Of course, they knew there was money to be had. They just didn't know how easy it would be. Contingent fee agreements also a factor here
Ray Blehar delivers another great blog post about McQueary and Corbett
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
Ok so if i follow:
. AM is not V2
. you know who V2 is
. I think you believe MM's story is BS.
So what really happened that night in 2001? You have said knowing V2 doesn't help PSU's case which leads me to believe he was assaulted that night. If he wasn't that might explain EVERYONE'S lack of response to MM's report which in my opinion would help PSU's case. If someone and i don't really care who said I am the real V2 and yes JS did assault me but not that night it shows things in a different light.
I guess the other thing for the narrative of the general public, they think PSU paid AM millions for being V2. Case closed, all involved are complicit. Most of the general public have no idea how F'd up our BoT has been. In their mind we paid therefore we are guilty.
Finally if your real V2 was assaulted that night we can all pick holes in MM's testimonies but he did get the basic facts correct.
Call me one of the AM is v2 all victims are liars crowd. I am not ready to say that all accusers/claimants are liars, but I will say that I don't believe that all of the testimony that the accusers/claimants have provided regarding whether or not they were sexually abused by Sandusky is 100% accurate.
To your credit, you acknowledge that the testimony of v9 and v10 are both suspect and that they may have had financial incentives in having Sandusky found guilty at trial. IMO, any claimant who came forward after Joe Paterno was fired and Penn State essentially agreed to pay them for a story that met certain parameters is immediately suspect
I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that v1, v3, v4, v5, v6, and v7 did not have financial incentives riding on the results of the trial and that they were not motivated by that fact in their trial testimony. Whether you want to admit it or not, it is clear that there were huge financial incentives riding on the results of the trial for all of the accusers/claimants. There were only 2 accusers (v1 and v4) who alleged overt sex acts in the November, 2011 grand jury presentment and neither of their allegations are particularly iron-clad.
Even you have admitted that Sandusky did not receive a fair trial. The results of an unfair trial are inherently unreliable. None of the 36 claimants made contemporaneous comments to friends, family, teachers, law enforcement, or psychologists that they were sexually abused. They is no physical evidence to suggest that any of the 36 claimants were sexually abused. No pornography (child or adult) in either electronic or paper form has ever been found in Sandusky's possession. Sandusky has maintained his innocence from day 1 and has denied ever sexually abusing a child.
I think you are dead wrong when you claim that AM is not v2. I was at the Nov. 4, 2016 PCRA hearing where AM answered I don't remember 34 times to questions he didn't want to answer. It seems obvious to me that he didn't want to admit that the Nov. 2011 statement he made to Curtis Everhart was essentially correct. If that is the case, then AM is v2 and Sandusky did not sexually abuse him.
Your assertions that AM's statement to Evenhart is false because he got the date wrong and didn't know details of the Lasch locker room layout is very weak impeachment. I think the reason you are reluctant to share any evidence that there is someone not named AM who might be v2 is that it doesn't exist or it wouldn't pass the reasonableness test. If there was any evidence to suggest that AM was not v2, the OAG certainly would have been brought up at the Nov. 4, 2016 PCRA hearing.
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/09/boy-in-shower-says-he-cant-remember-34.html
Both Ray and JZ rely on a lot of conjecture and connecting the dots, which will result in little with respect to moving the needle in all of this. This is not to say that there is isn't truth into what each says. I'll say this, both have exhibited far superior methodology and rational conclusions than either Louis Freeh or the OAG. With regard to AM, I tend to side with JZ and Franco.
I have no idea.
. I give JS attorney's a pass because "he didn't assault me then but he did other times wouldn't have helped their case.
. I also don't really think not remembering the date or lay out is a disqualifier.
. It also seems like it would have been a no brainer even for our idiot BoT to not pay AM as V2 if it was so clear he wasn't.
. And no other V2 has ever appeared, or maybe he did. Ray says he knows who V2 is and he did come forward and did get paid. That leads to the question, are he and AM in cahoots which Ray hasn't answered.
. Also Ray says knowing the real V2 wouldn't help PSU. To me that means he must think JS actually did assault V2 that night. If he didn't assault him that night I don't know how that doesn't help the PSU case particularly TC, GS, GS and JVP. [not JS]
on the other hand
. Ray has done yeomen work and I see no reason why he would be so adamant that AM isn't V2 unless he was pretty certain.
