Question? You said earlier that Mike had to get permission to attend Joes funeral. Why would he need permission and from whom?
Erickson Note: McQueary "more vivid...ten years later"
- Thread starter rmb297
- Start date
there is a lot of unneeded nonsense but there can actually be a good dialogue with several people as well - there are also a lot of people who just read and never post - there is a lot more to this mess than just 2001 - I do find everything before and after very interesting -
The service in Bryce Jordan center and the mt Nittany lounge at beaver stadium...went thru hr to make sure he would not violate no access to athletic facilities as he was told.
Not sure if I exactly understand your question, but I THINK you are implying that if Dranov, John McQueary, Schultz, and Curley are all telling the truth as to what Mike told them in 2001, Joe was "not" being "truthful" when he testified in 2011?
I think Scott has pretty much said that terms such as "sexual nature" were planted by Fina and Eshbach when he gave his statement before he testified. Scott and Joe's other attorney heard Fina and Eshbach plant the terms in Joe's head, and have indicated they will testify to that in the C/S/S trials.
Both Fina and Eshbach were present for Joe's statement, but not Curley or Schultz's. Later during his testimony, Joe was basically asking a question, not making a statement, when he said "it was a sexual nature? I don't know what you would call it" instead of "it was a sexual nature. I don't know what you would call it". (If that's not the exact quote, sorry. I don't have time to look it up right now).
IDK why Mike "froze" at the scene, but I have a plausible theory. This was a locker room at nite on a college campus, where nobody was expected to be around.
Hearing slapping noises & giggling in a secluded area is not uncommon on campus & making a noise like slamming a locker is usually a fair warning that someone else is there. 99.9% of the time it will be two consenting adult students. In Lasch, when he peeked into the shower he was probably expecting to see a fellow GA/young single coach with a coed, and planned to at best, have something to playfully tease someone about. He saw something else, conflated it with his prior expectations, and froze.
This also can explain differing versions of what he saw & what happened. He was expecting to see sex going on. He saw something completely different, perhaps. But his prior thoughts confuse his memories, on that night, next day, and especially 10 yrs later.
Just a possibility to consider.
Hearing slapping noises & giggling in a secluded area is not uncommon on campus & making a noise like slamming a locker is usually a fair warning that someone else is there. 99.9% of the time it will be two consenting adult students. In Lasch, when he peeked into the shower he was probably expecting to see a fellow GA/young single coach with a coed, and planned to at best, have something to playfully tease someone about. He saw something else, conflated it with his prior expectations, and froze.
This also can explain differing versions of what he saw & what happened. He was expecting to see sex going on. He saw something completely different, perhaps. But his prior thoughts confuse his memories, on that night, next day, and especially 10 yrs later.
Just a possibility to consider.
Thank you psudukie. This is the first new piece of information presented in this entire thread. Everything else has been hashed out, pummeled, twisted, stomped upon and pulverized for the last 3+ years. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's cathartic for some.
Talking about it oddly is therapeutic for me as its a rare moment that it isn't on my minds onesie someway. I am sure it is this way for all the families involved.
Anyway I appreciate the conversations and to those that have stopped at shop to say hi or talk more thanks for coming in and saying hi face to face.
Anyway I appreciate the conversations and to those that have stopped at shop to say hi or talk more thanks for coming in and saying hi face to face.
Really? You actually need me to explain to you why what they said is relevant to the state's claims?? If the one and only witness and the first person he spoke to that night never expressed any dissatisfaction and never said MORE needed to be done when they had follow up conversations with the admins then how could MM/JM/the state claim the admins didn't do enough or should have done more (FTR, EWOC, etc--which are mind blowing charges since TSM was told about 2001 anyway)? Should the admins have just assumed the witness wasn't satisfied even though he never said so?? That's quite a ridiculous claim.
Apparently the admins confronting JS and telling him his inappropriate showering behavior was wrong/needed to stop, revoking his guest privileges, and informing TSM (you know JS's actual employer who had direct control over JS's access to kids) about the incident and PSU's new directives was sufficient enough to satisfy MM/JM/et. al...which is completely incongruent with MM's claim in 2010 that he was CERTAIN JS was sodomizing a kid and reported it as such and the implication that the admins did nothing/sandbagged his report. Why didn't MM tell Joe that the police needed to be called in addition to whoever Joe was going to contact? The onus was on MM, as the one and only witness, to make sure his report was treated with the seriousness he felt it deserved...apparently he felt it was treated just fine.....until the OAG tracked him down.
