Ziegler Slaten today 4:30 PM ET
- Thread starter JeannieNeedsAShooter
- Start date
I don't know and it's not the point anyway. The point is, people don't typically report anything to anyone re. child abuse unless they think it's for real, especially when the person they're reporting is a respected member of the community.
I don't think there is any question that MM thought it was something that could possibly be real. A grown man showering with a 13 year old on a Friday night was concerning, Hearing sounds that could be sexual was even more concerning. However, he didn't witness anything sexual and Dr. Dranov, MM's father, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz all concluded that it didn't need to be reported. In fact, the 13 year old boy in the shower (Allan Myers) has stated that nothing untoward happened in the shower that night.
I think you're making that up to fit you're narrative. But the best analogy I have heard is Mike saw a 1 alarm fire in 2001 and reported it as such. and it got handled as such. then in 2010 Mike says it was a 5 alarm fire because investigators applied some leverage on his own indiscretions, and flat out told him they had a victim willing to testify.
Not every often, however IMO that's not what MM reported in 2001. In 2001 he reported a late night inappropriate shower that made him feel uncomfortable. He felt that it was wrong/over the line and that's why he told others about it. It's not that complicated.
However IF MM really did report suspected child abuse/molestation NO ONE's (MM/JM/Dr. D/Joe/C/S/S/JR) actions make any sense and MM/JM's own testimony from 12/16/11 CS prelim also makes no sense. How do you reconcile that?
People don't typically report any kind of fire unless they think something is burning. All this micro-analyzing of exactly what MM said or exactly what the victims testified to, etc, is missing the forest for the trees.
I don't know what you're saying. I don't know how all those others would, should or could react but I know people don't just go around reporting stuff about adults and kids in showers for the heck of it. Maybe the distinction needs to be made between (a) whether the reactions of others were appropriate and (b) whether the fact that MM reported it at all is evidence of JS's guilt. I'm talking about the latter, not the former.
Look, there isn't any grey area here, when any rational adult is told by another adult that they are certain they just saw a man sodomizing a kid the response is going to be call law enforcement ASAP. They wouldn't sleep on it then tell a football coach the next day.
I just clarified to you that MM didn't just report the '01 incident for the heck of it...he reported it because it was a late night inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable....that he felt was wrong and over the line. That's why he reported it. Just because MM reported a late night inappropriate shower doesn't automatically mean JS was guilty of abusing a kid. However this distinction seems to be lost on you for some reason.....
"when Curley called MM a few weeks later to follow up and communicate PSU's action plan, MM never expressed dissatisfaction, never said the police needed to be involved, and never said MORE needed to be done."
Were do you get this from? The only follow up that would involve McQueary was when McQueary, Sr. asked Schultz several weeks or months later, in the presence of Dranov, what had happened and Schultz said we've looked into Sandusky before and he's too hard to catch. (page 134-39 of the preliminary hearing transcript).
https://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/schultz-curley-preliminary-hearing-transcript.pdf
You're making it much more general, out of necessity since it's the only way to wrangle out from my very relevant point.
another log to add to the "not worth my time to debate" pile
"Hey, Alan! It's Friday. If you get your homework done after school, I'll take you to work out at PSU after dinner."
Since the "victim" is on record stating nothing happened, the real question is why do you believe in Sandusky's guilt? If it's because of AF and MM, you might want to consider the source.
I'm not convinced of his innocence either, but I'm sure not convinced of his guilt at this point. Thus, I support a new trial.
From 12/16/11 C/S prelim:
Pg. 83:
Q: When you were with Mr. Curley did you say to him – and this was ten days later?
A: Yes
Q: Did you say to him I think we should call the police?
A: No, I would not have said that to him, no
Q: And, in fact, that was consistent, you never said it to anybody in those 10 to 12 days, right?
A: No. sitting right next to Mr. Curley in that meeting in my mind is the police. I want to make that clear. I mean, that’s the person on campus who the police reports to, just so you know
Q: I’m sure Mr. Farrell will follow up with you on that.
Pg. 85: MM never once saw JS around the program with a child since the 2001 incident. Also, when TC followed up with MM by telephone to tell him this is what we’ve done and what we’ve decided to do, MM did NOT dispute or oppose or say that they needed to do more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My response to MM claiming that Schultz was the "police" would be: if that's the case then why didn't MM or JM ever ask Schultz why no one from UPPD came to get MM's written statement? Schultz isn't a uniformed police officer. Telling him something without ever making a formal written statement isn't really going to accomplish anything. MM was the one and only witness. Without the only witness making a written statement to UPPD no criminal investigation is going to get started!!
Also something else just stood out to me when looking at this testimony. MM claims in 2010 that he was certain in 2001 sodomy was occurring and reported it as such, yet he didn't have his meeting with C/S for 10 DAYS and NEVER during that time span did MM say to ANYONE that the police needed to be called...wtf??? How does that make any sense? Since when does someone think a kid was sodomized then not called police ASAP, sleep on it, tell a football coach the next morning then sit on their ass for 10 days waiting to talk to some college admins about it??
MM's 2010 story simply doesn't add up. Oh yeah, and as far as MM being certain abuse happened, his own testimony from 12/16/11 prelim refutes this.
Re: what MM told Joe that morning:
Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?
A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.
Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?
A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.
Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, since MM testified that both JS and the kid were standing straight up with both feet on the ground, how in the world did it "look like" intercourse was going on? Unless JS was squatting down or the kid was on a stool of some sort intercourse would have been PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. In fact to demonstrate what MM saw that night in court the prosecutors had a mannequin on a step stool. How did the judge let them get away with that?? MM said they were both standing upright with both feet on the ground. Just another conundrum of MM's testimony that makes no sense...
Last edited:
That wasn't my question. I know MM spoke to Curley and Schultz about 10-12 days after the incident (why did it take so long to talk to the witness, don't you want to get facts when they are fresh?) but you said, "when Curley called MM a few weeks later to follow up and communicate PSU's action plan, MM never expressed dissatisfaction, never said the police needed to be involved, and never said MORE needed to be done."
Where do you get that from? When did TC tell MM about Penn State's (in)action plan? What is this business about a telephone call?
Where do you get that from? When did TC tell MM about Penn State's (in)action plan? What is this business about a telephone call?
How about you try reading my post? Its on page 85 of the 12/16/11 prelim.
Here it is again:
Pg. 85 (of the 12/16/11 prelim): MM never once saw JS around the program with a child since the 2001 incident. Also, when TC followed up with MM by telephone to tell him this is what we’ve done and what we’ve decided to do, MM did NOT dispute or oppose or say that they needed to do more.
The BOT actions had a direct effect on the fairness of JS's trial. How can that not be obvious? The BOT response ensured a tainted jury and that was the point.
I noticed you haven't mentioned the wide receivers coaching job that was opening up at the time. Knowing the character of MM, I wouldn't put it past him if that job opening had something to do with him going to see Joe. And remember, MM participated in future events with JS and discussed the recruitment of a Central Mountain kid.
Think what you need to. I blame the BoT for a ton, but Jerry is jail because of his penis entering children. That is the real issue and Jerry did that. Ignore the victims, badmouth them, and blame everyone but Jerry if you want to. I don't feel sorry for him at all. If there comes a time where something than other than victim smearing comes up, maybe I'll raise an eyebrow.
MM would have to be a complete idiot to think that a good way to advance his PSU coaching career would be to make up stories of a former PSU coach abusing a child in a PSU football facility.
Shortly after it became public knowledge that he saw something, he lost his job. If the whole event became public shortly after he reported it he probably wouldn't have lost his job but it would have been a big mess for PSU football and he would have been part of it because of what he saw. In terms of his career the last thing he wanted to get caught up in was a scandal, even if he was involved merely as a witness.
Good points all. Somehow people went to great lengths to railroad Jerry Sandusky? Why investigate him if he is not suspicious? Does anybody think there were people out there who wanted to just manufacture a scandal embarrassing the town, state, SM, University and Iconic coaches? Was it guilty of 48 of 51 counts? I am confidant Jerry Sandusky is right where he should be.
What the heck are you talking about? When the GJP was "leaked" MM didn't lose his job. He was placed on admin leave. When BOB was hired he didn't bring MM on as part of his staff and that was pretty much the end of it for MM at PSU.
