ADVERTISEMENT

McQueray Hearing Cancelled.

pnnylion

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2012
7,718
38
1
Mike had a hearing scheduled for this morning that was cancelled. Is he looking to cut a deal? Roll over on some people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Talpsu
Mike had a hearing scheduled for this morning that was cancelled. Is he looking to cut a deal? Roll over on some people?
MM is suing for $4 mil. He'd settle for half that. However, if he decided to come clean, name names, and bust this mess wide open, he'd make far more money on a book/movie deal. Yeah I'm dreaming but this is what it will take to break the media template.
 
MM is suing for $4 mil. He'd settle for half that. However, if he decided to come clean, name names, and bust this mess wide open, he'd make far more money on a book/movie deal. Yeah I'm dreaming but this is what it will take to break the media template.

I don't think MM has anything really to tell. He's already told at least 4 different versions of his story. The best he could do now is come out and say "this one, this one was the correct story". Even if MM were to come out and tell the media that he made it all up, nobody would care or believe him. His only hope is suing the university. I think 91Joe95 is correct though, that if he subpoenaed BOT members to testify under oath, and lump Freeh into that mix, then they'd settle faster than you can say "something to hide".
 
  • Like
Reactions: pnnylion
If he hasn't figured it out by now, he's an idiot. All he needs to do is up his demands and then schedule some depositions of the bot members.
Good answer!!! Depot Karen see what kind of check you can get!!!!
 
Mike had a hearing scheduled for this morning that was cancelled. Is he looking to cut a deal? Roll over on some people?
If it were just a scheduling conflict, illness or something of that nature maybe dukie could fill us in. I'm guessing it's no big deal, but we can always hope it's more.
 
Not sure McQuade could depose anyone on the BoT, or that it would do him any good if he could. They'd simply say that the decision to terminate his employment was not made at the Board level and they had nothing to do with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pnnylion
So what exactly where his different stories? I always see it referenced that he has changed his story but I think this is a common myth. I can't think of one single thing that he has actually changed. I'm not defending his actions because frankly there are plenty of things about his actions don't make any sense or are indefensible but I don't think he was waivered on anything he ever said. Closest thing that might come close is when this all went down there were rumors he told his players or a letter to them that he "stopped it" that night but later on he claimed under oath about slamming a locker
 
So what exactly where his different stories? I always see it referenced that he has changed his story but I think this is a common myth. I can't think of one single thing that he has actually changed. I'm not defending his actions because frankly there are plenty of things about his actions don't make any sense or are indefensible but I don't think he was waivered on anything he ever said. Closest thing that might come close is when this all went down there were rumors he told his players or a letter to them that he "stopped it" that night but later on he claimed under oath about slamming a locker

Reflection on mirror, slammed locker, "anal rape!" in grand jury presentment, testified he never said "anal, nor rape", said the year was 2002 and he was sure of it (was a year off), said he never golfed with Jerry after the incident (he golfed with jerry numerous times after the incident. I'm stopping now because I'm kinda sure you're trolling.
 
Reflection on mirror, slammed locker, "anal rape!" in grand jury presentment, testified he never said "anal, nor rape", said the year was 2002 and he was sure of it (was a year off), said he never golfed with Jerry after the incident (he golfed with jerry numerous times after the incident. I'm stopping now because I'm kinda sure you're trolling.
None of above are true, I suggest you look up slander/libel...defamation...moderators and Tom let this non factual information here far too much...
 
None of above are true, I suggest you look up slander/libel...defamation...moderators and Tom let this non factual information here far too much...
well, I agree some are loose on the facts. but you have to admit there has been some inconsistencies between GJ testimony, police statements, and trial testimony. That said people should not be referencing the GJP in terms of the Mike's inconsistencies. The GJP was written by the OAG. How they represented testimony was not necessarily consistent with testimony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kgilbert78
None of above are true, I suggest you look up slander/libel...defamation...moderators and Tom let this non factual information here far too much...

No, what the moderators and I do is allow folks to discuss subjects from a number of angles, perspectives, etc. If what someone states is obviously inaccurate, no shortage of folks will correct it. If it's unclear to many what are the facts, then those that have knowledge, or have good memories of what actually is in transcripts, will generally educate the board. In situations where nobody knows what is or is not the facts, then folks speculate, and if they go too far they either get pulled back to a reasonable speculation, or nobody responds to their post.

There are folks that no matter what is presented as facts will not accept it. That's a fact of life.

Collectively, we all learn things here. That doesn't mean that we all learn the same things, or reach the same conclusions, especially when we are presented with conflicting info, or lots of partial information.

You, like anyone else on the board, are always welcome to try to educate folks about whatever you have knowledge of.
 
No, what the moderators and I do is allow folks to discuss subjects from a number of angles, perspectives, etc. If what someone states is obviously inaccurate, no shortage of folks will correct it. If it's unclear to many what are the facts, then those that have knowledge, or have good memories of what actually is in transcripts, will generally educate the board. In situations where nobody knows what is or is not the facts, then folks speculate, and if they go too far they either get pulled back to a reasonable speculation, or nobody responds to their post.

There are folks that no matter what is presented as facts will not accept it. That's a fact of life.

Collectively, we all learn things here. That doesn't mean that we all learn the same things, or reach the same conclusions, especially when we are presented with conflicting info, or lots of partial information.

You, like anyone else on the board, are always welcome to try to educate folks about whatever you have knowledge of.
Someday I will Tom, be ready. You know damn well dwiz blatantly said non factual info...it is noted, also that the operators of the board have let it continuously go on, and at times have encouraged it.
 
Someday I will Tom, be ready. You know damn well dwiz blatantly said non factual info...it is noted, also that the operators of the board have let it continuously go on, and at times have encouraged it.

I look forward to anything that brings accurate info to people. You should know me well enough to know that.

As for what I do or don't "damn well know," I think you're overestimating me. I have a number of sources, and do know a lot of things, but I also forget what is in transcripts, articles, etc. I usually have to look up stuff like that to post about it, as I've kind of been overwhelmed with conflicting info over the past 3 1/2 years. For whatever reason, I have an excellent memory of recruits, recruiting scenarios, etc., but not for the subject being indirectly discussed here.

As for the operators of the board, I'm not exactly sure what you are claiming. Phil operates this site. The monitors and I try to keep this site clean and functional. I do start discussions, or respond in threads, but IMHO most of what is discussed here is initiated by the board community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N&B4PSU
Reflection on mirror, slammed locker, "anal rape!" in grand jury presentment, testified he never said "anal, nor rape", said the year was 2002 and he was sure of it (was a year off), said he never golfed with Jerry after the incident (he golfed with jerry numerous times after the incident. I'm stopping now because I'm kinda sure you're trolling.

I would love to see portions of McQueary's testimony or portions of McQueary's written account to police that reference that he was "sure of it" that the incident occurred in 2002 or anything in contrary to the account that McQueary slammed his locker door and looked at Sandusky and the boy through the mirror. Additionally, I'd love to see any kind of evidence that McQueary ever golfed with Jerry - much less "numerous times" - after the incident. I'd be thrilled to see you continue with your examples, though - I assure you I'm not trolling.
 
Not sure McQuade could depose anyone on the BoT, or that it would do him any good if he could. They'd simply say that the decision to terminate his employment was not made at the Board level and they had nothing to do with it.

Well, given their actions right after they fired everyone, given how they placed one of their own as AD, given their hiring of Freeh, I think a good attorney could get his foot in the door. Besides, didn't the bot actually make a statement about the reason MM couldn't coach? I suspect at the very minimum he was discussed at one of those board meetings.
 
I would love to see portions of McQueary's testimony or portions of McQueary's written account to police that reference that he was "sure of it" that the incident occurred in 2002 or anything in contrary to the account that McQueary slammed his locker door and looked at Sandusky and the boy through the mirror. Additionally, I'd love to see any kind of evidence that McQueary ever golfed with Jerry - much less "numerous times" - after the incident. I'd be thrilled to see you continue with your examples, though - I assure you I'm not trolling.


Of course not. How's SkunkBear/T1000?
 
Ok Troll. You're a troll...you and I know you're a troll. My first guess is that you're that sicko parlementarian living in your mother's basement who has nothing better to do than make up names using proxy servers and post messages on Penn Live, and apparently on this board without proper recourse.

You're obviously not okay, but I hope , for her sake, that your mother is.




JJ/"Andrea DiMaggio"/Karen and dozens of others.
 
I would love to see portions of McQueary's testimony or portions of McQueary's written account to police that reference that he was "sure of it" that the incident occurred in 2002 or anything in contrary to the account that McQueary slammed his locker door and looked at Sandusky and the boy through the mirror. Additionally, I'd love to see any kind of evidence that McQueary ever golfed with Jerry - much less "numerous times" - after the incident. I'd be thrilled to see you continue with your examples, though - I assure you I'm not trolling.

Yeah, you're trolling. Everyone knows it.
 
Yeah, you're trolling. Everyone knows it.

I would suggest that if a settlement is being considered, it is the BOT that might be offering. They have demonstrated a consistent and recent desire to keep a tight lid on their deceptions and might be looking to remove another potential for sunshine.
 
Someday I will Tom, be ready. You know damn well dwiz blatantly said non factual info...it is noted, also that the operators of the board have let it continuously go on, and at times have encouraged it.
Dude, go ahead. We're listening.

But I suspect you are just another embarrassed family member trying to clean things up. Unless you can truly "educate" us, won't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
Mike had a hearing scheduled for this morning that was cancelled. Is he looking to cut a deal? Roll over on some people?

The best result - for anyone who truly wants to illuminate the truth - is for this case to proceed to open court. I don't know what the chances are that we ever see that. Hopefully this recent delay is a very temporary and reasonable one.....we shall see.

We saw the Corman/McCord suit terminated on the brink of some significant disclosures.

We have seen the "Sandusky Victim" cases shuffled off into a deep dark abyss - rather then adjudicated and illuminated (I know, that sounds a little "Jackie Childs", but you get the point).

C/S/S....please...3 1/2 years??

Will the Paterno et al suit be adjudicated in our lifetimes?

Three years....and still the requests of the elected Trustees to review the Freeh file remain thwarted (though the recent actions by the elected Trustees provide some reason for optimism).

One by one, every opportunity to expose the truth gets throttled.

EVERYONE who claims to want "the truth" should be supportive of actions designed to expose the truth........including actions in the "McQueary Case". Our chances for illumination are best served by the process moving forward through discovery and then to sworn testimony in an open courtroom.....testimony and cross examination. As best I can tell, the plaintiffs in this case are making the efforts to move forward. Let's hope those efforts prevail, and this case begins to move forward with reasonable pace.


.
 
The best result - for anyone who truly wants to illuminate the truth - is for this case to proceed to open court. I don't know what the chances are that we ever see that. Hopefully this recent delay is a very temporary and reasonable one.....we shall see.

We saw the Corman/McCord suit terminated on the brink of some significant disclosures.

We have seen the "Sandusky Victim" cases shuffled off into a deep dark abyss - rather then adjudicated and illuminated (I know, that sounds a little "Jackie Childs", but you get the point).

C/S/S....please...3 1/2 years??

Will the Paterno et al suit be adjudicated in our lifetimes?

Three years....and still the requests of the elected Trustees to review the Freeh file remain thwarted (though the recent actions by the elected Trustees provide some reason for optimism).

One by one, every opportunity to expose the truth gets throttled.

EVERYONE who claims to want "the truth" should be supportive of actions designed to expose the truth........including actions in the "McQueary Case". Our chances for illumination are best served by the process moving forward through discovery and then to sworn testimony in an open courtroom.....testimony and cross examination. As best I can tell, the plaintiffs in this case are making the efforts to move forward. Let's hope those efforts prevail, and this case begins to move forward with reasonable pace.


.


But Barry, I'm not sure where this goes as far as illuminating the truth. Working backward, admittedly, if I'm the defense I put Bill O'Brien on the stand and expect him to say something to the effect that the decision to not retain McQuade was entirely his and he made it to hire a better coach. Unless the plaintiff offers evidence that O'Brien was instructed by higher ups to do it, how is there a connection between what the higher ups may have discussed, assuming that they had any discussions about McQuade, and the action to terminate?
 
I would love to see portions of McQueary's testimony or portions of McQueary's written account to police that reference that he was "sure of it" that the incident occurred in 2002 or anything in contrary to the account that McQueary slammed his locker door and looked at Sandusky and the boy through the mirror. Additionally, I'd love to see any kind of evidence that McQueary ever golfed with Jerry - much less "numerous times" - after the incident. I'd be thrilled to see you continue with your examples, though - I assure you I'm not trolling.

From McQueary's testimony at Sandusky trial, 6/12/2012, p.279:

Q. Now, in your written statement,
November 23, 2010, you said: I did not see
actual insertion. I am certain that sex acts
-- the young boy was being sodomized -- was
occurring.

A. Yes, I --

Q. Sound like what you wrote?

A. -- I left that room knowing that and I
believe that as I sit here today.

Q. Okay. Now, you told the grand jury,
and that's on page 9: I'm pretty sure he was
sodomizing him, relatively sure.

A. Yeah. And let me make sure I'm clear,
because I think what you're getting at is I
can't tell you 1,000 percent, because I did not
see a penis entering a rectum, but I do know
that it was severely sexual, and I thought, and
I --


From p.251:

Q. You told the grand jury that when you
discussed this with Joe Paterno you didn't
leave out any details.

A. Yes, I made -- and that's semantics
again. I made sure Coach Joe knew it was
sexual, as he's testified to.


On p.287, there is discussion about playing in TSM golf outings. When asked if he played in 2004, he says he'd like to see proof. (Someone who worked at TSM testified to Mike's name being on a list of invited players. I've seen no proof whatsoever that he did play in any TSM golf outing since 2001)

From p.288:

Q. What about the Easter Seals football
game?

A. Yes, sir. What about it?

Q. Did you play in that?

A. Yes, for Easter Seals, not The Second
Mile, for Easter Seals, and that's what I was
told it was for, the Easter Seals. I want to
make sure that point is clear, because it's
been reported that there were kids involved in
it and they were again Second Mile kids and the
charity benefited Second Mile. It was
organized by a local police officer. It was
for the Easter Seals, and I did participate in
it. Yes, sir.

Q. Was Jerry involved with that?

A. Upon me not knowing. He was at the
game that night, and I did not know anything
about it. I think -- and, again, I remember
firmly that he was an honorary coach.


From p.234:

Q. Originally, you thought it happened in
2002 at some date, correct?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Was there any --

A. Do you want me to explain that answer
or --

Q. Was there ever any confusion over the
dates?

A. Without a doubt.

Q. There was no confusion over the dates?

A. I think you just asked was there ever
any confusion over the dates, and I said yes,
without a doubt there was.

Q. Okay. There was. And, in fact, at
one point your testimony indicated it happened
13 months later than you're now saying it
happened?

A. You'd have to recite that testimony to
me, sir. I think, in my written statement, I
believed -- I think it was 2002. I think I may
be quoting it directly. I think it was 2002.
It may be 2001. I believe in the grand jury
report I said I'm 90 percent sure it was 2002,
but it could be 2001.

Q. Okay.

A. In several interviews with
authorities, I said I'm not sure of the date.
I think it's 2002, but it could be 2001. And
as this investigation furthered, I told them
that I really do believe it's 2001. You guys
need to look at 2001.


From Van Natta's 3/14/2014, Whistelblower's Last Stand, a copy of McQ's written statement to polic is included. It matches in part what Rominger read to McQ at trial (see p.279 notes above). Here is the text:

On the Friday before spring break in either the year 2001 or 2002, 2002 I think, at approx 10 pm in the Lasch Football Building on the Penn State campus I witnessed improper behavior by Jerry Sandusky in regards to a male juvenile. As I walked in to the staff locker room I heard rythmic [sic] slapping sounds. The locker room lights were on & I did hear the showers running [a second "running" is crossed out]. Upon my entry I turned immediately to my right to open my locker. While placing items in my locker I looked into the mirror at a 45 [degree] angle; in the reflection I could see a young boy approx. 10/11 yrs old facing a wall with Jerry Sandusky directly behind him. I did not see actual insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occuring [sic]. I looked away. In a hurried/hastened state, I finished at my locker. I proceeded out of the locker room. While walking I looked directly into the shower and both the boy and Jerry Sandusky looked directly in my direction. After leaving the locker room I proceeded to my office, made a phone call to my father and then immediately left the building.

I drove to my parents house. Spoke with my father about the incident and received advise [sic]. On the next Saturday morning at roughly 8 am -- less than 12 hrs after the incident -- I alerted Coach Paterno -- my superior at PSU -- at his house in person as to what I saw!

To be clear: From the time I walked into the locker room to the time I left was maybe 1 minute -- I was hastened & a bit flustered.

I would not be able to recognize the boy. Both individuals were wet and the looks were quick -- I had not seen the boy before nor have I seen him after to my knowledge.
 
Reflection on mirror, slammed locker, "anal rape!" in grand jury presentment, testified he never said "anal, nor rape", said the year was 2002 and he was sure of it (was a year off), said he never golfed with Jerry after the incident (he golfed with jerry numerous times after the incident. I'm stopping now because I'm kinda sure you're trolling.


Not trolling at all!!! And you didn't tell me one single thing that "HE" changed. He always stated he saw it first in the mirror and then looked around the corner. Always said he slammed the locker door. He didn't write the GJ presentment and when he got on the stand he made it clear he never said any of those words ever. He also stated 02. I don't think he ever changed on that. It was JS lawyer that said wait a second it was 01 and Im pretty sure Mike continued to say he swore it was 02. As for the golfing, I also thought he golfed in the second mile tourn after this but only thing anybody ever came up with was the basketball golf tournament. I have NEVER seen anyone prove or come forward and said for a fact he golfed in one of the second mile tourns. Youd think there would at least be one picture or heck somebody in his 4some that say he was there. Like I said Im not trolling but nobody has offered any form of proof or evidence on anything of him changing any part of his story. If there was it would be all over the internet yet nobody could come up with anything other than random posts claiming things. This theory of him changing his story is an urban legend

Edit: I see by the post above that he actually did claim 01 too. Saying he swore it was 02 but could be 01. Still doesn't "change" his story. There is a TON of stuff to pin on MM but the changing of the story isn't one of them at this point in time because nobody have proved otherwise
 
Last edited:
But Barry, I'm not sure where this goes as far as illuminating the truth. Working backward, admittedly, if I'm the defense I put Bill O'Brien on the stand and expect him to say something to the effect that the decision to not retain McQuade was entirely his and he made it to hire a better coach. Unless the plaintiff offers evidence that O'Brien was instructed by higher ups to do it, how is there a connection between what the higher ups may have discussed, assuming that they had any discussions about McQuade, and the action to terminate?

Mike's suit doesn't have to do with the fact that he was not re-hired by O'Brien. It has to do with how he was treated during the period he was on suspension (which supposedly was done for his own protection as he was receiving credible death threats at the time, as opposed to any disciplinary action), and in the immediate aftermath of his "firing" (more correctly, his contract not being renewed), and that he was treated differently than the other coaches that were not retained by O'Brien, and many of those differences were in violation of his contract. I'm sure JimmyW will correct me on anything where I'm wrong, and I'd welcome being corrected if I am wrong on any of thise, but some of the things at issue is that they took away his car (appears to be a violation of his contract), they took away his cell phone (same), they didn't allow him to interview with O'Brien (only assistant this applied to - so he's claiming discriminatory treatment there - and he has a point) and they appear to have violated his COBRA rights. He's looking for the following among other compensatory damages; Bonus for the bowl game which he was due as he was still on staff. Reimbursement for the car and other guaranteed perks that were rescinded during the tenure of his contract. Reimbursement for COBRA expenses during the gap in insurance coverage. Compensation to cover any expenses for having to dip into his retirement account to make up for the previous items. It is my understanding that Mike's suit is a helluva lot stronger than most give him credit for and it's an almost certainty that it'll go to settlement.

As for hoping it goes to trial in the hopes of exposing #truth about the scandal fuggedaboudit. The issues being argued have nothing at all to do with the scandal itself and everything to do with personnel issues between Mike and the university with direct regard to his separation from the university. None of the stuff on which we want #truth will have the opportunity to be exposed through this suit since none of it is relevant to the suit. It sounds to me like he was screwed over by the university to a truly regal degree and I hope for his sake that his suit is successful whether it gets tried or settled. Say what you will about Mike, it does not matter. He may have made some mistakes but he's not one of the bad guys here, he never asked for any of this, I'm convinced he was only ever just trying to help, and I really hope he's made whole by the university because he's lost a great deal through all this.

Edit: One other thing, his hearing yesterday was not cancelled, it was postponed at the request of Curley and Schultz. That has to do with their emergency request from last week that any comms between themselves and Baldwin that might come up in the McQueary suit be kept confidential under ACP rules and they wanted more time for the court to consider that request before any public hearings take place. My take on the request is that Curley and Schultz's lawyers are simply maintaining consistency and keeping their i's dotted and their t's crossed since they are still arguing ACP confidentiality with Baldwin in their own case and it could be used against them if they stand idly by and allow that ACP confidentiality to be violated in another case, but that's from an engineer's POV, not a lawyer's. I don't even know if Baldwin was set to testify in Mike's suit, let alone what she might divulge about her legal advice (or lack thereof) to Curley and Schultz, but I suppose it does stand to reason that she was involved in Mike's separation from Penn State so it's likely she'll find herself under deposition. But I don't actually know......Jimmy?
 
Last edited:
But Barry, I'm not sure where this goes as far as illuminating the truth. Working backward, admittedly, if I'm the defense I put Bill O'Brien on the stand and expect him to say something to the effect that the decision to not retain McQuade was entirely his and he made it to hire a better coach. Unless the plaintiff offers evidence that O'Brien was instructed by higher ups to do it, how is there a connection between what the higher ups may have discussed, assuming that they had any discussions about McQuade, and the action to terminate?

What got Penn State in trouble in this case is that they *do* appear to have treated McQuery differently than the other coaches who were not retained. As I recall, benefits were taken away from him sooner, etc. (it's been a while). So while he IMHO has no leg to stand on in reference to not being retained--as this is pretty standard for any coaching change situation (the JayPa/coaches suit doesn't argue the release of those coaches either, for example--just that PSU damaged their future employment possibilities), he may have one in terms of the way he was treated. Every nonretained coach should have gotten exactly the same treatment and terms--and this simply wasn't done. That's just dumb on Penn State's part--whatever the merits of any suit against them. Unequal treatment leaves one wide open for a successful suit.
 
Not trolling at all!!! And you didn't tell me one single thing that "HE" changed. He always stated he saw it first in the mirror and then looked around the corner. Always said he slammed the locker door. He didn't write the GJ presentment and when he got on the stand he made it clear he never said any of those words ever. He also stated 02. I don't think he ever changed on that. It was JS lawyer that said wait a second it was 01 and Im pretty sure Mike continued to say he swore it was 02. As for the golfing, I also thought he golfed in the second mile tourn after this but only thing anybody ever came up with was the basketball golf tournament. I have NEVER seen anyone prove or come forward and said for a fact he golfed in one of the second mile tourns. Youd think there would at least be one picture or heck somebody in his 4some that say he was there. Like I said Im not trolling but nobody has offered any form of proof or evidence on anything of him changing any part of his story. If there was it would be all over the internet yet nobody could come up with anything other than random posts claiming things. This theory of him changing his story is an urban legend

Edit: I see by the post above that he actually did claim 01 too. Saying he swore it was 02 but could be 01. Still doesn't "change" his story. There is a TON of stuff to pin on MM but the changing of the story isn't one of them at this point in time because nobody have proved otherwise


Well, he sure changed his story from what he told Dranov the night it happened. Maybe if he would have told Dranov the same thing he testified to in court, we wouldn't be here today.

According to Dranov's testimony, McQueary told Dranov about the slapping sounds in the hallway between the two locker rooms, and only saw a boy peek around the corner of the shower. An arm reached around and pulled the boy back back, and then Sandusky walked out of the shower. The boy didn't seem upset or frightened. McQueary never told Dranov anything about seeing the boy up against the wall with Sandusky behind him through a mirror (according to Dranov's testimony).

There are numerous other instances if you want to do your homework.
 
No, what the moderators and I do is allow folks to discuss subjects from a number of angles, perspectives, etc. If what someone states is obviously inaccurate, no shortage of folks will correct it. If it's unclear to many what are the facts, then those that have knowledge, or have good memories of what actually is in transcripts, will generally educate the board. In situations where nobody knows what is or is not the facts, then folks speculate, and if they go too far they either get pulled back to a reasonable speculation, or nobody responds to their post.

There are folks that no matter what is presented as facts will not accept it. That's a fact of life.

Collectively, we all learn things here. That doesn't mean that we all learn the same things, or reach the same conclusions, especially when we are presented with conflicting info, or lots of partial information.

You, like anyone else on the board, are always welcome to try to educate folks about whatever you have knowledge of.


What he said. +100
 
Well, he sure changed his story from what he told Dranov the night it happened. Maybe if he would have told Dranov the same thing he testified to in court, we wouldn't be here today.

According to Dranov's testimony, McQueary told Dranov about the slapping sounds in the hallway between the two locker rooms, and only saw a boy peek around the corner of the shower. An arm reached around and pulled the boy back back, and then Sandusky walked out of the shower. The boy didn't seem upset or frightened. McQueary never told Dranov anything about seeing the boy up against the wall with Sandusky behind him through a mirror (according to Dranov's testimony).

There are numerous other instances if you want to do your homework.
To be more accurate, we have not seen Dranov's GJ testimony and Dranov was not asked that in the JS trial. What you are describing is what Ganim reported not the actual testimony.
 
But Barry, I'm not sure where this goes as far as illuminating the truth. Working backward, admittedly, if I'm the defense I put Bill O'Brien on the stand and expect him to say something to the effect that the decision to not retain McQuade was entirely his and he made it to hire a better coach. Unless the plaintiff offers evidence that O'Brien was instructed by higher ups to do it, how is there a connection between what the higher ups may have discussed, assuming that they had any discussions about McQuade, and the action to terminate?

I agree Art, that whatever is gleaned from this case is likely to be minimal (with respect to the big issues). I probably should have been clear about that. I expect any "disclosures" in this case will be pretty limited......limited to the actions of the PSU Admin post-11/11, and only those actions that directly affect MM's employment status.

My reference was more along the lines of the fact that it would make sense to support seeing all the facts on all of these cases.....and in the end, that may lead to being able to put together a clearer picture of just what has been transpiring over all these years. As far as getting to the big picture issues, I would think that the Paterno et al suit, the move to open the Freeh File to the Trustees, etc etc all are much more likely (if they are allowed to proceed) to give us some clearer picture.

There are some interesting points to ponder....such as why does this Administration, which has been handing out multi-million dollar checks like Tootsie Rolls on Halloween, NOT simply say "Here MM, a check for $XX Million.....Now, please go away"

For sure, I am not expecting any bombshells with regard to the big issues to come from this suit.....even in the best case scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pnnylion
ADVERTISEMENT