Ray Blehar: Evidence in 2001 Twisted, Tainted, and Incomplete

[Stufftodo]

You can at times come up with responses that I don't totally disagree with JJ.

1. I believe the Freeh Report is a farce in spite of having some accurate information.

The e-mails and notes are the most damning part of the Freeh report

2. Thank you for acknowledging that MM did not witness an anal rape. MM wrote in an email to Jonelle Eschbach that she twisted his words in her writing of the grand jury presentment.

I didn't say Sandusky was not penetrating the child. I think he was. McQueary could not see penetration, however. I think that there was enough to send this the IDSI charge to a jury.

3, Joe may or may not have been able to continue on the field, but he absolutely did not deserve to be summarily fired over the phone after 61 years of commendable service to the University

I do think he deserved better. And I don't think was the "mastermind" behind everything, either. That doesn't say that he is blameless.

4. Thank you for also realizing that Penn State may have made payments to some accusers that were not based on factual complaints.

I said that I don't know. I don't know what the vetting process was.

How do you know what happened between V2 and Sandusky was sexual activity? The only individual to ever claim to be V2 said it was not.

We know that the person claiming to be Victim 2, was not Victim 2.

 

[RussianEagle]

2. I disagree. If MM provided the adminstrators with a horsing around report that made him feel uncomfortable, then I believe it has everything to do with the way they reacted.

.

Exactly, I hear that argument all the time and it makes no sense to me. We will never know exactly what MM told Curley and Shultz. All will have different stories and its likely all three do not remember exactly what was said, so even a lie detector test may not be accurate.

On the other hand, if Victim 2 came forward, and claimed nothing sexual happened at all that night. It would greatly back up the claim the MM told C/S about horseplay rather than a sexual assault. And I think we have very good reasons to believe Allen Myers is Victim 2. For Victim 2 to be anybody else would require extreme conspiracy theories.

 

[coveydidnt]

1. I believe the Freeh Report and the CSS trials are joined at the hip.

2. I disagree. If MM provided the adminstrators with a horsing around report that made him feel uncomfortable, then I believe it has everything to do with the way they reacted.

3. I believe the way the BOT fired Joe was horrendous.

4. On the other hand, the trial of CSS has everything to do with the accusers looking for settlements.

Nope. How Freeh, the BoT, the accusers, CSS & Joe handled things in 2011 & beyond doesn't change 2001, which is what the trial covers.

 

[bjf1991]

The e-mails and notes are the most damning part of the Freeh report



I didn't say Sandusky was not penetrating the child. I think he was. McQueary could not see penetration, however. I think that there was enough to send this the IDSI charge to a jury.



I do think he deserved better. And I don't think was the "mastermind" behind everything, either. That doesn't say that he is blameless.



I said that I don't know. I don't know what the vetting process was.



We know that the person claiming to be Victim 2, was not Victim 2.

LMAO

_______________

Read idiotic crap like that - that heorshe has been spewing for 5 years........
And why anyone would try to "reason" with this dick-touching STD moron, is beyond me.

 

[RussianEagle]

We know that the person claiming to be Victim 2, was not Victim 2.

How do we know? Because he couldn't properly draw the layout of the locker room? It had been over ten years and he didn't see showering with Jerry as a big deal. So its perfectly reasonable he would not remember.

So you are saying that a married Sergeant in the Marine Corps conspired with Jerry Sandusky to claim to be the McQueary shower victim? Why wouldn't Myers simply tell Sandusky to pound sand and say if you are really innocent, then go find the real boy.

Also, if Myers did lie to provide an alibi for Jerry. Why didn't he say so when he turned on Jerry months later.

 

[Stufftodo]

LMAO

_______________

Read idiotic crap like that - that heorshe has been spewing for 5 years........
And why anyone would try to "reason" with this dick-touching STD moron, is beyond me.

Okay, you think that McQueary saw penetration and that Paterno should have been fired. I guess you also think he was the "mastermind." Got it.

 

[interrobang]

McQueary saying he saw something that merely made him uncomfortable would explain how EVERYONE reacted.

 

[Stufftodo]

How do we know? Because he couldn't properly draw the layout of the locker room? It had been over ten years and he didn't see showering with Jerry as a big deal. So its perfectly reasonable he would not remember.