If you're certain someone was sodomizing a kid you aren't just going to be ok with the alleged rapist continuing to be a free man with access to TSM kids for the next DECADE. At the very least you'd sure as heck express SOME sort of dissatisfaction during your follow up chats with the admins--the people you were trusting to handle your report... or at least make a written statement to UPPD/ask why no one from UPPD came to get your statement, make an anonymous call to UPPD/CC CYS or something!!
The JM/MM testimony from 12/16/11 prelim and everyone's actions from 2001 don't line up with MM's 2010 written statement and GJ testimony. The defense lawyers will have a field day with MM/JM on the stand.
My first question to MM would be "If you were certain a child was getting sodomized that night in 2001 why didn't you express any dissatisfaction or say more needed to be done when Tim Curley called you a few weeks later to tell you what they did with your report when you clearly saw that JS was still on the streets having access to kids via TSM?"
The only thing MM could say is "Well..ummm...they said they looked into it and nothing could be done...so...I just left it at that and went on with my life."
MM and his camp can claim they were told nothing could be done all they want but what more did MM expect some college admins to do besides alter what they did have control of (JS's guest privileges, etc. at PSU) since they had no authority whatsoever over JS since his retirement?? The most Schulz could do, as the dept. head overseeing UPPD, if MM requested it, would be to send a UPPD officer to speak with MM and take his written statement so a criminal investigation could get started.....but nope..never happened and no dissatisfaction was EVER expressed to any of the admins.....so that should speak volumes IMO.
I provided you a link that used a similar definition to mine. I'm sorry that the real world does not conform to your desires.
You go 1st...interesting first post btw...only been lurking for 8 years...good for you
Dukie, I have a very simple question. In your family's opinion, did Joe turn a blind eye to child abuse and/or prioritize football over the welfare of children?
Thank you for coming by and sharing your perspective.
Dukie, if indeed MM is proven to be truthful, what does it say about 3 grown men who are more concerned about a coaching position than a child? How many more children were put in harms way due to their inaction? Unbelievable...
Maybe this is how somebody got the notion that there were people at PSU who would do anything to protect PSU football.
Another assinine post! Do "anything". So is PSU run by the mob, how about the CIA, or even worse the IRS? "Anything", how stupid are you?
Can this saga get any more complex and confusing than it already is? How many different sides have their hat in the ring in this never-ending battle? I get a headache trying to keep up with the minutia of BS and the self-serving assholes involved. When does our side get to go to bat in this game? 
Thank you for putting to rest the notion that Mike would put his career prospects over the well being of a child.
Everything you mentioned about your dad and dranov's qualifications constitute Mike's Achilles heal in his testimony in any criminal trials. When they get their turn on the stand, they will either undermine Mike, or come out looking like they are trying to protect him at all costs. As far as Mike's lawsuit against PSU, I think he has a great shot at winning.
Actually, I thought I was agreeing with your sentiment. Maybe I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
Lots of questions here:
1.) Why did Gricar remove Karen Arnold and replace her with Steve Sloane?
2.) Why didnt CYS inform Second Mile that Jerry was under investigation as was promptly done in 2009?
3.) Why didnt Schultz tell Courtney about the investigation? Shouldnt the University Counsel br informed of that? Why didnt Schultz tell HR about it?
Ive got about 20 more of these...point is the Mike incident is at an impasse and it doesnt look like there will be any resolution until more info comes out...if it even does. I think there is a ton about 1998 that is being hidden. Most of the police report, Seasocks report and the SC police report remain redacted. Why?
What crap did I suck you into? You just don't want to admit that the Freeh Report is a farce and that the OAG charged Curley and Schultz to silence them. Sandusky's trial was patently unfair and I predict that the Commonwealth's response to the PCRA will be lame.
Uh... the definition is the definition. There is not such thing as "similar definition". I'm sorry the real world does not conform to your desires.