. Most importantly I can see no reason why TC and GS attorney's wouldn't call AM to the stand as V2 unless they were certain he wasn't. After all they wouldn't need to prove anything, all they would need to do is cause confusion in the juries minds. I.E.
. you have been paid as V2 correct?
. you claim you are V2 correct.
. you made a statement exonerating JS correct
. you now dispute that version of your story
. which time were you telling the truth
. the OAG doesn't think you are V2. Can you explain why?
on and on to create confusion about the V2 incident, which supports why NO ONE MM told felt it was important to report.
Who the hell knows
. I give JS attorney's a pass because "he didn't assault me then but he did other times wouldn't have helped their case.
. I also don't really think not remembering the date or lay out is a disqualifier.
. It also seems like it would have been a no brainer even for our idiot BoT to not pay AM as V2 if it was so clear he wasn't.
. And no other V2 has ever appeared, or maybe he did. Ray says he knows who V2 is and he did come forward and did get paid. That leads to the question, are he and AM in cahoots which Ray hasn't answered.
. Also Ray says knowing the real V2 wouldn't help PSU. To me that means he must think JS actually did assault V2 that night. If he didn't assault him that night I don't know how that doesn't help the PSU case particularly TC, GS, GS and JVP. [not JS]
on the other hand
. Ray has done yeomen work and I see no reason why he would be so adamant that AM isn't V2 unless he was pretty certain.
. Most importantly I can see no reason why TC and GS attorney's wouldn't call AM to the stand as V2 unless they were certain he wasn't. After all they wouldn't need to prove anything, all they would need to do is cause confusion in the juries minds. I.E.
. you have been paid as V2 correct?
. you claim you are V2 correct.
. you made a statement exonerating JS correct
. you now dispute that version of your story
. which time were you telling the truth
. the OAG doesn't think you are V2. Can you explain why?
on and on to create confusion about the V2 incident, which supports why NO ONE MM told felt it was important to report.
Who the hell knows
relative to ....Also Ray says knowing the real V2 wouldn't help PSU. To me that means he must think JS actually did assault V2 that night. If he didn't assault him that night I don't know how that doesn't help the PSU case particularly TC, GS, GS and JVP. [not JS]
I think (and I dont know I am not Ray) the reason knowing who Vic 2 will not help PSU, is that no one would care, no one would believe them anyway.
I think, Ray thinks, the only thing that will help PSU is if they find the report that says this was reported to CYS (or whomever). I thought I read he said they made one, but dont have positive proof of that. If that would surface, everyone is off the hook at PSU.
This is what I get out of what Ray has written, not trying to put words in his mouth.
@rmb297 @lubrano @wensilver @francofan
I heard on Monday of this week that the JS appeal to the PA Superior Court was scheduled for this past Wednesday, Aug. 15. Can any of you confirm that the hearing was held, and give us an update from it, if so?
Thank you.
I heard on Monday of this week that the JS appeal to the PA Superior Court was scheduled for this past Wednesday, Aug. 15. Can any of you confirm that the hearing was held, and give us an update from it, if so?
Thank you.
I know voicemail messages confirm Jerry asked Allan Myers to come forward. He basically said to not be afraid to come forward to the police since there's "nothing to hide". Not exactly what you will say to someone you want to lie for you. Also, if Jerry did get Myers to lie, why didn't he come clean on the conspiracy when he flipped. Jerry trying to get him to lie would be good evidence he actually was a victim.
Victim 4 hired Ben Andreozzi as soon as the March 31 Ganim article came out. I highly doubt his intent was to find someone who could help him emotionally.
Victims 3 and 7 only acknowledged Sandusky touched them sexually after hiring Andrew Shubin. You know what money grubbing scum Shubin is. Furthermore, Victim 7 admits that he had no memory of molestation by Sandusky prior to his "therapy". The fake accuser has exposed Shubin's shrink, Cindy McNab as a complete crock. Also, Victim 3's statement against PSU completely contradicts his trial testimony, revealing him to be a dishonest individual out for money.
You acknowledge on your blog that Victim 5 is full of shit. Like Victim 3, V5's statement against PSU also completely contradicts his trial testimony, revealing him to be a dishonest individual out for money.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/08/only-victim-found-not-credible-by-jury.html
That leaves only Victim 1, Aaron Fisher, who I do admit is the most credible accuser. However, even you were admitting his testimony was unreliable in August 20, 2013 at 10:25 PM comment to the above linked blog post. The only evidence that has surfaced since then only further calls into question Fisher's testimony. I know you think the testimony of Dawn's Facebook friend Jessica Dersham is airtight, but Dersham's story was available in 2013 when you called Fisher's testimony unreliable. However, since 2013, John Ziegler has done numerous interviews with people close to Fisher who believe he is not telling the truth. Ziegler has also discovered that Fisher's uncle is very likely one of Dr. Barry Bender's victims, which may have motivated Fisher's mother to see dollar signs.
We know Ray is convinced he will find evidence that completely exonerates Joe Paterno by proving that PSU did make a report to the police and CYS after the McQueary episode. I think Ray needs A.M. to be not the real V2 so that he won't have to "share the glory" with John Ziegler when that evidence is revealed and the Paterno statue comes back up.
Well hopefully when the statue goes back up, it won't be the old one that looks like Joe Pesci with glasses. He deserves better.
Your stretching there RE. AM being V2 doesn't exonerate JS but it does help the others IMO, and JS ultimate guilt is a huge divide between Ray and Zig. Same with a police report [or CYS report], doesn't exonerate JS but does the others. The only thing that would help JS now would be if one or two of the vics recanted which would create tremendous doubt for the others.
Are you talking about V5, whose initials are MK? While the guy did significantly change the date of his “abuse”, plus made up abuse in his claim that he did not testify to at trial, he never claimed to be The McQueary victim. If he had any chance of being the McQueary victim, he would have certainly claimed to be it.
Last edited:
I know AM being V2 doesn’t exonerate Sandusky, but I do believe it exonerates Paterno (and Curley, Schultz, and Spanier as well). Everyone made up thier minds based on the report of “anal intercourse”. It is quite clear that based on AMs history, nothing like that occurred. At worst, he was being groomed, and if that was the case, Jack Raykowitz was the one who needed to deal with that.
I think whether or not Aaron Fisher is legitimate is the lynchpin of Sandusky’s guilt or innocence. Problem is, I think Aaron honestly believes he was groomed by Sandusky, and thus isn’t technically lying when he claims to be a victim.
Ziegler didn't discover anything, total foobah.
Fisher’s family received a substantial settlement from Penn State in 2013 — part of roughly $60 million the university agreed to pay 26 victims that year.
Though he won’t specify the amount, citing the terms of a confidentiality agreement, he doesn’t shy away from discussing his spending on the latest phones, flashy cars or the three-bedroom house he is building on 42 mountainside acres.
Sandusky’s defense at trial was largely centered on such payouts. His lawyers alleged the accusers colluded to invent tales of sexual abuse so they could later sue Penn State.
Fisher, whose family then lived in Clinton County public housing, became a particular target.
As a defense strategy, the theory failed. But two years into Sandusky’s prison term, an active online community — led by conservative talk show host John Ziegler — has kept such conspiracy-minded thinking alive.
Fisher posted a photo to Facebook of his girlfriend lying on a hotel bedspread covered in cash.
“They have gotten no scrutiny for their story,” Ziegler said. “I would go away in a heartbeat if Aaron answered just a couple of questions for me.”
Ziegler’s website, FramingPaterno.com, features interviews with Fisher’s ex-girlfriend and some childhood friends, questioning his testimony and delving into years of past slights and offenses. Most have nothing to do with Sandusky.
Ziegler meticulously monitors Fisher’s public Facebook page to fuel blog posts like one in December in which he questioned photos Fisher posted of himself wrestling shirtless with his younger brother.
“He claimed that a large part of how Sandusky ‘groomed him for abuse’ was through pretending to coach him to wrestle,” Ziegler wrote. “You would think that ... wrestling, especially while almost naked, might bring up bad memories for him.”
When Fisher’s former stepfather, Eric Daniels, was sentenced to prison in Georgia last year for sexually exploiting young girls, Ziegler concluded that Daniels must have molested Fisher, not Sandusky.
Asked about Ziegler’s baiting, Fisher tries to appear nonchalant.
“If he has questions about me, he should just ask them directly — reach out and shake my hand like a man,” he said.
Still, there are times when Fisher and Hennessy appear to leave themselves open to attack.
After a February trip to Nashville, Fisher posted to Facebook a photo of his girlfriend lying on a hotel bedspread covered in cash.
