three days, starving him and raping him anally and orally while Dottie Sandusky, one floor above, ignored his screams. But all of those contentions were ludicrous on their face. What could have motivated rape victims to keep rejoining their tormentor and undergoing more of the same?

Even the most gullible jurors, one might think, would have wanted to know why several hostile witnesses had at first denied that Sandusky had done anything improper with them. Shouldn’t the timely denials, proffered without external pressure, count more heavily than later avowals scripted for judicial victory? To this objection, however, the prosecutors and their witnesses had a ready answer. The boys, it was said, had repressed their memories of abuse, and just recently they had retrieved those same memories.

It is this aspect of the case that drew the interest of the psychologists Elizabeth Loftus and Richard Leo, who understand that the theory of repression lacks any scientific credit. To them, belated “recollections” such as Sabastian Paden’s tale of a three-day sadistic kidnapping bore every mark of the dreamlike pseudomemories typically conjured by patients of recovered memory therapists. Paden may simply have been lying, of course. But the authorities who targeted Sandusky were indeed working in tandem with memory enhancers. One of them subjected his patient, Aaron Fisher, to months of daily brainwashing until Fisher more or less “recalled,” or pretended to recall, scenes of violation. “It wasn’t until I was fifteen and started seeing [therapist] Mike [Gillum],” wrote Fisher, “that I realized the horror.”

Other memories were refreshed as it became apparent that any new claims against Sandusky were likely to be believed. “I tried to block this out of my brain for years,” one turncoat declared. Another reflected, “That doorway that I had closed has since been reopening more.” A third stated, ”I have spent, you know, so many years burying this in the back of my head forever.” And after Sandusky was remanded to prison, Pennsylvania’s attorney general at the time, Linda Kelly, congratulated the ex-Second Milers for having dredged their damning scenes from the unconscious. “It was incredibly difficult,” she pronounced, “for some of them to unearth long-buried memories of the abuse they suffered at the hands of this defendant.”

The one major question that remains is what induced beneficiaries of Sandusky’s kindness to betray him so cruelly. Ziegler and Pendergrast know the answer — but so does Gladwell. “According to Ziegler’s reporting,” he remarks in the middle of a long endnote, where it will escape most readers’ attention, “at least some of Sandusky’s victims are not credible. They appear to have been attracted by the large cash settlements that Penn State was offering and the relatively lax criteria the university used for deciding who would get paid.”

“Some of Sandusky’s victims”? No, all of them. In a paroxysm of needless remorse,the Penn State trustees had broadcast the availability of a vast compensation fund that would eventually approach $140 million. An incentive was thus created for any young man who had once been helped by Sandusky, and even for some who had never met him, to spin a preposterous yarn and become an overnight multi-millionaire. And that is exactly what happened — for example, with the lawyered-up shower boy, Allan Myers. At last count, some thirty-five applicants, feigning PTSD at Sandusky’s hands, had availed themselves of Penn State’s princely largesse.

Ironically, the hounding of Jerry Sandusky could have perfectly illustrated the second half of Gladwell’s argument: once someone has been demonized, his whole record will be held against him. Sandusky had titled his autobiography Touched — surely a mark of pedophilia. What devilish impudence he had shown, furthermore, in publishing photographs of himself surrounded by happy eleven-year-olds! All of his assistance to at-risk children, such as adopting six of them (of both sexes) and raising them to be studious, self-disciplined, and drug free, was now reconfigured as grooming.
 
That would be why a competent manager would take notes.
It's incredible that an institution the size of PSU didn't have (or decided not to follow) a whistleblower policy. Most companies with 100 employees have such things where reports and resolution of such reports are clearly documented. Think how different things would have turned out if there was a clear record of what MM actually said to C&S and why they made the decision to handle things the way they did.
 
It's incredible that an institution the size of PSU didn't have (or decided not to follow) a whistleblower policy. Most companies with 100 employees have such things where reports and resolution of such reports are clearly documented. Think how different things would have turned out if there was a clear record of what MM actually said to C&S and why they made the decision to handle things the way they did.
You're still acting like this was on the up and up. PSU was set up!

The answers you seek are in the notes and emails and corroborated, not only by their own testimonies, but also by Raykovitz's suggestion that Jerry wear swim trunks in the shower and Allan Meyer's unsolicited statement to Amendola.

For C/S/S, this was all about prevention. They managed what was in their control, which was the PSU facilities. Beyond that, it this was all TSM's responsibility.

How is Spanier still fighting for his freedom, while Jack Raykovitz has not been charged with a thing?
 
I don’t believe that McQueary knew exactly what happened in the shower. It is my understanding that Curley, Schultz, and Dr. Dranov all asked Mike in 2001 what he saw in the shower and Mike was unable to say what he witnessed and did not say he witnessed a sexual assault.
I think @UncleLar’s point is that Schultz &/or Curly should have procured a documented witness statement with a signature — and FWIW I absolutely agree with this point.
 
I think @UncleLar’s point is that Schultz &/or Curly should have procured a documented witness statement with a signature — and FWIW I absolutely agree with this point.
If you think you need to go that far, in my judgment you Instead just call the authorities (CSA, DPW, police, take your pick) and let them handle it. Based on what they knew at the time, they all decided they didn’t need to go that far. With the benefit of hindsight, I’m sure they wish they had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78 and Zenophile
I think @UncleLar’s point is that Schultz &/or Curly should have procured a documented witness statement with a signature — and FWIW I absolutely agree with this point.