So you are saying that a married Sergeant in the Marine Corps conspired with Jerry Sandusky to claim to be the McQueary shower victim? Why wouldn't Myers simply tell Sandusky to pound sand and say if you are really innocent, then go find the real boy.

I'm saying Myers was not Victim 2, but he might have been a victim. Myer's had the wrong year, did not describe seeing anyone (and a 6' 4" guy with bright red hair is hard to miss). And yes, he could not describe the room.

 

[RussianEagle]

I'm saying Myers was not Victim 2, but he might have been a victim. Myer's had the wrong year, did not describe seeing anyone (and a 6' 4" guy with bright red hair is hard to miss). And yes, he could not describe the room.

The reason Myers had the wrong year is because that is the year the prosecution claimed at the time. If Myers saw the shower incident as no big deal and he was not abused it is perfectly reasonable for him to forget the exactly year. And it was actually Jerry Sandusky himself who first determined that 2001, not 2002 was the correct year. If Sandusky really tried to pull off a kid switcheroo, he would have had to been jumping with joy when the prosecution got the date, month, and year wrong. Instead, he corrects the prosecution, it doesn't make sense.

Also, how do we know that McQueary was telling the truth when he said he looked Sandusky and the boy in the eye? Maybe, McQ made that up so he could make the claim "I knew I made them stop" after the shitstorm came and he was blamed for allowing a rape to occur.

If Sandusky really was assaulting a child and really saw McQueary that night, why did Sandusky make no effort to contact McQ and ensure he did not go to authorities? Keep in mind McQueary was a lowly graduate assistant at the time. Sandusky was a very respected former defensive coordinator who certainly could have used his prestige to get McQueary a full time job under the condition that he "kept quiet".

 

[Stufftodo]

The reason Myers had the wrong year is because that is the year the prosecution claimed at the time. If Myers saw the shower incident as no big deal and he was not abused it is perfectly reasonable for him to forget the exactly year. And it was actually Jerry Sandusky himself who first determined that 2001, not 2002 was the correct year. If Sandusky really tried to pull off a kid switcheroo, he would have had to been jumping with joy when the prosecution got the date, month, and year wrong. Instead, he corrects the prosecution, it doesn't make sense.

Also, how do we know that McQueary was telling the truth when he said he looked Sandusky and the boy in the eye? Maybe, McQ made that up so he could make the claim "I knew I made them stop" after the shitstorm came and he was blamed for allowing a rape to occur.

If Sandusky really was assaulting a child and really saw McQueary that night, why did Sandusky make no effort to contact McQ and ensure he did not go to authorities? Keep in mind McQueary was a lowly graduate assistant at the time. Sandusky was a very respected former defensive coordinator who certainly could have used his prestige to get McQueary a full time job under the condition that he "kept quiet".

Well, Myers was absolutely sure it 2002. McQueary testified before there was any public disclosure, so he didn't add it. Myers could not describe the shower and it appeared that he had been in the shower many times.

You just suggested McQueary should have blackmailed Penn State. Way to go.

 

[francofan]

Well, Myers was absolutely sure it 2002. McQueary testified before there was any public disclosure, so he didn't add it. Myers could not describe the shower and it appeared that he had been in the shower many times.

You just suggested McQueary should have blackmailed Penn State. Way to go.

JJ - your argument just don't hold water. The 2002 year came from the OAG's grand jury presentment and their star witness Mike McQueary. Myers was responding as the victim 2 from the grand jury presentment. Not being able to recreate a diagram of the locker room 10 years later is not a show stopper. But the point you avoid is that there has been no other credible claim from anyone else to being victim 2.

 

[Legion of Lions]

The reason Myers had the wrong year is because that is the year the prosecution claimed at the time. If Myers saw the shower incident as no big deal and he was not abused it is perfectly reasonable for him to forget the exactly year. And it was actually Jerry Sandusky himself who first determined that 2001, not 2002 was the correct year. If Sandusky really tried to pull off a kid switcheroo, he would have had to been jumping with joy when the prosecution got the date, month, and year wrong. Instead, he corrects the prosecution, it doesn't make sense.

Also, how do we know that McQueary was telling the truth when he said he looked Sandusky and the boy in the eye? Maybe, McQ made that up so he could make the claim "I knew I made them stop" after the shitstorm came and he was blamed for allowing a rape to occur.