Ziegler responded: “Here is Penn State’s money being put to good use.”
Hennessy threw herself into the fray. After a lengthy back-and-forth, she eventually offered to have Fisher take a lie-detector test if Ziegler would back off and apologize. That test never happened.
“You think you know everything and I’ve had enough,” Hennessy wrote in their Facebook exchange. “I know what really happened. Sandusky molested my child.”
I have not seen any reports in the media or blogosphere.
I was not at the hearing, but talked to someone who was there. The hearing took place in Harrisburg before a panel of 3 female Superior Court jurists. The hearing took around 15 minutes and the panel was also hearing several other cases as well.
There were some sharp questions directed at OAG lawyer Jennifer Buck by one of the judges concerning Joe Amendola's effectiveness. (Jennifer Buck changed her name from Jennifer Peterson after her divorce).
The panel should issue their decision in 1-6 months.
My own opinion is that the panel will probably deny Sandusky's appeal. If that is the case, I expect that Sandusky will promptly appeal to the Pa. Supreme Court. I think Sandusky's odds are better in the Pa. Supreme Court than in Superior Court, but it will still be very much a long shot.
I believe that Sandusky's best chance for exoneration will be in Federal Court via a writ of habeas corpus after his State appeals have been exhausted.
I am not buying that Ray knows who the real v2 is, unless you are referring to AM. This sounds like something O.J. would say.
It certainly seems that Ray thinks JS abused someone in the shower that night back in 2002 (or was it in 2001, or better yet that was in 2000). If he knows v2 was someone other than AM, he would absolutely say something. If he doesn't not, he is covering for Mike McQueary and the OAG. Anything that shed some light on what happened in the v2 incident would help the cause of justice for Joe Paterno's legacy, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Jerry Sandusky. These facts are clear - MM did not witness an anal rape, Jonelle Eshbach sent an email to MM to keep quiet after he complained that she had twisted his words in the gjp. None of the people MM told about the incident (including his father, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz) in 2000/2001/2002 thought it required a report to CYS
The chances of any claimants recanting is very slim. At least, not until they run out of money.
Dranov has trouble remembering stop signs, so how good is that?
McQueary told his father, John, and family friend Dr. Jonathan Dranov, about the incident the night it occurred in February 2001. Dranov testified on Wednesday, as he did to the grand jury and at Sandusky’s trial, that McQueary told him that he had heard “sexual sounds” but did not describe seeing a sexual act.
He said McQueary told him he saw a boy in the shower and then a man’s arm come around the corner to pull him back in. After McQueary slammed his locker, he saw Sandusky come out in a towel. Dranov said McQueary was visibly shaken and when Dranov asked multiple times what he had seen, McQueary became more upset but only discussed the sounds he heard.
“[McQueary] was quivering, choosing his words. He was obviously visibly upset,” Dranov said Wednesday.
Dranov testified that he and John McQueary later met with then-Vice President Gary Schultz, one of the two administrators to whom Mike McQueary had reported the shower incident, to work out an affiliation agreement between his medical practice and Penn State. After the meeting, John McQueary asked where the investigation stood.
Dranov said Schultz told them there were “rumors” of a previous incident in the 1990s that was investigated by police. He said Schultz told them no charges were brought and the board of Sandusky’s The Second Mile charity for at-risk youth was notified. Dranov said Schultz indicated similar actions were being taken with Mike McQueary’s report, but did not say other agencies were involved.
An allegation of abuse was made against Sandusky in 1998. The case was investigated by Penn State Police but the Centre County District Attorney declined to prosecute. Investigations have shown Schultz appeared to be aware of the 1998 case.
Dranov said that John McQueary told Schultz, “This was a potentially serious incident with serious repercussions and he wanted to be sure it was being attended to in an appropriate fashion.”
Conrad questioned Dranov about his status as a mandated reporter of suspected child abuse because he is a physician. Dranov said because of what McQueary described and because he was not a witness to it, the incident was not a mandated report.
Asked if he thought it was “bad enough” to call police or child welfare agencies that night, Dranov said no.
“I don’t want to give the implication I didn’t think it was a serious incident,” Dranov said. “I did. I followed up to make sure he reported it.“
Dranov urged McQueary to report the incident to his supervisor, which he understood to be Penn State’s procedures.
