ADVERTISEMENT

Graham Spanier speaks out about false narrative that he was convicted on

That 1 who was interviewed by Freeh, professor of mechanical engineering Laura Pauley, was one of the 12 that sat on Sandusky's jury. She was clearly biased as demonstrated by her interview with Freeh's investigators (please see bigtrial post on the subject). The OAG clearly was delighted to have her on the jury as they were no doubt aware of what she said. After she was seated they was no way that jury was going to find Sandusky not guilty.

I don't have any information about the 11 other people who sat on the jury, but would love to find out more information. I believe that the survey of public opinion on the case which I referenced demonstrates the extent the jury pool was tainted. How else can you explain that more than half the people wanted to see Curley and Schultz punished even if they did nothing illegal?
So you don’t know that the jury was tainted, you’re assuming it was. In the same way that many assume Jerry is a pedophile because a non-pedophilic man would not put himself in the situations Jerry did with boys, you are assuming something that may well be true.
I will tell you this Franco, before this board disappears. Your strongest defense for Jerry being innocent is the lack of pornography being found. That is a pretty big omission from the profile.
 
Oh, you just expect me to accept your new fake standard without question?
"Fake standard?" I asked if there was any document detailing the conversations Curley and Schultz had with McQueary, you said there was, but couldn't produce it. Nothing like moving the goal line to the ten when you're fourth and goal at the 25, behind by six, with 2 seconds left on the clock.

And the "standard" isn't new. I've suggested it for a while.
 
So you don’t know that the jury was tainted, you’re assuming it was. In the same way that many assume Jerry is a pedophile because a non-pedophilic man would not put himself in the situations Jerry did with boys, you are assuming something that may well be true.
I will tell you this Franco, before this board disappears. Your strongest defense for Jerry being innocent is the lack of pornography being found. That is a pretty big omission from the profile.
I know the jury was tainted because I now know that I was tainted when the story broke. I thought Sandusky was guilty as sin because I bought the grand jury presentment and thought Sandusky was brazen to have had anal sex with a boy in a public setting. I thought his preformance in his interview with Costas and his pregnant pause sealed the deal. I asked a judge friend of mine why Sandusky's lawyer would make such a questionable move and allow him to be interviewed by Costas and she replied that his lawyer seemed desperate and was maybe trying a hail Mary maneuver. I now know that the grand jury presentation was knowingly false and that Mike McQueary did not witness a sexual assault

The best empirical evidence I have is this survey I referenced in Sandusky's second amended PCRA filing. This survey was conducted by Arthur H. Patterson, Senior Vice President of Decision Quest, a national jury consulting firm, The methodology that was used in the survey was included in exhibit H. How else besides a tainted jury pool can you explain why that over 50% of a jury pool would like to see Curley and Schultz punished even if they did nothing illegal?

I disagree that the strongest defense for Jerry is the lack of pornography. I believe that is a strong indicator of his innocence, but I think the strongest indicator is the lack of credible evidence that Jerry harmed any child including the lack of contemporaneous reports by any of the 37 claimants that Penn State made settlements with.
 
So you don’t know that the jury was tainted, you’re assuming it was. In the same way that many assume Jerry is a pedophile because a non-pedophilic man would not put himself in the situations Jerry did with boys, you are assuming something that may well be true.
I will tell you this Franco, before this board disappears. Your strongest defense for Jerry being innocent is the lack of pornography being found. That is a pretty big omission from the profile.
You've got to be kidding, right? Virtually every person in the country with access to any form of media was tainted.

I was in New Zealand during April 2013. I took several people out to dinner and at some point American College Football became the conversation and my guests immediately started talking about Sandusky and Paterno. This was in New Zealand! and you question if any members of the jury were tainted? Move on from this stupid argument.
 
The trial should have never happened in Centre county or so quickly. The jury was put in a bad position. If they found Jerry not guilty, they put their own futures at risk. People would have screamed that they must be NAMBLA members too (sound familiar, just in this thread?). People who have strong opinions but no facts to support their opinions resort to bullying and name calling. That’s what’s been happening everywhere thanks to social media and the faux rage mob mentality it perpetuates.

I have no clue if Jerry did it or not. I haven’t studied it enough. But any honest person can easily step back, examine a handful of simple facts and come to the conclusion that he did not get a fair trial. I’d love to see a retrial in another area of the state with good lawyers on both sides and see what happens.
 
You've got to be kidding, right? Virtually every person in the country with access to any form of media was tainted.

I was in New Zealand during April 2013. I took several people out to dinner and at some point American College Football became the conversation and my guests immediately started talking about Sandusky and Paterno. This was in New Zealand! and you question if any members of the jury were tainted? Move on from this stupid argument.
I questioned what proof Franco had that the jury was tainted. A couple of people at dinner in New Zealand and Franco’s own prejudging Sandusky as guilty are not proof that the 12 on the jury were tainted. I asked because he states it as fact so I was wondering if there was something out there with these twelve people admitting they were tainted. Apparently that’s not the case. I consider Franco to be a pretty straight shooter so I figured he had some direct evidence to be stating it as a fact.
 