Instead of talking about what C/S/S should have done differently, maybe we should be talking about what Mike should have done differently?

I'm not sure having a signed statement by Mike is useful. Think of everything that's happened in this case... do you think that would change anything?
 
Instead of talking about what C/S/S should have done differently, maybe we should be talking about what Mike should have done differently?

I'm not sure having a signed statement by Mike is useful. Think of everything that's happened in this case... do you think that would change anything?
It might have helped on the margin, not sure, but I think the lynch mob would be saying something like “if you felt like you needed to take the VERY unusual step of getting this signed witness statement from an employee saying there was no sexual abuse witnessed, why didn’t you just call the “experts” at CSA or the police and let them decide what to do?”.
 
Which manager are you talking about... Raykovitz? Because the admins at PSU were not managers, they were executives... who are way busier, with way more responsibility than a lowly manager. When a guy tells them a story that seems like nothing, especially since what he saw didn't warrant a call to the police by himself or Dranov, and you pass that info outside the university to a properly trained manager with responsibility for the teen and Sandusky... I'm not surprised that they didn't take the time to document "nothing".

For all we know, maybe they did take notes and were just misplaced at some point. Or perhaps the OAG destroyed them because they hurt their case? It would not surprise me since it is likely they ignored the rest of Schultz’s notes and emails in 2010/11 (so they could pretend the incident happened in 2002 and would not run into statute of limitations challenges). But then only claimed the discovered Schultz’s “secret file” in 2012 after Sandusky’s already objected to the 2002 date!
 
It might have helped on the margin, not sure, but I think the lynch mob would be saying something like “if you felt like you needed to take the VERY unusual step of getting this signed witness statement from an employee saying there was no sexual abuse witnessed, why didn’t you just call the “experts” at CSA or the police and let them decide what to do?”.

Without the fabricated "anal intercourse" allegation, there would have been no lynch mob.
 
Very interesting article, I believe by Jerry Coyne titled "The case of Malcolm Gladwell vs. Jerry Sandusky" that discusses Frederick Crew's essay criticizing Gladwell not going far enough in exonerating Sandusky in his book "Talking to Strangers." Coyne strongly recommend's reading Crews's essay and mentions the following exculpatory factors for Sandusky that Crews identifies.
-----------

Read Crews’s article to see how Gladwell, despite having hit on exculpatory factors for Sandusky, tiptoes around the issue. Here are some of the concerns raised by Crews and others:

1.) “The boy in the shower”, the linchpin of the case against Sandusky, swore in a written statement to Sandusky’s attorney that no sexual contact had occurred. After he hired a lawyer, the boy (now older) recanted. This may be because he wanted a slice of the generous settlement offered by Penn State to Sandusky’s victims—a settlement that turned out to be about $140 million, making any claimed victim a multimillionaire.

2.) None of the eight boys who eventually said they were molested by Sandusky ever told anyone about his misconduct before they spoke to police, and many continued to associate with him in the interim.

3.) Some of the accusations, like Sandusky locking a boy in the basement for three days and repeatedly raping him, with Sandusky’s wife, one floor above and oblivious to the screams, strain credulity.

4.) Some or all of the boys (it’s not clear from the piece) were subject to “recovered memory therapy”, and didn’t remember the molestations until therapists “helped” them remember the details.

The above is only a sample of other exculpatory data offered by Crews.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...jerry-sandusky/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
 
It might have helped on the margin, not sure, but I think the lynch mob would be saying something like “if you felt like you needed to take the VERY unusual step of getting this signed witness statement from an employee saying there was no sexual abuse witnessed, why didn’t you just call the “experts” at CSA or the police and let them decide what to do?”.

Or they would have fabricated a story saying he was coerced into signing it. It's just like what they would have done if Joe had 'done more'... "why didn't he just report it up the chain and step aside?!?!?!" They will make up any excuse to blame PSU/Paterno, it's quite sad really.
 
I don’t believe that McQueary knew exactly what happened in the shower. It is my understanding that Curley, Schultz, and Dr. Dranov all asked Mike in 2001 what he saw in the shower and Mike was unable to say what he witnessed and did not say he witnessed a sexual assault.

Your "understanding" and reality are two far different things. And this horse is not only dead but now resembles ground meat. Get a life.
 
az5zQ3p.jpg
 
If you think you need to go that far, in my judgment you Instead just call the authorities (CSA, DPW, police, take your pick) and let them handle it. Based on what they knew at the time, they all decided they didn’t need to go that far. With the benefit of hindsight, I’m sure they wish they had.
We're on the same page (110%) about the hindsight thing, though I disagree that documentation=report to authorities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mixolydian
I'm not sure having a signed statement by Mike is useful. Think of everything that's happened in this case... do you think that would change anything?
Considering that what was reported in 2000/2001/2002 remains very much in dispute to this day and in all likelihood shall remain so in perpetuity? I absolutely and unequivocally believe it would have changed everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psudukie and MJG-90
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT