What does him being a coward have to do with him telling the truth?
LTE from former PSU Trustee...
- Thread starter bjf1984
- Start date
Why am I not surprised at your spin?
If it was nothing more than a business calculation for PSU, how could it possibly be "the right thing to do" to get a "just outcome" for the victims in Erickson's words? How is an innocent party giving money to victims that should be paid by the party who actually hurt the kids a "just outcome," unless, of course, the party footing the bill was also liable?
I'll make it easy for you: Erickson said it was the right thing to do because he was conceding fault and liability on PSU's part. Masser said it was "fair" because a wrongdoer should pay for their wrongdoing, and PSU was at fault.
How convenient. Yea, I wonder why he didn't testify. I guess the fact that he would have said nothing happened in the shower doesn't factor in at all. Smh.
Possibly, but it is odd that there was not more evidence of a coverup than what Freeh found and that charges keep getting dropped against those that would have been involved in the coverup.
A coward's story is more likely to change over time to make himself appear in the best possible light.
First off GT, I want to thank you for the honest back and forth on this topic. Too often these discussions end up in name calling and pettiness so I appreciate the dialogue.
No, I do not believe it is impossible that Mike could have had his career impact his answer. I get thatas a possibility, though it is despicable if that is true. I certainly don't know what Mike saw nor do I know his reasons for handling it the way he did.
That said, at any point at all, he had the ability to make a call to the cabinet to report what he saw. Anonymously even. The fact that he never went forward did anything more than he did and that nobody ever reported it to outside authorities leads me to believe that what he claimed to have seen ten years later was not what he claimed to have seen at the time.
Can you see that possibility as well?
If he was so outraged and upset, why didn't he call the cops on his own? When, exactly, did the leadership tell him not to call the cops? If he's a normal human being concerned about children being hurt, his own failure to call the police goes directly to his credibility about what he saw. You can spin it as stemming from a selfish concern about his own job prospects that he clearly put ahead of child welfare, but that doesn't change the effect on his credibility one iota.
Personally, I believe he saw what he said he saw: Sandusky with his arms around a boy in the shower. The problem with your spin on his testimony, however, is that McQueary never saw any contact with genitals, and hugging a child like that, even while naked, is not illegal under Pennsylvania law unless it's done with the intent for sexual gratification. That's why V6's mother was told to ask Sandusky about sexual feelings while cops were listening behind closed doors, and why Sandusky was not charged in '98: they couldn't prove the intent element.
At best, McQueary drew an inference from what he saw, and that's exactly how he testified ten years after the fact: he saw body positioning that led him to believe that sodomy was occurring. There's an important difference between direct observation and inference drawn from direct observations, which you completely ignore every time you discuss his testimony. The jury was free to draw the same inference McQueary did and convict Sandusky on the V2 IDSI count, and they didn't. They rejected his "belief" on testimony that was much more graphic than McQueary himself said he conveyed to C/S/P, his father, and Dranov contemporaneously.
Because that's when she signed up.
How is it best for MM to look like a scared idiot, running away from an elderly naked man who is abusing a child? Come on now....
I agree. They are all at fault. But, CSS were the leaders of PSU so when talking about PSU, The blame goes to them.
I don't agree. The others were at the mercy of the information they received from mike. I think reporting to mandated reporters at second mile, the org responsible for the kids, was a reasonable response.
If you tell me you think you left the lights on in the house I'm not calling the fire department. However, if you tell me you see smoke I'm calling 911.
It is his story told of subsequent actions that may change to give himself a modicum of cover for his cowardice by implicating others, in positions of more authority, in his refusal to act.
His lawyer told him about the payday at the end of the trial and he became a victim. His lawyer, Andrew shubin, is the worst example of a ambulance chasing lawyer.
She's one person using one screen name. What about you?
"I'll make it easy for you: Erickson said it was the right thing to do because he was conceding fault and liability on PSU's part. Masser said it was "fair" because a wrongdoer should pay for their wrongdoing, and PSU was at fault."
On the other hand he may have said it was the right thing to do because a member of the Penn State family was found to be a monster in a court of law. When a member of ones family hurts someone, even though the family has no legal liability, helping to compensate the injured party can be the right thing to do.
"Can you see that possibility as well?"
Yes it is possible; but to reach that conclusion you would have to conclude that Joe was not truthful in his testimony and statements on the subject, and that Schultz wasn't truthful either when he admitted under oath that McQueary told him that Jerry might have grabbed the young boys genitals in a shower.
Joe's testimony has always been a grab bag. Do you take the the "sexual in nature" part or the "I don't know what you'd call it" part? All in all, it is pretty clear to me that he wasn't sure what he was dealing with and passed it on to those that were supposed to handle these situations. Schultz has always been a pretty big issue in this to me. Ultimate responsibility for this as far as the school is concerned rests with him in my opinion. He had the authority to make more of this and take it to a higher level than any of the others. To blame Joe, Curley, and Schultz as though they are all at the same level in this thing is a misnomer.