Apparently you missed Shultz's whole "secret file" that he voluntarily provided to Fina, or the fact that Curley contacted the 2nd Mile and nobody disputes it.
I don't dispute that Shultz had a file. I dispute that the details of the conversation with MM were memorialized. If they were there wouldn't be an argument about what MM told C&S.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
"Fake standard?" I asked if there was any document detailing the conversations Curley and Schultz had with McQueary, you said there was, but couldn't produce it. Nothing like moving the goal line to the ten when you're fourth and goal at the 25, behind by six, with 2 seconds left on the clock.

And the "standard" isn't new. I've suggested it for a while.

Read the thread, we were discussing whether the law was followed and if they had documented the encounter.
 
I don't dispute that Shultz had a file. I dispute that the details of the conversation with MM were memorialized. If they were there wouldn't be an argument about what MM told C&S.

No, they got in trouble because they didn't have their notes in a grand jury proceeding, were lied to about having counsel, had no idea what they were really there for, etc. Heck, at one point they were charged with obstruction when it was Baldwin who was failing to answer the subpoenas. The only charges Sandusky was acquitted of were the ones related to an actual witness, McQueary, and they couldn't even testify, they had to use the "secret file." Let that sink in. You had Paterno's statements incorrectly read into evidence instead of just playing the tape because that would have completely changed the meaning of the testimony. You even had judges throwing away and ignoring plea deals. The "secret file" was used against them as proof they had lied. How you can claim they didn't document, have notes, report, etc is beyond me.
 
I questioned what proof Franco had that the jury was tainted. A couple of people at dinner in New Zealand and Franco’s own prejudging Sandusky as guilty are not proof that the 12 on the jury were tainted. I asked because he states it as fact so I was wondering if there was something out there with these twelve people admitting they were tainted. Apparently that’s not the case. I consider Franco to be a pretty straight shooter so I figured he had some direct evidence to be stating it as a fact.
How would you ever prove it? C'mon. Be reasonable.

@Agoodnap said it best: "You've got to be kidding, right? Virtually every person in the country with access to any form of media was tainted."
 
How would you ever prove it? C'mon. Be reasonable.

@Agoodnap said it best: "You've got to be kidding, right? Virtually every person in the country with access to any form of media was tainted."
Meh, I could have sat on the jury and still made an honest decision. You can have opinions about things but still make a clear decision.
How could it be proven? By having jurors say they had their minds made up before the trial started. I thought maybe somewhere along the lines some may have said that but apparently not. It really was just a simple question I asked looking for the information.
 
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole
Meh, I could have sat on the jury and still made an honest decision. You can have opinions about things but still make a clear decision.
How could it be proven? By having jurors say they had their minds made up before the trial started. I thought maybe somewhere along the lines some may have said that but apparently not. It really was just a simple question I asked looking for the information.
I am guessing that you might not be as honest as you think you are. You might think you aren't biased, but it seems to me that in reading your bwi postings there would be a good chance if you had sat on the Sandusky jury that you may have been biased in your judgments based on what you had heard and read on the case.

Yes, having opinions doesn't mean you can't make clear descions. However, those decisions may be clearly influenced by those opinions.

If a potential juror says they have their minds made up before the trial, then they are precluded from serving on the jury. Futhermore, even if a biased juror is seated on a jury; they likey will not realize their bias or want to admit their bias. I don't see any juror readily admitting that they were biased.

I still believe that the best way to show bias is to conduct a well designed survey by a professional organization with expertise in the domain. I believe this is what happened in the Decision Quest survey. Do you see any bias in a population that thinks that 2 men should be puniched even if they didn't do anything illegal?

I do. I see bias in spades.
 
I am guessing that you might not be as honest as you think you are. You might think you aren't biased, but it seems to me that in reading your bwi postings there would be a good chance if you had sat on the Sandusky jury that you may have been biased in your judgments based on what you had heard and read on the case.

Yes, having opinions doesn't mean you can't make clear descions. However, those decisions may be clearly influenced by those opinions.

If a potential juror says they have their minds made up before the trial, then they are precluded from serving on the jury. Futhermore, even if a biased juror is seated on a jury; they likey will not realize their bias or want to admit their bias. I don't see any juror readily admitting that they were biased.

I still believe that the best way to show bias is to conduct a well designed survey by a professional organization with expertise in the domain. I believe this is what happened in the Decision Quest survey. Do you see any bias in a population that thinks that 2 men should be puniched even if they didn't do anything illegal?

I do. I see bias in spades.
So after all of these important epic bombshells dropping with each one going further to prove Jerry's innocence, when is he walking out a free man? You do have a timeframe in mind, right? It is such a done deal - when is he going to be free? Anytime in the next 50 years?

Just as you are convinced that Jerry is innocent, I am equally convinced he will die a convict.

BTW, when are you migrating this all-important saga to the new board?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: WHCANole
So you don’t know that the jury was tainted, you’re assuming it was. In the same way that many assume Jerry is a pedophile because a non-pedophilic man would not put himself in the situations Jerry did with boys, you are assuming something that may well be true.
I will tell you this Franco, before this board disappears. Your strongest defense for Jerry being innocent is the lack of pornography being found. That is a pretty big omission from the profile.
Had the defense known the extent of what the juror told Freeh's investigators, Sandusky's lawyers said in their motion for a new trial, she would have been stricken as a potential juror.

During jury selection on June 6, 2012, the juror in question, identified in the motion for a new trial as "Juror 0990," was asked by Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, what she told Freeh's investigators. In an April 19, 2011 summary of that interview, the juror is identified by Freeh's investigators as Laura Pauley, a professor of mechanical engineering at Penn State, who could not be reached for comment.

"It was focused more on how the board of trustees interacts with the president," Pauley told Amendola, as well as "how faculty are interacting with the president and the board of trustees . . ."

In a summary of Pauley's interview, however, Sandusky's lawyers say, "it is apparent that the interview . . . included something more than how the Penn State faculty interacted with the president and the board of trustees."

In her interview with Freeh's investigators, Pauley stated that she was "an avid reader of the Centre Daily Times" and that she believed that the leadership at Penn State just "kicks the issue down the road."

"The PSU culture can best be described as people who do not want to resolve issues and want to avoid confrontation," she told Freeh's investigators, according to their summary of the interview.

Pauley, a tenured professor who served on the Faculty Advisory Committee for three years, had other opinions about the leadership at PSU that she supposedly shared with Freeh's investigators. She said that Penn State President Graham Spanier was "very controlling," and that "she feels that [former Penn State Athletic Director Tim] Curley and [former Penn State vice president Gary] Schultz are responsible for the scandal."

"She stated that she senses Curley and Schultz treated it [the scandal] the 'Penn State' way and were just moving on and hoping it would fade away."

It's the contention of Sandusky's appeal lawyers that Freeh's investigators were working in tandem with prosecutors and investigators from the state attorney general's office, and that this collaboration, which included the sharing of grand jury secrets and transcripts, tainted both investigations.

While Pauley was being questioned by Amendola, Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote, "at no time during this colloquy, or any other time, did the prosecution disclose that it was working in collaboration with the Freeh Group which interviewed the witness."

Yep, at the prosecution table, then Deputy Attorney Frank Fina sat silently while Amendola was questioning Pauley about what she told Freeh's investigators, even though he probably knew about the interview, and may have even seen a copy of it.

That's why Sandusky's lawyers are asking the state Superior Court to hold an evidentiary hearing where Fina and Freeh can be deposed about their collaboration.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers state describe the hardball tactics employed by Freeh's investigators as detailed in a seven-page June 29, 2018 report from seven Penn State trustees who investigated the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. In their report, seven trustees state that "multiple individuals have approached us privately to tell us they were subjected to coercive tactics when interviewed by Freeh's investigators."

"Investigators shouted, were insulting, and demanded that interviewees give them specific information," the seven trustees wrote, such as, "Tell me that Joe Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing kids!"



"Presumably," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, as a Penn State employee, "Juror number 0990 was subject to this type of coercion."

But John Snedden, a former NCIS special agent, said after reviewing the summary of Pauley's interview with Freeh's investigators, that he believed it was Pauley who contacted Freeh.

According to Snedden, Pauley struck him as a "extremely disgruntled employee who was trying to pursue her own specific agenda."

Why does Snedden think it was Pauley who reached out to Freeh's investigators, rather than them reaching out to her?

As a professor of mechanical engineering, she was "not material to the investigation in any way," Snedden said. The school of mechanical engineering is "about as far away from the Lasch Building as you could possibly be," Snedden said, referring to the offices and training facility of the Penn State football team. Also, the summary doesn't indicate that the investigators in any way had sought out Pauley, Snedden said.



In the summary of her interview, Pauley states that her husband, who also taught in the engineering department, didn't receive tenure, and that she thought that the tenure process "was very political."

She also states that when she was director of undergraduate engineering studies, an employee that she reported for mishandling personal information on students began spreading rumors about her allegedly committing some kind of misconduct. She subsequently was removed as director of undergraduate engineering studies and received an annual appraisal that was "not as strong as usual."

She inquired about why she had been removed as director but was told the process was confidential. When the new director was announced, Pauley was never acknowledged or thanked for her seven years of service. "Many of her peers in the department confided in her that they felt she was not treated fairly throughout the process," Freeh's investigators wrote.

"She's trying to air her grievances in front of somebody whom she thinks can do something about it," Snedden said.
 
I am guessing that you might not be as honest as you think you are. You might think you aren't biased, but it seems to me that in reading your bwi postings there would be a good chance if you had sat on the Sandusky jury that you may have been biased in your judgments based on what you had heard and read on the case.

Yes, having opinions doesn't mean you can't make clear descions. However, those decisions may be clearly influenced by those opinions.