The main thing that hurt MM (as far as the general public was concerned) was the GJP falsely stating that he eye witnessed the anal rape of a child then ran home and never called the cops.
I disagree completely. The GJP never mentioned it was MM; but the amateur hour of a document put in so many details of their star witness that they should have just put his name in it. If the OAG's office hadn't effed it up so bad, no one should have known who their star witness was at that point. MM could have coached thru the regular season and not had death threats.
so did anyone actually tune in at 4:30? I haven't seen JZ post yet informing everyone how EPIC it was. Maybe he only shows up after EPIC Facebook confrontations.
You can get technical if you like but the reality is that as soon as this came out Mike McQueary was never going to coach another football game. They tried to have him coach the next game but the public reaction was such that it wouldn't be safe. Okay, yeah, they didn't fire him and they had no legal cause to, so instead they paid him his salary without making him work until his contract ended and then nobody hired him again. So yes, he wasn't fired, but his coaching career came to an end.
If you recall, this point pertained to whether he might have reported JS just to look like a kiss up or something as opposed to not having seen anything. But kissing up my making up a story that you know will hurt you instead of helping makes no sense.
“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.
One alarm fire, my ass.
Does the hippocratic oath only apply during working hours?
"I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm."
If MM was that upset, Dranov himself should have taken immediate action.
I generally base my understanding of a situation on what someone did, not what they said.
if EVERYONE reacted like it was a one alarm fire, and 10 years later someone tries to say it was a blazing inferno . . .
A one-alarm fire is a big deal, right? People die in one-alarm fires, right? You report a one-alarm fire to the authorities, right? Not an athletic director, right? A one-alarm fire can become a "blazing inferno" if nobody does anything, right?
So nobody had to report McQueary's allegations to the cops because they weren't serious enough.
Right?
Thanks for the reference. I never knew about that conversation.
But doesn't that shoot a hole in the argument that Curley and/or Schultz actually did report '01 to the authorities? If they did, why didn't Curley tell McQueary, "We've told the authorities." Why did he only reference the conversation with the Second Mile?
Similarly, when Schultz told McQueary, Sr. that, in effect, they'd been trying to nail Sandusky for a long time but he always slipped away, why didn't Schultz tell them they had reported MM's allegations to the authorities?
The 1 alarm fire was treated seriously. C/S spoke to PSU counsel, spoke to the witness, and spoke to JS and told him his behavior was wrong and needed to stop and if he didn't agree with their directives they were going to get DPW involved to drive home that message. MM's "allegations" were then reported DIRECTLY to JR at TSM, who were mandatory reporters, had direct control over JS's access to kids, and were legally required to look into any and all incident reports re: one of their employees. Stop trying to claim the PSU admins didn't report the 2001 incident or didn't take it seriously. That's complete and utter bull shit and you know it. The people who didn't report the 2001 incident or take it seriously were JR and others at TSM, not PSU admins.
Also, the ONLY person who could have reported the '01 incident to the cops was MM since, you know, he was the one and only witness...... and he never did so you can't transfer that failure onto C/S. MM didn't even feel compelled to make a written statement to UPPD which is step one in getting JS officially looked into for crying out loud! So without MM making a written statement to UPPD or calling ChildLine the only thing C/S could really do from their end is remove JS's guest privileges and inform TSM --JS's employer, mandatory reporters, and folks with direct control over JS's access to kids, which they did.
MM testified that the above action steps C/S came up with were satisfactory to him and he NEVER communicated to them that he felt more needed to be done. So please explain why C/S should have done more when the one and only witness was satisfied.
Last edited:
It depends on what your definition of "the authorities" is. IMO C/S/PSU viewed TSM as "the authorities" re: child care being that TSM had JR, a phd in psychology and mandatory reporter, in charge. Curley spoke directly to JR about the incident and PSU's new directives and JR essentially laughed him out of his office. That failure is on JR/TSM not PSU admins.
When Curely told MM via phone a few weeks later that they informed TSM about the incident and their new directives that was the same thing as him telling MM that they informed "the authorities". However if MM felt that law enforcement needed to be involved then he was the only person that could do so since he was the one and only witness.
Last edited:
Hasn't MM said that he thought GS *was* law enforcement? Dunno if he really thought that but I think he did say he thought it.