McQueary reported the incident to Joe Paterno the next morning, and Paterno reported it to then-Athletic Director Tim Curley and Schultz, who spoke with McQueary but dispute that he told them anything sexual had occurred. Among McQueary’s lawsuit claims is that Curley and Schultz misrepresented what they would do with the information he gave them.
Both Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury (since dropped) and failure to report suspected child abuse based on McQueary’s testimony and their denials that he had told them of anything sexual. A later charge of child endangerment also remains and they still await trial.
In an email to Sassano and Eshbach, McQueary said the AG’s office had made no statement of support for him and asked about whether he could make a public statement of his own. On Monday, Eshbach testified that she told him not to because she did not want him to give a statement that could be used in cross-examination. Sassano said that McQueary was free to respond, but that he didn’t think he should.
“You don’t respond to these kooks and nuts,” Sassano testified.
Also, they are being paid monthly installments so the won’t “run out of money” and will likely made them more afraid of even hinting that their cases were a sham (since it’s certainly easier to stop paying out money that to take it away) . This has been revealed by the latest issue involving a judge denying Glenn Neffs request to convert a portion of his settlement to a lump sum, as he was claiming a “hardship”.
I'm just trying to guess who Ray is insinuating the REAL Victim 2 is. Vic 5 was the only one who testified to being in the locker room post February 2001, and was paid more than Myers. As you imply, this kid changed his story multiple times and was full of complete crap.
If Ray is right, and Myers wasn't the real Victim 2, I can't believe the police wouldn't be all over Myers's case like sh!t on shinola. All they need to do is have some smart reporter come to them and ask why there was never a murder investigation done as to what happened to the REAL Victim 2. Why are they letting a potential murder suspect and/or embezzler walk away with close to $ 7 million dollars scot-free?
What is almost as much a mystery as to why Myers is getting a free ride (well, actually a $ 6.9 million dollar ride) is why Ray, a guy that has done absolutely spectacular research on this subject, can't see the forest for the trees with respect to Myers. His reasons in his blog are beyond laughable. In fact, they convince me even more that Myers is the kid.
It's almost with respect to this one specific, isolated subject, he is either covering up for someone, or he knows it is Myers, and just doesn't want to admit it because he doesn't want to admit he is wrong. It makes absolutely no sense.
I agree that Ray has done some very good investigative work on the fiasco and seems to have a relatively good handle on most of the key things that have happened in the case.
I believe early on in the case that Ray was convinced there was at least something wrong with JS's behavior and probably something very wrong. Then there was a falling out with Ziegler and things blew up and Ray locks into his theory that AM isn't v2 and doesn't want to even consider the possibility that JS isn't what the OAG made him out to be. I also think another factor could be because he doesn't want to entertain the notion that Jim Clemente could be wrong about JS being a pillar of the community sex offender.
Ray's theories don't make any sense regarding AM. He doesn't even have a plausible story. IMO, in the long run his theories will be shown to be baseless.
The truth is Jerry is where he belongs and a few are in denial about it.
Here is a link to the unedited version of the photo that Ray references in his blog post of the eventual/potential victims. It is a photo from around 1999 and included in Sandusky's book "Touched" that includes 4 out of the 6 identified victims from the November, 2011 grand jury presentment (v4, v5, v6 and v7) plus also Frank "the Tank" Probst (a claimant from Lock Haven who played high school football and gave a TV interview after Sandusky's arrest essentially stating that he wasn't a victim). It is curious that there is no evidence that any of these 5 claimants ever told anybody (friend, family member, teacher, psychologist, lawyer, policeman, clergyman, etc.) before 2011 that they had been victimized, assaulted, or had a non-consenual sexual encounter with Jerry Sandusky or somebody resembling Jerry Sandusky. It is also curious that of the 5, only 1 (v4) had alleged an overt sex act before the November 2011 gjp and that was only after being coached and lied to by Pennsylvania State Police interrogaters. I wholeheartedly disagree with Ray that financial considerations didn't influence their trial testimony.
You should work for the catholic church Steve. Imagine how many of those kids didn't come out early(for decades) and now are going to get paid as adults...tainted GJ pool because of past incidents of the church...means they are all liars. Hopefully you can put fourth the good fight for those priests too. Right up your alley.
Last edited:
Sorry LaJolla, but I don't have a strong opinion on the recent grand jury report by Josh Shapiro, the current Pennsylvania Attorney General other than I am not a big fan of either Shapiro or the Pennsylvania grand jury process. What do you think of the Pennsylvania Catholic church as related in the grand jury report?
I do however have an opinion about Billy Doe, the accuser that help to convict Msr Lynn and 3 others from the Philadelphia Catholic diocese. I don't find him at all credible and am surprised that the Philadelphia district attorney hasn't disown him yet.
https://www.newsweek.com/2016/01/29...men-prison-philadelphia-rape-case-417565.html
LaJolla, humor me if you will and let's see if we can find any common ground in the facts surrounding the Penn State/Jerry Sandusky by answering the following questions:
1, Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape in the Lasch building locker room in the 2000/2001 time frame?
2. Do you believe that Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier and/or Joe Paterno knowingly enabled the acts of CSA perpetrator?
3. Do you believe the Freeh Report is based on factual information?
4. Do you believe that NCIS Special Agent J. R, Snedden made a mistake when he recommended in 2012 that Graham Spanier's TS/SCI clearances be renewed?
5. Are you aware of any of the 36 claimants that Penn State made settlements with who made a contemporaneous report of CSA to a friend, family member, teacher, social worker, lawyer, psychologist, cleryman, law enforcement personnel, or somebody else?
6. Are you aware of any pornographic material either in electronic or paper form that has ever been found in Sandusky's possession?
7. Are you aware of any instances when Sandusky has admitted to acts of CSA?
My answers to all 7 questions are no. Please substantiate any yes answers that you might have.
I think Jerry Sandusky molested kids for a long time and the victims knew him to be a "great man" in the eyes of the community. He groomed everyone around him as just the good guy there for the kids. Just like in the catholic church, many young male victims are way too ashamed to come forward and never do or don't until they are adults. That isn't unusual if you ever bothered to research the actual topic. Children do not know how to process what occurred, yet you somehow think they do. You have never once acknowledged this and that is why the catholic church case should open your eyes, but won't. You need to keep this hope alive that Jerry is the victim here, it's very odd to me...very odd.
You cannot separate Spanier, TC, or Schultz from Jerry. Jerry isn't in jail because of them. Their lives were turned upside down due to him....but you don't get that. They aren't coming out to defend Jerry anytime soon, if ever. MM has said he didn't witness that so why would I believe that to be the case. Jerry wasn't convicted of that BS either, but the 8 other victims sunk him like the POS he is. I know what he testified to versus what the GJ presentment stated....but that still doesn't mean Jerry isn't a monster.
When you start fighting for those priests like you do for your Jer Bear, I'll take you serious (nahh, just kidding) as they both have victims that didn't tell anyone for decades and will get cash....so you need to go help them. I know you won't as your idol wasn't tarnished and that is all this has ever been about to you. You are in some sort of really bad denial and I wish you would get some help. You somehow think a background clearance on one person is a criminal investigation on another one....it's odd. You cite books from people that were accused by their own children of abuse, but I'm wrong to question that source. Ok then.
Last edited:
You are entitled to your opinion. Believe what you want to believe. I obviously have a different opinion that you do. I am willing to let history be the judge of whose opinions are closer to the truth.
I will give you credit that you didn't answer yes to any of the questions I posed. Since you apparently don't have any evidence to the contrary, I am guessing that you might answer No to most or all of the questions. Humor me some more, and let me ask you a couple more questions and respond to them if you can:
8. Do you think it is good investigative practice and questioning technique to lead a witness with other evidence in the case and then telling them that it is ok for them to tell you that something similar happened to them as shown in the interview by police investigator Joseph Leiter and v4 (as was caught on tape) and then to lie about what happened on top of that?
9. Do you think it was ethical for prosecutor Frank Fina to coerce witness Cynthia Balwin to violate attorney - client privledge and force her to testify to what her clients (Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier) told her when she was acting as their attorney?
10. Do you think that it is acceptable practice for the prosecution to leak grand jury testimony and the grand jury presentment such as what they did for Sara Ganim's March, 2011 article and the November 2011 grand jury presentment?
11. If it was such a slam dunk case that Sandusky was a pedophile, why did the OAG have to resort to such questionable tactics and apparent prosecutorial misconduct?
What?
Spanier approved a plan on how to deal with a report that assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky showering with a boy in a team facility. In the email, he told the other two administrators that the "only downside" was if Sandusky did not respond properly "and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it."
"How else can you take that, other than they knew they should have been reporting it" to the then-Department of Public Welfare, said Navazio, three days after voting with 11 other jurors to convict the 68-year-old Spanier of a single misdemeanor count. He was acquitted of conspiracy and a second child endangerment count.
Mike McQueary to Curley, Schultz and former head football coach Joe Paterno was about a sexual attack on a child, as McQueary has repeatedly testified was the case. Spanier has said it was characterized as horseplay.
"This whole crap about 'horseplay' — they apparently were comfortable using the word horseplay for some reason," Navazio said. "But at the same time you can't say it was horseplay, but everybody says how serious it was."
Navazio, a Harrisburg resident who works in the software field, has a bachelor's degree from Penn State-Harrisburg, but had not continued to follow the Sandusky child molestation scandal in recent years.
She said jurors were divided early on during the roughly 13 hours of deliberations, including some who favored full acquittal and others who wanted to convict on all three counts.
"It was actually heavily debated," she said. "Each charge was, I think I want to say, dissected down to the elements. And each element was discussed actually intently and quite seriously."
Schultz, the school's former vice president, and Curley, the former athletic director, both pleaded guilty on March 13 to misdemeanor child endangerment and testified for the prosecution. All three await sentencing. Spanier's lawyer has vowed to appeal.
Navazio said neither Curley nor Schultz struck her as credible on the stand.
Curley, she said, "seemed like the center of the breakdown of everything. He was the one that most procrastinated doing anything. He was the one that seemed to water down the report the most."
Jurors acquitted Spanier of the conspiracy charge out of a feeling that there was conspiring among the three administrators, but there wasn't evidence that the goal was to put children at risk, she said. Prosecutors say four of the eight young men who testified at Sandusky's trial that he had abused them, were abused after the incident McQueary witnessed.
"It didn't feel like they were conspiring to endanger children," Navazio said. "They were conspiring to protect Penn State."
The Sandusky scandal led the university to fire Paterno and force out Spanier, triggered NCAA sanctions against the school and football program that were later reduced and shorted, and eventually caused the school to pay out more than $90 million to settle civil claims of abuse at Sandusky's hands. Sandusky was convicted in 2012 of 45 counts of child sexual abuse and is serving 30 to 60 years in prison.
So, why didn't the OAG play by the books and why did they have to resort to shenaningans?
Why did they include in the grand jury presentment the knowingly false statement that McQueary witnessed an anal rape?
Why did Leiter and Rossman use suggestive interviewing techniques with potential witnesseses and then lie about it?
Why did the OAG leak grand jury testimony and the grand jury presentment?
Why did Frank Fina coerce Baldwin to violate attorney-client privledge and force her to testify against her clients?
Why did Joe McGettingan use Sandusky's right to remain silent against him at trial?
So sad Franco. Your hero worshipping trumps all. When you’re as critical of Jerry as you are every one else, let me know. Like I said you should go to work for the Catholic Church next.
The thought of having someone like her on a jury should frighten everyone, judging people based on how she "feels" instead of the facts.
Que Indittany on “the only downside comment” he has answered that a hundred times.,FWIW JS was not a football coach when Spanier sent that email. But you knew that right?
Exactly, absolutely no talk about what law was actually broken. But this is Spanier's attorney's fault in many ways. He should have realized in a high-profile case such as this, they were definitely dealing with a guilty until proven innocent situation. They were absolutely stupid to not even attempt to prove Spanier's innocence.
It also baffles me what they didn't even try to cross examine Mike McQueary. The juror certainly took his word seriously (at least for that one of his many versions of the story).
I know Mike and his family sometimes frequernts this board. I would have a lot more respect for Mike if he even made any attempt to answer the following questions.
1) The date and time that you now claim the incident happened was a typical Friday night during the school year. In addition to the thousands of students walking around campus (many of them drunk), there was a Barenaked Ladies concert going on at the nearby Bryce Jordan Center and a club hockey game being placed at the Greenburg Ice Pavilion which was attached to the Lasch Building. Why then did you initially believe the incident happened the Friday before Spring Break?
2) You acknowledge that the boy could have been between the ages of 8 and 13, a huge difference that indicates you did not get a good look at the boy. You also admit you saw two or three glances that were only a few seconds long. Also, the layout of the shower and the fact that you had to look through a mirror would have also made a precise view difficult and the boy would be impossible to see if he was really pressed against the wall. Why then are you absolutely sure you witnessed a sexual act?