If a potential juror says they have their minds made up before the trial, then they are precluded from serving on the jury. Futhermore, even if a biased juror is seated on a jury; they likey will not realize their bias or want to admit their bias. I don't see any juror readily admitting that they were biased.

I still believe that the best way to show bias is to conduct a well designed survey by a professional organization with expertise in the domain. I believe this is what happened in the Decision Quest survey. Do you see any bias in a population that thinks that 2 men should be puniched even if they didn't do anything illegal?

I do. I see bias in spades.
I am exactly as honest as I think I am, so you are wrong there. When this story broke I didn’t assume Jerry was guilty and the narrative was true, unlike you. I tend to deal with things like this in a pretty non-judgemental way. I tend to not go from “I know he’s guilty” to “I know he’s innocent” like you have done. As I’ve said all along, I don’t know that he did all the things he was convicted of and my kind is open to hear a reasonable defense of his showering behavior.
Anyway, my question simply to find out if you knew that the jury was tainted and the answer is no. I got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
I am exactly as honest as I think I am, so you are wrong there. When this story broke I didn’t assume Jerry was guilty and the narrative was true, unlike you. I tend to deal with things like this in a pretty non-judgemental way. I tend to not go from “I know he’s guilty” to “I know he’s innocent” like you have done. As I’ve said all along, I don’t know that he did all the things he was convicted of and my kind is open to hear a reasonable defense of his showering behavior.
Anyway, my question simply to find out if you knew that the jury was tainted and the answer is no. I got it.
Sorry if you took my comments as an insult, but they were not intended as an insult but rather as my opinion of your honesty and bias. I won't argue that you think of yourself as honest and unbiased. I believe that you are mostly honest but that you have some bias in your opinions on the scandal based on what you have read and heard. When you say that your are honest and you have no bias, I believe you are being less than honest and not telling the truth because, in my opinion, you have a bias in this case. Everyone has a bias. I have a bias. Some people are more neutral observers than others, but in cases like this story it is virtually impossible to be 100% neutral. I believe you think you have no bias but it seems clear to me that you are wrong.

By the way, I never have said or thought that I knew he's guilty. I may have thought he was guilty but I didn't know it. However, I am reasonably certain now that he is innocent. I changed my opinion as I learned new facts and evidence on the case.

I don't believe you are open to reasonable defenses of his showering behavior. In my opinion, you were not at all open to what I believe are reasonable explanations that I have provided to you. I have said that Sandusky is a playful, touchy-feely type of person who is sometimes a joker. He grew up in a rec center where same sex individuals showered in a communal setting. In Sandusky's worldview, standard practice is to take a shower after a workout. I think Sandusky exercised poor judgment and did something I would not recommend or do myself in showering with minors that were not his children and in making physical contact with them. That being said, I am absolutely convinced there was no sexual element in the showers he took with kids and, in particular the 1998 v6 showering incident.

I am reasonably certain that the jury was biased based on the survey results that showed a majority of the jury pool wanted to see Curley and Schultz punished even if they didn't do anything illegal. Do you have any empirical data to suggest that the jury wasn't biased?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AvgUser
Sorry if you took my comments as an insult, but they were not intended as an insult but rather as my opinion of your honesty and bias. I won't argue that you think of yourself as honest and unbiased. I believe that you are mostly honest but that you have some bias in your opinions on the scandal based on what you have read and heard. When you say that your are honest and you have no bias, I believe you are being less than honest and not telling the truth because, in my opinion, you have a bias in this case. Everyone has a bias. I have a bias. Some people are more neutral observers than others, but in cases like this story it is virtually impossible to be 100% neutral. I believe you think you have no bias but it seems clear to me that you are wrong.

By the way, I never have said or thought that I knew he's guilty. I may have thought he was guilty but I didn't know it. However, I am reasonably certain now that he is innocent. I changed my opinion as I learned new facts and evidence on the case.

I don't believe you are open to reasonable defenses of his showering behavior. In my opinion, you were not at all open to what I believe are reasonable explanations that I have provided to you. I have said that Sandusky is a playful, touchy-feely type of person who is sometimes a joker. He grew up in a rec center where same sex individuals showered in a communal setting. In Sandusky's worldview, standard practice is to take a shower after a workout. I think Sandusky exercised poor judgment and did something I would not recommend or do myself in showering with minors that were not his children and in making physical contact with them. That being said, I am absolutely convinced there was no sexual element in the showers he took with kids and, in particular the 1998 v6 showering incident.

I am reasonably certain that the jury was biased based on the survey results that showed a majority of the jury pool wanted to see Curley and Schultz punished even if they didn't do anything illegal. Do you have any empirical data to suggest that the jury wasn't biased?
Franco, you need to understand...he's always right and any argument that opposes this presumption is immediately dismissed as irrelevant and trivial.
 