Read and learn:
http://galleyproofs.blogspot.com/2008/09/usage-tip-conflate-vs-confuse.html
Ummm, nice try. Karen Arnold said that Ray Gricar told her that he was "personally" taking over the case and this is IDENTICAL to what Schreffler says (e.g., Schreffler's notes and recent statements indicate he was working directly with Gricar on case). There is no evidence, nor has anyone from the Centre County DA's Office said, that Steve Sloane took over case from Karen Arnold. There is also zero evidence that The Second Mile was not informed of incident and subsequent DPW/CYS Investigation (which is completely independent of UPPD / Gricar local LE investigation as evidenced by DPW doing whatever they pleased in regard to Seasock, publishing their own Formal Report & Findings, etc...) - the incident involved a TSM Participant under the care of TSM's most powerful "Control Person" at the time and TSM is licensed and regulated as to operations, policies and procedures by the DPW and the DPW's County-Level Office, the Centre County CYS Office! Again there is zero chance that DPW did not notify and include TSM in their investigation and if DPW did not notify and include TSM in their investigation, they are in serious breech of the law and whoever was responsible at DPW/CYS should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if this is true. This is nearly as rich as DPW's Jerry Lauro attempting to claim he had never heard of Allycia Chambers or that she was the child's personal psychologist despite THE FACT that Allycia Chambers is the MANDATORY REPORTER who called DPW's Child Abuse Hotline and made the report that brought Jerry Lauro (a State-Level DPW Investigator hq'ed out of DPW's Offices in Harrisburg) into the matter! Allycia Chambers has testified that she identified to DPW that she was a Mandatory Reporter and WHY SHE WAS A MANDATORY REPORTER on her DPW Childline Report - she reported who she was and how she came in contact with the information. She reported that the Centre County CYS, who she would normally make a report to, had a "conflict of interest" in the matter due to their multi-contractual business relationship with both Sandusky and his private charity The Second Mile where he was the most powerful "Control Person" listed on their Charter and Regulatory paperwork!
You're also full of $hit that there is any evidence whatsoever that Courtney, PSU's outside General Counsel, did not know that PSU was conducting an investigation of Sandusky - ditto PSU's HR Dept (the University Park, PA Police Department and PSU's HR Dept both reported to Schultz I believe). Nonsensical to claim that PSU's HR Dept and General Counsel would not be informed of an Internal Investigation of one of the highest paid executives at the University (not to mention contradictory to published findings of the OAG's Investigation in response to the indictments resulting from the 33rd SWIGJ of PA. What is your absurd claim of no knowledge by PSU's HR Dept and GC about the investigation of one of the highest ranking employees by pay at the University? All of your claims are not only beyond absurd but completely unsupported by the KNOWN FACTS.
1.) I should have been more clear with Gricar. He took over for Arnold and was assisted by Steve Sloane. Arnold was not involved after initially having the case....which is odd since she usually handled child abuse incidents.
2.) Raykovitz and Genovese both testified under oath they didnt know about 1998. They could be lying...but they havent been charged and theres no evidence to suggest they knew at this point. CYS by law was supposed to notify them. If R and G are telling the truth CYS didnt follow the law.
3.) Courtney wrote Schultz on Nov 4 2011 that he never knew anything about jerry and inappropriate touching in 1998. Why would he write a private email to him about that if he didnt really know?
The HR official at psu at the time doesnt remember any report on the investigation and no files exist. Maybe Courtneys lying...maybe HR is lying....but if so why? What are they hiding. What really happened in 1998?
2.) Raykovitz and Genovese both testified under oath they didnt know about 1998. They could be lying...but they havent been charged and theres no evidence to suggest they knew at this point. CYS by law was supposed to notify them. If R and G are telling the truth CYS didnt follow the law.
3.) Courtney wrote Schultz on Nov 4 2011 that he never knew anything about jerry and inappropriate touching in 1998. Why would he write a private email to him about that if he didnt really know?
The HR official at psu at the time doesnt remember any report on the investigation and no files exist. Maybe Courtneys lying...maybe HR is lying....but if so why? What are they hiding. What really happened in 1998?
"Nonsensical to claim that PSU's HR Dept and General Counsel would not be informed of an Internal Investigation of one of the highest paid executives at the University (not to mention contradictory to published findings of the OAG's Investigation in response to the indictments resulting from the 33rd SWIGJ of PA. What is your absurd claim of no knowledge by PSU's HR Dept and GC about the investigation of one of the highest ranking employees by pay at the University? All of your claims are not only beyond absurd but completely unsupported by the KNOWN FACTS."
Agree 100% bushman!...and then HR would have given Ath dept. a headsup, that being TC! It's not a complicated process to figure out where the information then went. The fact that there were no charges filed, makes it even more likely that it was discussed at least after the fact.
Although despite, "emails MAY have been altered," all one would have had to do is make a phone call and/or stroll into an office and the information could/would have been disseminated discreetly!
The "gravity" of the situation should have been clear 20 years ago, and if there was anything approaching professional law enforcement and investigation in this tiny, insulated town, it damn well would have been properly handled.
Not true, a "Report of the investigation" absolutely did reside within PSU's files and had resided there since 1998 contemporaneous with the investigation and filing of the report. Tom Harmon had Schreffler's file "re-classified" as an "administrative file" and sealed which is why nobody could find them subsequently. However, Sandusky clearly knew that Schreffler spoke with him about the incident on multiple occasions so defacto Sandusky knew the Mother's report was being looked into. There are also contemporaneous emails which demonstrate "PSU Administration" (including HR) had knowledge of the incident investication and mother's incident report. TC, while possibly not knowing specifics, was aware some type of inquiry was being handled by The University in regards to some type of on campus incident.
The police report was kept at the UPPD but HR didnt have access to it and claims they never knew about it. Ive not seen any evidence suggesting otherwise.
Sandusky spoke with Schreffler amd Lauro on June 1...Im not aware of any other direct contact between Schreffler and Jerry...although the former hid in the mothers house twice while she spoke to him.
Wrong again. The investigative file (at least the parts that are public) is classified as "administrative information" throughout from beginning to end, starting at the top of page 1. There is no evidence that it was ever "re-classified." http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf
Further, Schultz's notes from May 4 (the day it was reported) say "not criminal." So, before any investigation was done at all it was determined that the '98 incident was "not criminal."
It was decided from the get-go that this report was never going to see the light of day.
Last edited:
Really, please do explain why Detective Schreffler, who took V6 Mother's call on May 4, immediately called the Cenre County DA's Office and spoke with Karen Arnold as to how he should proceed with his investigation if this was not a "criminal investigation". Please do explain why Shreffler, with PSU approval, referred the investigation to Gricar asking for prosecution and Gricar authorized Shcreffler to set up, not 1, but 2 separate stings at the Mother's house and instructed him to work with Ralston of the State College Police Dept in setting up the stings??? So the highest ranking detective in PSU's Police Dept, the University Park, PA Police Dept, recommended and sought criminal prosecution for Sandusky with the Centre County DA, but it wasn't a "criminal investigation"......huh??? More gibberish bullshat from the King of all Gibberish - don't believe me about Det Schreffler? Here, read what he had to say in his own words as to whether he thought it was a "criminal investigation", wanted Sandusky prosecuted, why that did not happen, etc... - see hot-link below:
Retired detective describes 1998 Sandusky investigation
Believed charges warranted in case
December 18, 2011
Schreffler may have been an honest player but that doesn't mean all others involved were.
Oh, so now your suppositions are to be taken as fact and Schreffler's actions and words are to be ignored? Schreffler was a direct employee of PSU and nowhere does he say that anyone told him not to investigate.....to hide his investigation results from Sr. University Officials (BTW, by everybodys' testimony matters of "imminent campus safety" are immediately reported to the Executive Committee of the University - e.g., the EC of the PSU BOT. At the time, the President was an auto-member of the EC of the BOT).....not to speak with the Centre County DA's Office (in fact, he spoke with them the day of the mother's report!!!).....not to attempt to have matter prosecuted (he in fact did attempt to have matter prosecuted)..... You are the one alleging that Schreffler was told to keep his investigation from the University (e.g., HIS EMPLOYER and ENTITLED TO HIS WORK PRODUCT), but you have not presented a shred of evidence to support this theory -- the only thing you have said is that it is "your theory", but wholly unsubstantiated and basically nothing more than "gossip" and unsupported allegation at this point.
No I actually think Schreffler should be believed. I think he was trying to run an honest investigation but others above him mucked it up. Gricar was the final decider and he decided not to prosecute, even though he had more than enough evidence to at least further the investigation.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Football Happy Valley United announces Retain The Roar NIL campaign
- Latest: NITTANYJGK
-
-
-