I agree. Some are saying that it was OK if they reported it and didn’t document it.
BOMBSHELL: Exculpatory Evidence Removed From Schultz File
- Thread starter mathprof
- Start date
Why not, Mike may have waited six weeks before he reported it to Joe.
It seems some care more about the documentation of the report, than the report itself. In theory they could have documented that they reported it, and not actually reported it. Which is more likely to endanger the welfare of a child... reporting with poor documentation, or not reporting and documenting really well that you did? Which is more likely to CYA and keep you out of trouble?
I agree 100%. The idea the Joe allowing a cover up of JS molesting kids makes as much sense as the idea that every single member of a lacrosse team at an elite college would cover up a brutal gang rape of a poor black woman. Yet both stories were pushed hard by the media and respectively an "investigator" and a "district attorney". And the leadership of both schools swallowed the bait!
As for the Carter/McQueary story itself. I can't say 100% that its true but I've heard it from several individuals who are very credible. Also explains why Carter would voluntarily leave PSU for another position coach job at a lesser school (Vanderbilt).
Last edited:
Thank You. I wasn't seeing your point.
I am right there with you that the BOT F***ed PSU 130 million times over. You also have to toss in the $60 million times they allowed the NCAA to ram it up their butts.
It's your point. They should not have to prove they made a call. There would be no records at CYS, So the only reason Tim or Gary needed confirmation would be to "prove" they were innocent of endangering the the welfare of a child that the prosecution never produced or identified. They were convicted of endangering the welfare of a child known only to God.
There are a million points to be made and questioned about this whole mess. The idea that if they made a report they should have documented it properly doesn’t seem to be one of those, but some seem to think it is. So be it.
I agree with the last part 100%. I don’t know whether or not they should have to prove they made a report. I do know that if they did make a report, it would have been really helpful for them if they had documentation to prove it.
I have no hard feelings on this stuff Marshall. It’s all just discussion. Have a great weekend.
Real answers were not expected.
Joan Cobel recalled how Schultz told her about a manilla folder he was starting with Jerry Sandusky's name on it.
"Don't look at it," Cobel recalled Schultz advising her about the Sandusky file, which was kept under lock and key.
"He never used that tone of voice before," Cobel conspiratorially told the prosecutor.
Lisa Powers, a former spokesperson for PSU and a speechwriter for Spanier, told the jury how she "kept feeling that something wasn't right" about the Sandusky rumors that reporters were asking her about. She recalled that when she asked another Penn State official about what was really going on with Sandusky, she was told, "The less you know the better."
The implication was that a big sex scandal was brewing at Penn State. Whether the jury buys all this hokum is another matter.
The prosecution, which rested its case today after only two days of testimony, seemed to be playing up the drama in the absence of hard factual evidence against Spanier.
Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka, Iron Mike's niece, got Powers to tell the jury how Spanier insisted on posting statements from lawyers defending both Curley and Schultz on the university's website after the sex scandal broke.
Then Ditka got Powers to admit that while the university was posting those defenses of Curley and Schultz, it didn't run a statement expressing sympathy for Sandusky's alleged victims.
Ditka also managed to give a speech, in the form of a question, asking Powers if Spanier told her "they did nothing to locate that child that was in that shower with Jerry Sandusky."
To hammer home the plight of the alleged victims in the scandal, the prosecution put "John Doe" on the stand, a 28-year-old known previously at the Sandusky trial as "Victim No. 5."
Judge John Boccabella seemed to cooperate with the theatrics. John Doe was sworn in as a witness in the judge's chambers. And when he came out to testify, the judge had extra deputies posted around the courtroom, to make sure that no spectator used their cellphone to take photos or video of the celebrity witness.
Conditions during the short Spanier trial have bordered on the draconian. The judge typically wants spectators seated in his courtroom by 8:30 a.m. Anybody who shows up late can't get in. Anybody who leaves the courtroom can't come back. Nobody can talk. And anybody caught using a cell phone not only in the courtroom, but anywhere on the fifth floor of the courthouse, faces a contempt of court rap that carries a penalty of six months in jail.
John Doe told the jury how he had begun attending Second Mile activities when he was 9 or 10, at the suggestion of a teacher, who thought it would improve his English.
The prosecution introduced photos of the boy.
"That was taken in Jerry and Dottie's house," John Doe told the jury about one shot of him posing with Jerry.
The whole point of John Doe's trip to the witness stand was to tell the jury that John Doe was sexually abused in the Penn State showers later in the same year that McQueary made his famous visit there.
The prosecution's final witness was Gary Schultz. He dutifully told the jury about how he had just pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child, because he prevented or interfered with the reporting of a possible sex crime against a minor.
Once again, Schultz was referring to the boy Mike McQueary saw in the showers with Jerry Sandusky.