Sorry if you took my comments as an insult, but they were not intended as an insult but rather as my opinion of your honesty and bias. I won't argue that you think of yourself as honest and unbiased. I believe that you are mostly honest but that you have some bias in your opinions on the scandal based on what you have read and heard. When you say that your are honest and you have no bias, I believe you are being less than honest and not telling the truth because, in my opinion, you have a bias in this case. Everyone has a bias. I have a bias. Some people are more neutral observers than others, but in cases like this story it is virtually impossible to be 100% neutral. I believe you think you have no bias but it seems clear to me that you are wrong.

By the way, I never have said or thought that I knew he's guilty. I may have thought he was guilty but I didn't know it. However, I am reasonably certain now that he is innocent. I changed my opinion as I learned new facts and evidence on the case.

I don't believe you are open to reasonable defenses of his showering behavior. In my opinion, you were not at all open to what I believe are reasonable explanations that I have provided to you. I have said that Sandusky is a playful, touchy-feely type of person who is sometimes a joker. He grew up in a rec center where same sex individuals showered in a communal setting. In Sandusky's worldview, standard practice is to take a shower after a workout. I think Sandusky exercised poor judgment and did something I would not recommend or do myself in showering with minors that were not his children and in making physical contact with them. That being said, I am absolutely convinced there was no sexual element in the showers he took with kids and, in particular the 1998 v6 showering incident.

I am reasonably certain that the jury was biased based on the survey results that showed a majority of the jury pool wanted to see Curley and Schultz punished even if they didn't do anything illegal. Do you have any empirical data to suggest that the jury wasn't biased?
Obviously I don’t have empirical data showing they were not biased, nor am I saying they were not biased. You are stating that they were absolutely biased and I thought maybe you had seen reports to back that up because by and large I have found you to be a straight shooter. I don’t agree with all you believe, but I have found you to be a straight shooter. Stating that they were surely biased (or tainted) when you do not know that to be true doesn’t seem like the way you have operated on here. If it was somebody else that stated that, I would have assumed it to be an off the cuff statement. The fact that you were the one that stated it is why I asked.
I am not sure where you are going with my bias. I think what you are calling my bias is my experience from working in this field for quite a while. I’ve yet to hear what I find is a believable excuse for his showering activities. I’ve also yet to see one person in here state that they have ever participated in the type of showering activities Jerry took part in.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
@francofan don't respond. He "knows" the type of "showering activities" that went on and therefore it's impossible to change his mind.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Obviously I don’t have empirical data showing they were not biased, nor am I saying they were not biased. You are stating that they were absolutely biased and I thought maybe you had seen reports to back that up because by and large I have found you to be a straight shooter. I don’t agree with all you believe, but I have found you to be a straight shooter. Stating that were surely biased (or tainted) when you do not know that to be true doesn’t seem like the way you have operated on here. If it was somebody else that stated that, I would have assumed it to be an off the cuff statement. The fact that you were the mine that stated it is why I asked.
I am not sure where you are going with my bias. I think what you are calling my bias is my experience from working in this field for quite a while. I’ve yet to hear what I find is a believable excuse for his showering activities. I’ve also yet to see one person in here state that they have ever participated in the type of showering activities Jerry took part in.
My belief is that the jury pool was biased based on the knowingly false grand presentment. My belief is supported by the empirical data that came out of the Decision Quest survey. That data led me to being reasonably confident that the jury pool had been polluted by the misconduct of the OAG.

Do you have any opinion whether the jury pool was at all polluted by the knowingly false grand jury presentment?
 
My belief is that the jury pool was biased based on the knowingly false grand presentment. My belief is supported by the empirical data that came out of the Decision Quest survey. That data led me to being reasonably confident that the jury pool had been polluted by the misconduct of the OAG.

Do you have any opinion whether the jury pool was at all polluted by the knowingly false grand jury presentment?
Come on now...you know how this goes. You have to provide proof that it the false presentment didn't pollute the jury pool. Did anyone say they were polluted? Well then...

You see how this will go? He's absolutely the smartest guy in the room and you'll have to prove he isn't.
 
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole
All that matters is that MM was concerned enough to tell Joe and then tell C&S that he "experienced" something that was of concern.
You area assuming Mike's motives. It's also possible that MM wasn't concerned at all, and went to Joe for some face time with the WR coaching position open. Remember that he likely waited a few days to a few weeks before seeing Joe, and Sue said MM was only there a few minutes.

Frightening to believe so much testimony could be made up.
"So much"? How many people do you think testified at trial? Are you sure you aren't confusing PSU with OSU/MSU?
 
You area assuming Mike's motives. It's also possible that MM wasn't concerned at all, and went to Joe for some face time with the WR coaching position open. Remember that he likely waited a few days to a few weeks before seeing Joe, and Sue said MM was only there a few minutes.


"So much"? How many people do you think testified at trial? Are you sure you aren't confusing PSU with OSU/MSU?
MM waited 6 weeks. The shower happened over Christmas break and he went to Joe in February.
 
Come on now...you know how this goes. You have to provide proof that it the false presentment didn't pollute the jury pool. Did anyone say they were polluted? Well then...