3) You played in several of Sandusky's golf charity tournaments after the incident and admitted that you only began objecting to Sandusky still being allowed to frequent to football facilities after you talked to the OAG in 2010. Would you admit your perspective of Sandusky and exactly what he was doing during the 2001 incident was influenced based on information that OAG provided you in 2010?
4) There is proof that you emailed Jonelle Eshbach after the Grand Jury Report was leaked and noted that you were misrepresented as you were not completely sure sodomy occurred. Eshbach actually agreed with you, but basically told you to keep quiet. If you would have went public with this misrepresentation as soon as you were revealed to be the witness, you would have certainly received more sympathy and less vitriol from the public. Why then did you choose keep quiet about that misrepresentation?
What confuses me concerns Ray's latest theory. That being that he will soon prove that that PSU actually did inform the police and/or CYS about the McQueary epiosode. If Ray's theory is true, I think that would only validate Ziegler's view that the boy was Jerry's surrogate son Allan Myers and that absolutely no molestation occurred. Because if the theory is true, an actual police officer (likely Tom Harmon) or a CYS worker must have also determined the incident was not criminal, just like Dr. Dranov, John McQueary, Tim Curley, Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, Jack Raykowitz, and Bruce Heim.
I am just speculating here. But maybe the police officer or social worker called someone from the second mile, who insisted it was no big deal, then they decided to let it go. Another scenario that may have occurred, again I am just speculating, is that a police officer may have called Mike McQueary at some point after McQueary had talked to Curley and Schultz. Remember when McQueary was first questioned by the media after he was revealed to be the eyewitness in the grand jury report? He stated that he talked to the police AND the man who oversaw the police. He later stated he just meant Gary Schultz, but his first answer seems to indicate he talked to an actual cop in addition to Schultz.
I think the evidence seems to indicate that McQueary, contrary to what he now states, wanted to "abort the mission" after he found out he was not getting Kenny Jackson's job. Therefore, if McQueary did receive a call from a cop, McQueary would have likely responded with something along the lines of "It's been taken care of" or "It was all a misunderstanding" and the cop would have let it go. Of course, had he stated this in 2011, McQueary would have been impeached as a witness against Sandusky and no longer useful to the OAG. He would then potentially in trouble for sending the dick pics and betting on college football. Therefore, it actually makes sense McQueary promptly shut up about it after the initial media questioning.
Last edited:
interesting i realize many large payout are paid like annuities but it is convenient that these folks aren't likely to recant for many years.
There seems to be some very significant differences between the Sandusky scandal and the catholic church scandal.
1) There were actually a lot of contemporaneous complaints against the priests, they were just covered up by church leadership and the priests were often simply transferred to another parish. I would think there would be more complaints against a football coach in the 1990s than priest in the 1960-80s, but no one complained about a sexual act from Sandusky until 2008, and the compliant only became sexual after the accuser underwent months of therapy.
2) You claim that children do not know how to process what occurred, but the accusers who claimed sex acts with Sandusky (V1, V4, V9, V10) were post-pubescent teenagers at the time. As someone who grew up in a "white trash" town in Central PA, its is not uncommon for kids (especially ones raised by single mothers) to start having sex when they are 11-12 years old. At least in the cases of V1 and V4, they were almost certainly having sex with girls during the exact same time period they were claiming abuse by Sandusky.
3) The Catholic church scandal revealed that many of the boys molested by the predator priests grew up to be predators themselves and often became priests themselves where they continued the cycle. When it comes to the men who accused Sandusky, despite the fact that most have extensive criminal records, not a single one has a charge of a sex crime against a male. In fact, not one of the accusers is even plausibly gay.
Also,
1) Gary Schultz believes 100% that Sandusky is innocent. i corresponded with him personally. His silence at this point has mostly to do with the fact that he doesn't want to upset the OAG, as I believe he is still under probation. He does say he looks forward to the opportunity when he can tell the whole story.
2) Do not tell me to go start fighting for the priests or something. I actually believe our criminal justice system is way too soft on child sex offenders. In fact, because unlike Sandusky very few offenders maintain their complete innocence, they are almost always allowed to plea bargain and end up getting only a year or two in prison.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Football Former Penn State WR KeAndre Lambert-Smith commits to Auburn- Latest: Sportfan2017