If Sandusky really was assaulting a child and really saw McQueary that night, why did Sandusky make no effort to contact McQ and ensure he did not go to authorities? Keep in mind McQueary was a lowly graduate assistant at the time. Sandusky was a very respected former defensive coordinator who certainly could have used his prestige to get McQueary a full time job under the condition that he "kept quiet".

Here is the best "test" of the validity of MM's 2001 "shower scene" testimony .....name ONE OTHER PERSON who reacted in 2001 like "abuse" was observed after talking to MM in 2001!

MM's own multiple versions (excluding the OAG presentment version) do not support a CREDIBLE criminal event taking place. If anything, PSU's response - emails and discussions - represent a typically conservative "corporate" response to evaluating POTENTIAL LEGAL options in how to handle a vague report like what occurred in 2001- not establishing a core of "continuous cover-up" activities promoted by the OAG in charging C/S/S. How did anything known and acted on in 2001 "enable" a pedophile based on 2001 information???? I guess this is far-out conclusion is only known to ...."God and Freeh"!

It is THIS INFORMATION - what MM reported - that is the TOTAL case on which any LEGAL responsibility/criminality against anyone PSU is based...PERIOD! The real case of criminal mishandling in 2001 still ONLY APPLIES TO TSM & PA STATE AGENCIES!!

 

[Stufftodo]

JJ - your argument just don't hold water. The 2002 year came from the OAG's grand jury presentment and their star witness Mike McQueary. Myers was responding as the victim 2 from the grand jury presentment. Not being able to recreate a diagram of the locker room 10 years later is not a show stopper. But the point you avoid is that there has been no other credible claim from anyone else to being victim 2.

Myers, at best, responded truthfully. If so, the incident occurred in 2002, and he wasn't Victim 2.

At worst, Myers based his response to the grand jury presentment's date of 2002. His testimony would not be reliable.

Either way, Meyers as a defense witness has problems. Add to that Myers could not describe the room and than description of the incident lacked the important detail of seeing McQueary.

 

[bjf1991]

Exactly, I hear that argument all the time and it makes no sense to me. We will never know exactly what MM told Curley and Shultz. All will have different stories and its likely all three do not remember exactly what was said, so even a lie detector test may not be accurate.

On the other hand, if Victim 2 came forward, and claimed nothing sexual happened at all that night. It would greatly back up the claim the MM told C/S about horseplay rather than a sexual assault. And I think we have very good reasons to believe Allen Myers is Victim 2. For Victim 2 to be anybody else would require extreme conspiracy theories.

The fact that THAT incident was conflated by the OAG into being the "centerpiece" of the entire affair - - - - that, alone, tells you all you need to know about the "purity" of this entire Sandusky fiasco.

 

[francofan]

Myers, at best, responded truthfully. If so, the incident occurred in 2002, and he wasn't Victim 2.

At worst, Myers based his response to the grand jury presentment's date of 2002. His testimony would not be reliable.

Either way, Meyers as a defense witness has problems. Add to that Myers could not describe the room and than description of the incident lacked the important detail of seeing McQueary.

You have made the same arguements for at least 3 years now JJ and they still don't add up. The 2002 date originally came from the OAG in the grand jury presentment which presumably came from Mike McQueary, At the time of Myers's statement to Everhart (November 2011), the grand jury presentment had just been written and Myers was responding to the gjp.

I will grant you that the entirety of Myers's testimony may not be viewed as credible in that after the Everhart statement he flipped and became a victim. He has said that he was never abused, and then that he was abused. One of those statements is not true. I happen to believe that his statement to Everhart was true and that his statement that he was abused (which I believe was made to get a settlement) may be less than true.

If you want to believe the alternative that he statement to Everhart may be a little less than true, that is you prerogative. However, please explain why you have no doubt in that conviction (the 2002 date plus locker room layout don't prove absolute certainty IMO) and why there has been no other person who has made a credible claim to be v2.

 

[WeR0206]

Here is the best "test" of the validity of MM's 2001 "shower scene" testimony .....name ONE OTHER PERSON who reacted in 2001 like "abuse" was observed after talking to MM in 2001!

MM's own multiple versions (excluding the OAG presentment version) do not support a CREDIBLE criminal event taking place. If anything, PSU's response - emails and discussions - represent a typically conservative "corporate" response to evaluating POTENTIAL LEGAL options in how to handle a vague report like what occurred in 2001- not establishing a core of "continuous cover-up" activities promoted by the OAG in charging C/S/S. How did anything known and acted on in 2001 "enable" a pedophile based on 2001 information???? I guess this is far-out conclusion is only known to ...."God and Freeh"!

It is THIS INFORMATION - what MM reported - that is the TOTAL case on which any LEGAL responsibility/criminality against anyone PSU is based...PERIOD! The real case of criminal mishandling in 2001 still ONLY APPLIES TO TSM & PA STATE AGENCIES!!

Didn't you know? When people try to cover something up they always inform outside entities they have no control over, document it in emails, and copy their admin assistants on those emails bc the more people that know the better. That's what the state would have us believe.

What a load of illogical crap!

 

[Stufftodo]

You have made the same arguements for at least 3 years now JJ and they still don't add up. The 2002 date originally came from the OAG in the grand jury presentment which presumably came from Mike McQueary, At the time of Myers's statement to Everhart (November 2011), the grand jury presentment had just been written and Myers was responding to the gjp.

Myers was "very positive" that it was 2002. Now, either we was telling the truth that it happened in or he made his story conform to the reported, but inaccurate, year.

I will grant you that the entirety of Myers's testimony may not be viewed as credible in that after the Everhart statement he flipped and became a victim. He has said that he was never abused, and then that he was abused. One of those statements is not true. I happen to believe that his statement to Everhart was true and that his statement that he was abused (which I believe was made to get a settlement) may be less than true.

We can add to that he stated that he never saw McQueary, though at other times, he had hear the sound of a locker door close. Now, that is inconsistent with what McQueary saw. It also presents a logic problem. If McQueary never saw Myers, how could he report that Sandusky was in the shower with a boy? Yet we know that McQueary did report that.

Third, of course, is that he can't describe the locker room area. He stated that he had been in the locker room and even had heard the sounds of locker doors closing. Do you expect anyone to believe that he knew the locker room well enough to have heard the locker doors close repeatedly, but he couldn't describe the room?

(Myers also indicated that they used another facility at times.)

If you want to believe the alternative that he statement to Everhart may be a little less than true, that is you prerogative. However, please explain why you have no doubt in that conviction (the 2002 date plus locker room layout don't prove absolute certainty IMO) and why there has been no other person who has made a credible claim to be v2.

Several possibilities:

1. He is too ashamed to come forward, as some adult rape victims are.

2. He is one of the people with which Penn State settled.

3. He is dead or incapacitated.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Well, Myers was absolutely sure it 2002. McQueary testified before there was any public disclosure, so he didn't add it. Myers could not describe the shower and it appeared that he had been in the shower many times.

You just suggested McQueary should have blackmailed Penn State. Way to go.

So you just admitted that Penn State awarded millions of dollars to people who were not victims of Sandusky. You also admitted that the victims' claims were poorly vetted, and the process was sloppily and dishonestly executed, and that whoever was on this committee abdicated their fiduciary duty to the stakeholders of the Penn State community, and should be held accountable legally and morally. They should also be required to testify in this case to explain the vetting process.

 

[Zenophile]

Well, Myers was absolutely sure it 2002. McQueary testified before there was any public disclosure, so he didn't add it. Myers could not describe the shower and it appeared that he had been in the shower many times.

Suffice it to say that if you're cheering for the OAG, you'd better hope that getting the year of the Lasch incident wrong isn't the bellwether for credibility.

 

[PSU2UNC]

The e-mails and notes are the most damning part of the Freeh report


.

I don't disagree with this, but "being the most damning part of the Freeh report" is like being the "World's Tallest Little Person".

 

[Stufftodo]

So you just admitted that Penn State awarded millions of dollars to people who were not victims of Sandusky. You also admitted that the victims' claims were poorly vetted, and the process was sloppily and dishonestly executed, and that whoever was on this committee abdicated their fiduciary duty to the stakeholders of the Penn State community, and should be held accountable legally and morally. They should also be required to testify in this case to explain the vetting process.

No, I just admitted that that Myers was not Victim 2. He may have been a victim at another point.

So fare the only thing you have gotten right was my identity as J. J. in Phila.