You see how this will go? He's absolutely the smartest guy in the room and you'll have to prove he isn't.
It is absurd to think that someone on the jury would admit they were biased when they have to state in voir dire that they have an open mind to be on the jury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUfiji and 91Joe95
I think the jury was biased simply because they felt pressure to find him guilty. Could you imagine the blow back if they had come back not guilty? They would have been crushed by the media — both news and social.
 
My belief is that the jury pool was biased based on the knowingly false grand presentment. My belief is supported by the empirical data that came out of the Decision Quest survey. That data led me to being reasonably confident that the jury pool had been polluted by the misconduct of the OAG.

Do you have any opinion whether the jury pool was at all polluted by the knowingly false grand jury presentment?
Opinion? Sure, I don’t think the trial should have been held there. I certainly think it’s a reasonable opinion to believe the jury pool could have been tainted and that it would likely have been more difficult to find an untainted jury there than elsewhere. That trial seemed like a mess to me, but I have absolutely no legal background. I don’t think I’ve ever said I was against him getting another trial, if it’s warranted. If he deserves a new trial, he should get it. If he goes through another trial and another jury of his peers find him not guilty on the charges, I’d be fine with it. I don’t think it would happen, but I’d be fine with it.
Again, the reason I asked was because you stated it clearly that the jury was tainted and I thought you had something to show that. You didn’t have that and that’s fine..
 
I can’t imagine a judge giving him a new trial because that judge would get crushed by the faux rage mob. We live in a dangerous world of trial by media mob right now. Due process is all but a thing of the past.
 
Opinion? Sure, I don’t think the trial should have been held there. I certainly think it’s a reasonable opinion to believe the jury pool could have been tainted and that it would likely have been more difficult to find an untainted jury there than elsewhere. That trial seemed like a mess to me, but I have absolutely no legal background. I don’t think I’ve ever said I was against him getting another trial, if it’s warranted. If he deserves a new trial, he should get it. If he goes through another trial and another jury of his peers find him not guilty on the charges, I’d be fine with it. I don’t think it would happen, but I’d be fine with it.
Again, the reason I asked was because you stated it clearly that the jury was tainted and I thought you had something to show that. You didn’t have that and that’s fine..
Thanks for answering my question.

I respectfully disagree that the Decision Quest survey is nothing to show.

Does over 50% of the jury pool wanting to see Curley and Schultz punished even if they didn’t do anything illegal cause you any concern?
 
Thanks for answering my question.

I respectfully disagree that the Decision Quest survey is nothing to show.

Does over 50% of the jury pool wanting to see Curley and Schultz punished even if they didn’t do anything illegal cause you any concern?
What it definitely does not prove is that the 12 that sat on Jerry’s jury were tainted, which it what you said and what I questioned.
I do find that concerning. I do wish those two had gone to trial. I can certainly understand why they did not, but I wish they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
What it definitely does not prove is that the 12 that sat on Jerry’s jury were tainted, which it what you said and what I questioned.
I do find that concerning. I do wish those two had gone to trial. I can certainly understand why they did not, but I wish they did.
I respectfully disagree. I believe the survey results demonstrates that the jury pool was biased.
 
You area assuming Mike's motives. It's also possible that MM wasn't concerned at all, and went to Joe for some face time with the WR coaching position open. Remember that he likely waited a few days to a few weeks before seeing Joe, and Sue said MM was only there a few minutes.


"So much"? How many people do you think testified at trial? Are you sure you aren't confusing PSU with OSU/MSU?
MM was born concerned.


The Sandusky Grand Jury "Presentment" of Nov. 5, 2011, a summary of secret grand jury testimony, stated that, on March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant (later identified as Mike McQueary) had gone to the Lasch Football Building at Penn State around 9:30 p.m. As he entered the locker room, he heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds" that sounded sexual to him. "He looked in the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."
Because grand jury testimony is supposed to be secret, there is no available public transcript to show exactly what Mike McQueary said there, but it is clear from everything else he said about this incident, including his subsequent courtroom testimony, that he did not witness sodomy or any other form of sexual abuse that day in the Lasch locker room. His version of events morphed over time, but none of the narratives included witnessing overt sexual abuse.
Here’s what appears to have happened. On a Friday night, February 9, 2001, a full year earlier than the inaccurate date in the Grand Jury Presentment, Jerry Sandusky was indeed taking a shower with a Second Mile boy in the locker room of the Lasch Football Building.

Sandusky took it for granted that boys and men showered together after exercise. It was part of the way he was raised, an accepted part of the sports world. Though he had retired as a Penn State coach two years before, he could still use the facilities, and he sometimes brought the troubled Second Mile boys there for a workout, followed by a shower.
As he often did, Sandusky, whom everyone considered “a big kid” himself, was goofing around with the boy. They were snapping towels at each other, or perhaps slap boxing, according to both Sandusky and the boy in the shower. Mike McQueary, then 26, who had been a Penn State quarterback as an undergraduate, was halfway through his post-graduate education, while working as an assistant football coach. This Friday evening, he came to the Lasch building to retrieve tapes of possible recruits. On the way, he figured he might as well put his new shoes away in the locker room.

