Having read the notes and emails from '01, what makes you think abuse was reported to them?
OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
What does this even mean? Sounds like a lot of confirmation bias to me.
If MM only reported horseplay/inappropriate behavior, and PSU took preventive measures, including reporting the incident to the child care professional responsible for both the boy's well being and Jerry's behavior, why does the buck stop with them? Why isn't Jack Raykovitz the one on the hot seat?
Which victims specifically were proven to be abused while JS worked under JVP? Secondly, why does it matter when JVP didn’t know about it? That’s like saying some crimes happened under Clinton’s presidency, and he should be blamed even though he had no idea it was happening.
It's obvious WestSideLion either hasn't followed the details or did and then just gave up.
I don't get folks that say JS didn't assault Allen Myers, yet don't want a new trial. That belief, coupled w/ the ridiculous janitor fabrications that no one believes, doesn't say "new trial", it SCREAMS it.
Oh, I think he's followed the details since the beginning. Although I can't agree with him on the "just give up" stance he takes, I do think he is probably correct on the ultimate futility of these efforts. The time for this sort of thing was years ago. Now, either most don't care, or their minds are made up with the help of our own BOT and the news media. With respect to JZ, although his logic makes as much sense as anyone else's , including law enforcement, the prosecution, media, etc. , so much of what he says is conjecture. In this case he's going to need a heck of a lot more than that to even budge the needle.
Last edited:
I am cautiously optimistic that the story that Ralph Cipriano and Ziegler have been working on will be told in a national media outlet within the next week. I have been led to believe previously on a couple of occasions that this story was ready to break, only for plans for publication changing at the last minute. I was told that the story had to wait until after the Superbowl and am now told that it is timed to get a maximum splash because of the HBO Paterno movie scheduled debut on April 7. If the story is told in a national media outlet (and this is a big IF), I am told that this story will be a bombshell. I have not read the story myself, but believe it will tell the story of the fake accuser including snippets of conversations made between the fake accuser and his civil attorney as well as his repressed/recovered memory therapist. I believe the story will name all of the 30+ "accusers" that Penn State has made settlements with. I believe the story will also include convincing evidence that the infamous v2 incident that Mike McQueary witness occurred in December 2000 and not in 2001 or 2002 as the OAG has previously claimed. I also believe the article will include evidence of Sandusky's diagnosis of hypogonanism and the ramifications of such a diagnosis.
Last edited:
I hope we get some answers and people listen francofan. Thanks to you for sticking your neck out there like you have. Looking for the truth shouldn't equate to some of the things we've all been called over the years.
I think the Nassar situation at MSU and the Sandusky situation at Penn State are night and day.
Nassar had hordes of child pornography, had over 150 accusers some of who made contemporaneous reports to authorities and shared their abuse with friends and familiy members as well as showing raw emotions in their contempt of Nassar very publicly. Nassar admitted his guilt, his wife left him, and is a broken man.
On the other hand, Sandusky has never been shown to possess any pornography including child or adult as well as electronic or hard copy based. There was only 1 accuser for the first 2 years of the Sandusky investigation. At the time of the November 2011 grand jury presentment there were only 6 actual accusers (of which only 2 alleged sexual acts) and there were only ~34 claimants that received settlements from Penn State after they announced they would pay anybody who had even a remotely credible claim. None of the claimants made contemporaneous reports to authorities or told any friends or family members in a remotely contemporaneous manner that they had been abused. None of his accusers have shown any raw emotion in their contempt of Sandusky in a public manner. Sandusky has professed his innocence from day 1. Sandusky's wife has stood by him from day 1. Sandusky is not a broken man and would very much like to have an opportunity to demonstrate his innocence.
With all this out in the open, I'd expect Scott and Jay Paterno to step into the breach in defense of their dad. And since they aren't, what gives?
It is not yet out in the open. I will believe the article will be published when the article is actually published. If the article gets published (and I believe that it will), I would be very interested in what Jay and Scott have to say.
Unfortunately, I think Scott is somewhat invested in the narrative we've been sold. Jay, not so much.
I have no issues with Sandusky appealing the various verdicts.
Fact is, though, we're 5.5 years out since June 2012 and his batting average as regards his appeal attempts is 0.000. The courts don't seem to think there is much there.
I believe Jay knows more than what he has stated publicly and realizes that McQueary did not witness a sexual assault in the Lasch building locker room.
I would guess that Scott probably still thinks that Jim Clemente didn't harm his father's legacy.
I don't disagree with the fact that the Pennsylvania courts have thus far ruled against Sandusky as well as Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. I think that a key reason why is that the Judiciary in Pennsylvania is elected and the public is thus far convinced that Sandusky is guilty as sin, and for that matter that Spanier, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz enabled him. If a judge in Pennsylvania wants to get elected or retained, they better not go against public opinion.
If there's ever a successful appeal, it will be on the Federal level I assume. It would take not a bomb shell, but a nuclear explosion for PA to go back and revisit it at this point. It would be admitting their own malfeasance.
I don't think MM met with them to discuss the weather. I think he reported that he saw something the troubled him but he couldn't be sure what. I think C/S had a soft response for that reason.
Fina and Baldwin committed misconduct in 2011 and are just now being scrutinized by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. At some point in the next 12 years, the troopers that lied at trial might face some sort of verbal reprimand. This is PA where nothing moves quickly, except for a high profile child molestation case with no firm dates.
So troubling that it may have taken him months to schedule the meeting? Actually the weather was a higher priority to MM at the time apparently.
The man who was known as Victim 4 was the prosecution's star witness at the trial. He did allege that Jerry assaulted him at the football facilities while Jerry was still a coach at PSU. The jury did convict Jerry on those charges.
However, this man also he claimed he was consistently abused after school in the Fall, a time when PSU was having football practice, and no one remembers Jerry missing any practices during this time frame. Also, V4 brought his kid to go visit Jerry when he was a 27 year old man, only a year before the arrest. Finally, there is a tape recording of an investigator conspiring with V4's attorney to get him to embellish his testimony. And the prosecution, by virtue of having this guy testify first, considered him their most credible accuser.
The "no victims were abused when Jerry was still a coach" or "no abuse occurred at the football facilities" argument only makes sense in the context of Jerry is completely innocent.
Joe Paterno specifically followed up with McQueary after Curley and Schultz made the decision to banned Sandusky from bringing kids to the football facilities and to notify the Second Mile. McQueary was okay with that response. He continued to play in Sandusky's charity golf outing in the year's following, so he couldn't be too upset by what he saw.
It was not McQueary's decision to meet with Curley and Schultz. Joe made that decision after McQueary came to him. When you consider that the actual incident almost certainly happened in December, its very likely that McQueary simply wanted face time with Joe after Kenny Jackson's job opened up, and McQueary had likely heard Paterno grumble about Sandusky still being around the facilities after retirement and would be happy Mike gave him a reason to boot Sandusky. I think Mike wanted to "abort the mission" after he learned he didn't get Jackson's job, and therefore didn't tell Curley or Schultz anything substantial.
Francofan, I have not read the explanation of this point. Can you give me the reader's digest version please?
TIA
OL
Probably because they would be forced to admit extreme corruption in the PA criminal justice system. Just look at Jonelle Eshbach's lies in the grand jury report. That alone should be grounds for a mistrial. Also, the fact that McGettigan and Fina did not do anything about Andrew Shubin's obvious tampering with the most important witness in this case, Allan Myers. There is a real cover-up here and it does not involve Penn State.
Exactly, the murder trials of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter were deemed to be unfair because of technicalities that were much less severe than the one's at Sandusky's trial. Yet the mainstream now believes that no only were the judges right in declaring the trials unfair, but that Carter was actually exonerated.
Its quite ironic that these guys spend so much of their lives trolling message board posts on the topic they "don't care" about.
I agree. But at the same time, I don't think anyone interpreted what they were told as being sexually motivated. As an aside, didn't Mike qualify his testimony with "I would have told them...." about 7 different times? Coached much!
The problem was clearly the risk they perceived from Jerry and these kids continuing to use the facilities alone...in the future. That exact concern was expressed in Schultz's notes from 02/25/01. That's why Spanier said they could "become vulnerable" if their "message was not heard and acted upon." It's why Raykovitz proposed to have Jerry wear swim trunks in the shower. Does it make any sense for Bruce Heim to have offered Jerry access to the facilities at the Hilton Garden, knowing he was kicked out of PSU, if he even suspected Sandusky might sexually abuse anybody? No! Nobody acted as though kids might be in danger. They acted to protect Sandusky from himself because, sooner or later, there was going to be another '98 that could lead to a civil suit involving PSU.
Too bad we don't see any email record beyond what we have. I wonder if Freeh has something to do with that? IMO, we fail to appreciate the significance of Curley talking with both Sandusky and Raykovitz. Any final decision on what to do next was influenced heavily by those conversations.
Francofan, I haven't seen much of anything regarding Spanier's bid to overturn his verdict or his request for a new trial. Any thoughts on when the next steps are going to happen in that saga?
There was a Superior Court hearing in Harrisburg recently, I believe the beginning of February. Please realize that I may had a defense perspective, so I think Superior Court has a more than reasonable basis to overturn the verdict. However, you have to take into account that this is Pennsylvania and anything goes. If Spanier loses this round, I believe he appeals to the Pa. Supreme Court.
Last edited:
From the appeal docket, it looks like the hearing was February 7th:
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=1093+MDA+2017
Agree, but C&S should have documented what MM told them and also their response. HR 101. Shame on them.
I can see how some might think C&S's actions/inactions could possibly deserve a slap on the wrist, but do not see anyway or anyhow that jail time was warranted. There was no sexual abuse reported (certainly not by McQueary), the boy in question said that nothing happened, and Curley referred the report to The Second Mile, the party that should be responsible for the incident if anybody was responsible.
I think Sue knows that MM is lying. People must understand what this family has been through. They commissioned their own investigation and filed law suits. I think its time for people to stop looking to the Paterno Family for leadership, when the university that Joe and Sue gave their lives to continues to allow them to be unfairly vilified. Barron knows that Joe did the right thing. Why doesn't he make that simple statement? Coward! Tool!
Similar threads