Schultz, the university's former vice president for finance and business, had a better memory than Curley. He recalled how he gave Spanier three updates about the 1998 accusation against Sandusky, made by the mother of an 11-year-old, who had objected to Sandusky giving her son a bear hug in the shower.
When McQueary came forward in 2001 to make his accusations, Schultz said his mind immediately flashed back to 1998. And he "wanted Jerry to get professional help."
Schultz outlined the original plan for coping with the McQueary allegations about the shower incident with Sandusky. The PSU administrators, Curley, Schultz and Spanier, wanted to confront Sandusky, and tell him he wasn't allowed to bring children into Penn State facilities any more. They also wanted to revoke his key to all of Penn State's athletic facilities.
So this gap in time between 2/12 and 2/26 is very strange. Courtney gives advice to contact DPW on 2/11 or 2/12. Thats the written notes on 2/12 from Schultz. Yet two weeks go by before they decide to initiate the plan or some form of that plan. Doesn't make sense...not that much makes sense in this
Granted, it wasn't exactly made to be an easy question... I guess I can say that I'm not surprised that you dodged it. Not answering is answer enough. But you probably shouldn't have responded at all. Especially after you went on for pages about someone answering your email question that by your own words, didn't even matter. My question is at least on topic.
Have a great weekend.
Oddly that nobody recalls reporting a mutual acquaintance. Somehow they forgot something like that. I mean they clearly stated that they would take the humane approach but in your fantasy land this all didn’t occur.
Last edited:
I don't think you understand what constituted a more humane approach in this context.
Yep, write it down. Keep the records. Show investigators what steps you to5, avoid trouble.
The whole way the handled this was a huge red flag and sirens wailing for bad behavior. Whether or not it’s a bad decision vs bad acting could have been prevented by a few simple steps .
I believe it's far too easy to go back and tell others what you would have done. Actually, that's ridiculous looking back that far. People make mistakes and it's easy to nitpick the hell out of anything. Mistakes were obviously made. Honestly, I wonder, as do many others i might add, just how many knew, speculated, and for how long. You also have to consider the difference in times. That goes from the showering to reporting. What was fine just 10-20 years ago, no longer is fine today. I had coaches shower in school, always was creeped out by it personally. Reporting just a few years ago is totally different today due specifically from this case.
As far as CYA? That's easy looking back if you know what you're dealing with. Every case is unique and Jerry was certainly a unique situation in many ways. That goes from his reputation to his standing in the community. As far as copying personal and company files to take home and keep? That's nonsense. It's not your property no matter your position, unless you actually are the sole owner. Taking notes regarding actions you've taken is one thing. Copying files will get you in deep do do.
As far as CYA? That's easy looking back if you know what you're dealing with. Every case is unique and Jerry was certainly a unique situation in many ways. That goes from his reputation to his standing in the community. As far as copying personal and company files to take home and keep? That's nonsense. It's not your property no matter your position, unless you actually are the sole owner. Taking notes regarding actions you've taken is one thing. Copying files will get you in deep do do.
Don’t confuse coaches showering in schools with one coach showering alone and having physical contact with an individual child. Apples and oranges.
It's well known McQueary ratted out Carter for cheating on his wife? And Carter leaves because he's afraid Joe will fire him? Did Carter even talk to Joe about it?
It's amazing how these stories appear to morph depending on who's re-telling them. I suppose that also includes my re-telling of the version I was told, which is dramatically different. Here are the basics of that:
There was nothing about Carter cheating on his wife. But he did sexually harass at least four girls that were members of the Lionizers. The Lionizers was the group of girls that hosted football recruits during campus visits at the time.
The harassment was done verbally and in emails. (Carter wasn't too bright to use email.) The girls told their parents and showed them the emails. Since McQueary was in charge of the Lionizers (they showed him the emails, too), he reported this to Paterno.
Within a week, two of the girls' dads complained in person to Paterno. Paterno then told Carter to find a new job, that he wouldn't be there the next year.
If I got anything wrong, I'm sure Curley, SuePa, JayPa, or Ganter could clarify.
And the partial aftermath is the Lionizers disbanded the next year since NCAA banned use of groups like that if they weren’t for all students, vs just football recruits. And Curley was on the NCAA Task Force on Recruiting that made those recommendations. Of course, there were much bigger public scandals regarding groups like that at other schools. Read more here - it mentions the Lionizers, McQueary, and Curley:
https://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_4096b0d8-17e3-5901-8108-ab1c73cd4057.html
Which is why PSU took preventive measures to address it. It was not only inappropriate. It put PSU in a vulnerable situation.
When somebody can show me that the PSU admins were in any way concerned that the boy in the shower was either a) in danger, or b) a risk to go to the authorities, I'll get off my soap box on this issue.
Absolutely. I remember being at an athletics facility with my father once as a kid when he brought me into the locker room and he was going to shower off. He looked at me and I think saw the look on my face and decided to just head home. Creepy is the correct word for it.
No you won’t. You’ll find another way to stay on your soap box.
I think your Dad missed an opportunity to show you how men act in a locker room situation. It may explain a few things.
That statement probably says more about you than you realize Indy.
If he wants to jump on my “There is nothing appropriate about a grown man showering alone with an unrelated boy and having physical contact with them” soapbox then sure.
So McQueary reported this to Paterno. Carter is 'asked' to leave. And McQueary gets Carter's job
I'm sorry if you weren't taught not to be self conscious around other men in a locker room.
Even better.
If McQueary was lying from minute one about knowing what the AG's investigators were there to talk to him about, Ziegler wrote, "It also meant that Mike was particularly vulnerable to being manipulated by the authorities."
Ziegler is the crusading reporter who is convinced that Jerry Sandusky was innocent of the 45 charges that he was found guilty of. In what may be construed as the actions of a suicide bomber, Ziegler in his blog post revealed that a couple of his original sources for the dirt on Mike McQueary were none other than former Penn State president Graham Spanier, and Jay Paterno, son of the late football coach Joe Paterno.
Ziegler also credits Jay Paterno with the funniest line in the story. It happened when Jay quipped after allegedly seeing a crotch shot from McQueary, "Well, it's either Mike or Ronald McDonald," alluding to McQueary's flaming red hair.
But Ziegler isn't the only reporter who was onto the McQueary sexting story. On his website, Ziegler posted a tape from 2014 where ESPN reporter Don Van Natta "bragged he had the entire penis picture story covered, all the way down to the phone records of Mike's panicked calls to friends convinced that his career would be over once Joe Paterno found out about the pictures," Ziegler wrote.
The penis pictures, however, never made it into the ESPN story. But the posted audio clearly shows Van Natta was convinced he had that part of the story nailed down.
Deadspin also speculated in 2014 that way back in 1995 during a blowout victory over Rutgers, McQueary, then a Penn State QB, came in off the bench to throw a last-minute Hail Mary just to beat the point spread. A video from the game shows a clearly surprised and perturbed Paterno on the sidelines, along with a pissed off Rutgers coach.
Piling on an opponent was not what Joe Paterno was known for.
John Snedden, a former special agent for the federal government who did a background check on Graham Spanier and found no coverup at Penn State, said he found the sexting story disturbing.
"It certainly doesn't seem to be indicative of somebody who would be a credible witness in a sex-related case," Snedden said about the state attorney general's star witness. "It certainly casts doubt on any credibility he [McQueary] might have if you're running around doing that."
In his blog post, Ziegler explains why he outed the woman in the story that McQueary was allegedly sexting. First, Ziegler says, the woman was the instigator in contacting both Ziegler and McQueary. She also promised to come on Ziegler's podcast and tell all, the reporter writes.
"One, when she backed out of our agreement, I was no longer bound by my part of it," Ziegler wrote. "Second, I just don't give a damn anymore."
I knew your point. I was just spelling it out so Indy would know what was going on.
Your soapbox for the past few days seems to be about documenting a report that was not really necessary in the first place.
Incorrect. My point has been a really simple one that you either don’t agree with or don’t bother to acknowledge. My point is that if they made a call they should have documented it. That’s usually when you go off on you rant about how there was nothing to report. Which may well have been true. But if they made a report, they should documented it.
His handling of that matter tells me all I need to know about how he would have handled this if he knew.
I really don’t think anyone understands this but I’ll try one more time
Let me preface this by stating I don’t know if they reported nor do I care for what I’m about to say.
In the world of these kinds of reports you do NOT keep records of the reports.
Now, I know folks gonna think I’m crazy but let me spell it out for everyone.
If a report is Unfounded, then it’s like it never happened - period. Meaning, no you do not keep documentation on something that “didn’t happen”
You can argue that all you want and everyone will still be wrong in the end.
I think I read a post where someone said-paraphrasing “You make a copy and take it home and put it in your safe”, or something to that effect. There is no quicker way to get yourself fired than to do something like that.
Why would it be that way when it seems so counterintuitive? Because the laws are meant to protect both the “accuser” and the “accused”.
Again you can disagree with the premise but make no mistake - that is how it is.
There are tons of false accusations out there as you can probably imagine.
Now let’s discuss the other two options - “Indicated” and “Founded”.
I won’t go into detail on these but I will explain in those cases there is an investigation done by the State which can result in disciplinary action, termination or a call from the police.
PS - even though I replied to your post CPL, I’m just replying in general to the discussion.
I don’t know your line of work. In my line of work if you make a report you document it and keep documentation that you made a referral.