This is from JM himself at the 12/16/11 prelim (no wonder at JS' trial 6 months later he denied any memory of even being at the courthouse) re: a meeting JM had with Dr D and Schultz a few months after the incident:
Pg. 145 (Roberto cross examination of JM): Ms. Roberto asks JM:
“Isn’t it your recollection that your son described to Dr. Dranov what happened that evening in the shower as only hearing something in the shower and drawing conclusions about what happened but not seeing anything in the shower?”
Beemer of course immediately objected. Roberto responds by saying that regarding Dr. Dranov section 4902-F requires the Commonwealth, the prosecution, to corroborate Mr. McQueary’s statements. And this witness is the best witness we can think of that would corroborate or not the statements of Mike McQueary.
Beemer responds by saying they are going down a road that’s not relevant (huhhh???). The court notes the objection by Roberto but still sustains the Commonwealth’s….what a freaking joke.
Pg. 151 (Farrell cross examination of JM):
Q: Do you recall Dr. Dranov disagreeing with your description of what Mike said when you said it to Mr. Schultz?
A: Not disagreeing, at least at that time, no I don’t – I don’t believe he did
Q: Did he add facts to it or correct facts?
A: We’ve had conversations so many times, it’s difficult to put into place what occurred week one, month one, year ten. And so I feel uncomfortable answer that because I don’t – I can’t say it with 100 percent certainty
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.
Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?
A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
Q: You never used the phase anal sex with Mr. Schultz?
A: Absolutely not
Q: Or the word rape?
A: Not at all
Q: Or the word sodomy?
A: No, not at all
Q: Or the phrase sexual assault?
A: No, not at all
Q: How about the word fondling?
A: I don’t think I would have used it because I didn’t see it. I would be saying what I was told, but I don’t think I would have used fondling.
Q: I apologize for this, but in the discussion with Mr. Schultz did you describe to Mr. Schultz the action of Mr. Sandusky thrusting his groin into a young boy’s rear end?
A: No
Q: Did Mike tell you that?
A: And Mike never said that
Pg. 145 (Roberto cross examination of JM): Ms. Roberto asks JM:
“Isn’t it your recollection that your son described to Dr. Dranov what happened that evening in the shower as only hearing something in the shower and drawing conclusions about what happened but not seeing anything in the shower?”
Beemer of course immediately objected. Roberto responds by saying that regarding Dr. Dranov section 4902-F requires the Commonwealth, the prosecution, to corroborate Mr. McQueary’s statements. And this witness is the best witness we can think of that would corroborate or not the statements of Mike McQueary.
Beemer responds by saying they are going down a road that’s not relevant (huhhh???). The court notes the objection by Roberto but still sustains the Commonwealth’s….what a freaking joke.
Pg. 151 (Farrell cross examination of JM):
Q: Do you recall Dr. Dranov disagreeing with your description of what Mike said when you said it to Mr. Schultz?
A: Not disagreeing, at least at that time, no I don’t – I don’t believe he did
Q: Did he add facts to it or correct facts?
A: We’ve had conversations so many times, it’s difficult to put into place what occurred week one, month one, year ten. And so I feel uncomfortable answer that because I don’t – I can’t say it with 100 percent certainty
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.
Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?
A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
Q: You never used the phase anal sex with Mr. Schultz?
A: Absolutely not
Q: Or the word rape?
A: Not at all
Q: Or the word sodomy?
A: No, not at all
Q: Or the phrase sexual assault?
A: No, not at all
Q: How about the word fondling?
A: I don’t think I would have used it because I didn’t see it. I would be saying what I was told, but I don’t think I would have used fondling.
Q: I apologize for this, but in the discussion with Mr. Schultz did you describe to Mr. Schultz the action of Mr. Sandusky thrusting his groin into a young boy’s rear end?
A: No
Q: Did Mike tell you that?
A: And Mike never said that
"There's an important difference between direct observation and inference drawn from direct observations, which you completely ignore every time you discuss his testimony."
I don't ignore the difference; in one I see it happen and in the other I see facts from which I can infer it happened. Both of those scenarios can legally establish that it happened.
Yep, same here. I posted on the Rutgers site a while back with a second screen name, but I have always been this here and on 247.
I mean, that is what many here think happened with most of the 30+ victims. I do not.
I am open to every possibility. But I have a belief in what I think happened. Do you believe in there having been a coverup as the most likely option?
Too late!
He clearly did NOT. Not only did he testify to watering it down for Paterno, Paterno's non-cross examined testimony is sufficiently vague and qualified to be worthless. Most importantly, not one person's actions that heard the report suggest that to be true. So either it wasn't "something sexual" or at least MM, JM, Dranov, JVP, GS, GS, and TC decided to ignore it. Use some common sense.
The head coach, the most powerful man at the university, no the most powerful man in the state... had a long track record of doing the right thing. MM had to know that JVP would stand up for him for doing the right thing. So your theory holds no water.
Can you provide me a "cite" that will help me understand this broken English?
I think you mean "ex-member" of the family.
Last edited:
Paterno's testimony was never cross examined and was full of equivocation and was a 10 yr recollection that may have even been transcribed wrong, but you already know this.
Also your characterization of Schultz's testimony is incorrect and misleading (big surprise!!). When he mentions genital grabbing He was SPECULATING in response to the prosecutors hypothetical question. It wasn't him recalling what MM actually reported to him but rather what he had in his mind as a possible Scenario to MM's report .
Heres the actual text so you all can judge for yourselves:
From the 12/26/11 prelim: Pg 223 lines 14-20) "was it or was it not your impression that he was reporting inappropriate sexual conduct by JS".
Schultz answers with "You know, I don't know what sexual conduct's definition to be, but I told you that my impression was --you know, Jerry was the kind of guy that he regularly kind of like physically wrestled people. He would punch you on the arm, he would slap you on the back. He would grab you and put you in a headlock, etc. That was a fairly common clowning around thing. I had the impression that maybe something like that was going on in the locker room and perhaps in the course of that, that somebody might have grabbed the genitals of the young boy. I had no impression that it was anything more serious than that. That was my impression at the time" (this ends at line 11 of page 224).
Pg 224 (lines 12-25) and ending with Pg 225 (line 7). **Pay special attention to the next to last Q&A where Schultz makes it perfectly clear he's saying what he THOUGHT may have happened**
(line 12) Q: Didn't you previously tell us in our interview that you had the impression -- I have it written down -- that this was inappropriate sexual conduct?
A: Again, depending on what you call --I mean, grabbing the genitals of the boy is what I had in mind. Now, is that sexual? Yes.
Q: We can all agree that an adult male under no circumstances other than a doctor should be grabbing the genitals of a young boy?
A: I agree completely with that
Q: And that it doesn't happen accidentally
A: Rather than just agreeing to I thought it was sexual conduct or misconduct, I'm explaining what I really thought might have gone on. You know, you can define that as you want. I'm telling you what I THOUGHT was going on.
Q: Would you agree with me that IF it had been sodomy, that is, anal sex, that would clearly be inappropriate sexual conduct?
A: no doubt.
And in McQueary's case it didn't. The jury only believed his direct observation for indecent assault and rejected his inference for IDSI.
An inference, I might add, that he did not state to Paterno, Curley, or Schultz in 2001.
You've said several times in this forum that McQueary testified he saw a crime. The fact is, he didn't testify that way. He testified that he saw an act that constituted one element of the indecent assault crime. He didn't see, and could not testify to, the intent element. The jury drew that inference of intent on their own.
He also testified as to the inference that sodomy was occurring which he drew from his observation. He never testified that he saw, and in fact he specifically admitted that he did not see, the act of sodomy occurring. He saw only body positioning that was not criminal per se.
Glad you're finally admitting that he actually did not see a crime, but in his own mind drew the inference necessary to think he saw a crime.
Last edited:
Perhaps everyone else ought to step out, turn off the lights, and leave GTASCA and GetMyJive alone for some "quality time"
Assuming they are not actually the same person, it seems they may be desirous of a little alone time with some hand lotion and a box of tissues
Assuming they are not actually the same person, it seems they may be desirous of a little alone time with some hand lotion and a box of tissues
I take it as both sexual in nature and as an act that Paterno did not know what to call it. Jay has said that Joe was incredibly naive about these things.
In my mind, what makes the most sense to me (and this is just a hypothetical scenario) is that if there was a true coverup, Curley and Schultz may have driven the coverup. We know that Curley met with Paterno and then Curley and Schultz met with MM. They then relayed the info that they gathered to Spanier. At one point, it seems that they were going to report this incident to the authorities until the infamous Curley email where he said something like "after talking to Joe, I feel uncomfortable with the current course we are taking." What is interesting to me is that (unless I am mistaken) Joe said that he only talked to Curley once about the incident. The email implies that Joe was then talked to after MM because they had already decided what to do. Well, did Joe only talk to Curley once about this or was it multiple times? Could Curley have been lying about talking to Paterno and then changing his mind? It's hard to tell with just emails, but I can definitely see a scenario where they fed Spanier bad info and then pushed for not going to police.
Stop with the absurd spin. How much money did Penn State pay to the family of Melanie Spalla after she was murdered by the HUB lawn sniper? Or to Nicholas Mensah, who was shot in the abdomen? Or Valerie Christen, who was killed by a falling elm tree branch right next to the Willard Building? Or Aaron Stidd, who was maimed on Atherton Street by a drunk driving fellow Penn Stater, or the family of Richard Smith, who was killed in the same act?
"I think you mean "ex-member" of the family."
You don't understand the concept of family.