Before he opened the door to the locker room, McQueary heard slapping sounds. He thought they sounded sexual. As McQueary later put it when describing the scene, “Visualizations come to your head.” By the time he got to his locker at the near end of the wall, it had quieted down. Curious, he looked obliquely into the shower room through a mirror across the room and caught a glimpse of a boy in the shower. Then an arm reached out and pulled the boy back. Horrified, he assumed that he had just overheard the sounds of child sexual abuse. After closing his locker, he saw Jerry Sandusky walk out of the shower. Was his former coach a pedophile?
McQueary quickly left the building and called his father, John McQueary, and told him his suspicions. His father advised him to come right over to talk about it. Then John McQueary called his employer and friend, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a nephrologist, asking him to come over and help them sort out Mike’s disturbing experience.

Dranov attempted, using the diagnostic and interviewing skills that he used with patients, to get a clear description of the scene that had so upset his friend’s son. Dranov was unable to get Mike McQueary to put into words anything sexual he had seen, in spite of asking several times, “But what did you see?” McQueary explained that he had seen a boy in the shower, and that an arm had then reached out to pull him back. Dranov asked if the boy had looked scared or upset. No. Did Mike actually see any sexual act? No. McQueary kept returning to the “sexual” sounds.
Upon the advice of his father and Dr. Dranov, Mike McQueary took his concerns to legendary head coach Joe Paterno at his home the next day. Apparently because McQueary did not actually witness anything sexual, they did not suggest he contact the police, nor did they feel called upon to do so.

This was the only initiative McQueary ever took connected with the shower incident. Paterno subsequently told his immediate supervisor, Athletic Director Tim Curley, about it, who told Vice President Gary Schultz and university President Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz met with McQueary to hear what he had seen and heard. From that conversation, they concluded that Sandusky had been “horsing around” with a kid and that, while it was not sexual abuse, it wasn’t a good idea, particularly because they remembered that a parent had complained back in 1998 about Sandusky showering with her child (details on that incident shortly).
So Curley told Sandusky that as a result of someone (he didn’t name McQueary) complaining about the shower incident, he should stop working out with Second Mile kids on campus, and there the matter was left, case closed.
McQueary apparently calmed down and accepted that he may have overreacted and that perhaps Sandusky had just been “horsing around.” He remained at least overtly friendly with Jerry Sandusky over the following years. He signed up for the Sandusky Celebrity Golf Event in the fall of 2001, just four months after the shower incident, then took part in other Sandusky charity-related events, such as flag football fund-raisers coached by Sandusky in March 2002 and April 2004 and another golf event in 2003.


By the time the police questioned McQueary about the shower incident in late 2010, he couldn’t remember exactly when it occurred, and he said that it happened during spring break of 2002, more than a year after the actual date. At the time, McQueary was a 6’ 4”, 220-pound 26-year-old. Some critics would later question why, if he had witnessed horrifying child sexual abuse, he would not have rushed in to put a stop to the behavior.
McQueary’s story changed several times after the police told him that they knew Sandusky was a pedophile, as we will see in Chapter 12. In response to the police telling him that Sandusky was a child molester, McQueary searched his decade-old memory and now “remembered” something that he had not reported back in 2001 -- that he had seen Sandusky with his hips moving against a boy’s backside in the shower.
In short, Mike McQueary did not witness Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a 10-year-old boy in the shower, although he later came to believe that he had. At the time of the incident, he overheard slapping sounds and interpreted them as being sexual.
We know a great deal more about this incident because we know the identity of that boy, a Second Miler named Allan Myers, who was nearly 14 years old at the time, not ten, and who remained friends with Sandusky until after the allegations created a public furor in November 2011. Sandusky later recalled that shower with Myers in a 2013 interview with reporter John Ziegler:
“He [Allan] turned on every shower [and] he was like wild, he put soap on himself and was sliding, he was seeing how far he could slide. I remember that. Then we may have been like slapping towels, slap boxing, doing something like that.”
Here Sandusky laughed, remembering that “he [Allan] always, no matter what, he’d always get the last lick in."
Recalling his relationship with Allan Myers, Sandusky said, “He was like family. We did all kinds of things together. We studied. We tutored. We worked out. He went to California with my wife and me twice. He spoke for the Second Mile numerous times.” This all took place after the 2001 shower incident. “He asked me to speak at his high school graduation, and I did. He stayed with us the summer after his high school graduation, worked part-time jobs with classes. He would go home on weekends. We went to his wedding.”
Indeed, Myers, a Marine who had recently received an honorable discharge at the time the allegations broke, came forward to defend Sandusky, telling Sandusky’s lawyer and his investigator, Curtis Everhart, what had actually happened.
Myers, born on Feb. 28, 1987, had endured his parents’ volatile marriage, in which he witnessed his father threatening his mother with a gun. His guidance counselor suggested Myers for the Second Mile program, which he attended as a fourth and fifth grader, getting to know Jerry Sandusky the second year. Myers said that Sandusky was a “father figure” associated with “many positive events” in his life. On “Senior Night” at a West Branch High School football game, Myers asked Sandusky to walk out onto the field with his mother, as the loudspeaker announced, “Father, Jerry Sandusky,” along with his mother’s name.


About the McQueary shower incident, Myers said, "This particular night is very clear in my mind.” In the shower after a workout, he and Sandusky "were slapping towels at each other, trying to sting each other. I would slap the walls and would slide on the shower floor, which I am sure you could have heard from the wooden locker area." Myers said that he recalled hearing a locker slam but he never saw who closed it. Although McQueary would later claim that both Sandusky and Myers saw him, neither of them had any idea he was there that night.
Myers repeatedly and emphatically denied that Jerry Sandusky had ever sexually abused him. “Never, ever, did anything like that occur.” Yes, Sandusky had put his hand on his left knee while he was driving, but that didn’t bother him. “I often would stay at Jerry’s home overnight,” he said. “Jerry never violated me while I was at his home or anywhere else. On many occasions there were numerous people at his home. I felt very safe and at ease at his home, whether alone with Jerry or with others present.”
The only thing that made Myers feel uncomfortable and violated was his September 2011 interview with Pennsylvania State Police officers. “They would try to put words in my mouth, take my statement out of context. The PSP investigators were clearly angry and upset when I would not say what they wanted to hear. My final words to the PSP were, ‘I will never have anything bad to say about Jerry.’”
Allan Myers also wrote a letter to the newspaper and the Pennsylvania attorney general and submitted a sworn statement to both the Pennsylvania State Police and a private investigator to the effect that he was not abused that night or any other time by Jerry Sandusky.
“I am one of those many Second Mile kids who became a part of Jerry’s ‘family.’ He has been a best friend, tutor, workout mentor and more,” Myers wrote to the attorney general. “We’ve worked together, competed together, traveled together and laughed together. I lived with Jerry and Dottie for three months. Jerry’s been there for me for 13 years; and stood beside me at my senior parent’s football night. I drove twelve hours to attend his mom’s funeral. I don’t know what I would have done without him.”


Myers wrote that letter on May 1, 2011. But like so many Second Milers, Myers subsequently found a lawyer, Andrew Shubin, and joined the throng of those seeking millions of dollars in compensation for alleged abuse. He did not testify at the trial, however. Both prosecution and defense lawyers knew that Allan Myers was the boy in the 2001 McQueary shower incident, but for their own strategic reasons, neither chose to identify him, so that the jury never learned that Myers was in fact the anonymous “Victim Number 2.”

The McQueary story of the alleged sodomy-in-the-shower became the linchpin of the entire case against Sandusky, lighting a fire under the investigation and creating a media firestorm, and it is what led to the firing of Penn State University President Graham Spanier and football Head Coach Joe Paterno, as well as subsequent lawsuits against Spanier and former Penn State administrators Gary Schultz and Tim Curley.

Ironically, the sodomy charge of “involuntary deviate sexual intercourse” in the McQueary incident was among the few for which the jury found Sandusky not guilty, since the witness did not say that he had literally seen penetration. The jury did find Sandusky guilty of four other McQueary-related charges: “indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of minors and endangering a child's welfare.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister
No, they got in trouble because they didn't have their notes in a grand jury proceeding, were lied to about having counsel, had no idea what they were really there for, etc. Heck, at one point they were charged with obstruction when it was Baldwin who was failing to answer the subpoenas. The only charges Sandusky was acquitted of were the ones related to an actual witness, McQueary, and they couldn't even testify, they had to use the "secret file." Let that sink in. You had Paterno's statements incorrectly read into evidence instead of just playing the tape because that would have completely changed the meaning of the testimony. You even had judges throwing away and ignoring plea deals. The "secret file" was used against them as proof they had lied. How you can claim they didn't document, have notes, report, etc is beyond me.
You keep saying things we all know and agree about. My point is that the coverup narrative probably wouldn't have occurred and C/S/S would probably wouldn't have been prosecuted if there were memorialized records of what MM actually told them. I never heard of a document that was presented that says this is exactly what MM told us. Instead it's MM's words against C & S.
 
Seems fitting that this endless debate erupts once again at the end of the line for the board

Let's go Graham....done
 
You keep saying things we all know and agree about. My point is that the coverup narrative probably wouldn't have occurred and C/S/S would probably wouldn't have been prosecuted if there were memorialized records of what MM actually told them. I never heard of a document that was presented that says this is exactly what MM told us. Instead it's MM's words against C & S.
Particularly if a copy had been e-mailed to McQueary himself. Indeed, seems highly unlikely that the state could have prosecuted the Grinning Baboon on that charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mn78psu83 and bdroc
You keep saying things we all know and agree about. My point is that the coverup narrative probably wouldn't have occurred and C/S/S would probably wouldn't have been prosecuted if there were memorialized records of what MM actually told them. I never heard of a document that was presented that says this is exactly what MM told us. Instead it's MM's words against C & S.
They should have had MM write down what he saw instead of just scribbling notes.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT