Your Miles Kaufmann identity from FOS shows up, complaining about Sandusky scandal threads just like you did at FOS. Where's your cohort gerchthemuskie?
Miles/Gunsie/Bisbee, you can't hide. Your disloyalty always emerges.
Ray Blehar....MM caught in lie?
- Thread starter marshall23
- Start date
Miles/Gunsie/Bisbee, you can't hide. Your disloyalty always emerges.
First of all, JS was told not to shower again with THAT kid.
It is difficult to explain why he continued with others. Although V2, may very well have been living with him at the time.
I don't think Myers moved in with the Sandusky's until college, but they did see each other as Father and son. Jerry stood on for Allans absent father the night of Allan's senior night football game.
It's very clear that Jerry did not see 1998 as a big deal. He had also grown up in a YMCA in the 1950s where men and boys being naked together was much more common. He probably just wrote it off as a misunderstanding. That's why he continued to shower with other boys. I've heard people say that proves he was a pedophile, because he was unable to stop showing with boys, but that doesn't make sense to me.
If Sandusky really has been secretly abusing 2nd mile kids for years and just barely escaped capture in 1998, his actions post 1998 make no sense. Sandusky not only continued a relationship the boy who complained to his mother about being uncomfortable, he allowed him to form close friendships with the other boys he was supposedly abusing/grooming. Most experts will say pedophiles will cut off boys who display resistance to grooming. The exact opposite happened here.
Give it up dude. There was no "pedophile ring". Not even close.
Unless Attorney Andrew Shubin was able to intercept a random 13-year old kid he didn't even know with the offer of a multi million dollar check, the child would have certainly backed up Jerry's claims.
Odd that you say that as victims have had their abusers walk them down the aisle. In fact it is not out of the norm for a victim to stay in touch with the person who abused them. His actions post 1998 do not make sense as he was told to stop showering with boys and he couldn't do it. You are 100% correct there, but we now know why he couldn't stop, he like the little boys. Jerry is what they say he is...a serial pedophile.
So now you're willing to make excuses for a pedophile because you want to argue going to authorities wouldn't have done any good?
Congrats on being the creepiest guy I've crossed paths with on the internet today.
The kid's mother made it abundantly clear that it was wrong and Jerry tries to play it off like she was just after money way back in 98.
You're a pathetic tool that lives in an echo chamber and thinks anyone that doesn't agree with you is paid to have an opposing opinion.
You just one upped the first person I replied to you sick twist. You're actually at the point where you argue nothing could have been done because you're so desperate to hang on to the sad little story in your head.
You guys are so far removed from reality you don't even realize Schultz blew up Spanier's claim about 98 and that MM just described "horseplay".
This isn't a question of fault. If you later discovered that a report was not investigated would any protocols that you are aware of prevent you from reporting to the authorities?
When the name of an eyewitness to an alleged sexual assault is provided to those who would be expected to contact the appropriate authorities, and yet the eyewitness is never contacted, a reasonable inference is that no report was made.
Ah, come on, Indy. That's the one term McQueary definitely confirmed using with Paterno. Here's the relevant testimony, from p.75 of the 12/16/2011 preliminary hearing:
Q Did you ever use the word fondling?
A I'm sure I did to help describe what I was seeing. I'm sure I did use the word fondling, yes, ma'am.
Q Okay. Did you see any type of fondling with Mr. Sandusky's hands on the boy?
A No. I've already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy, that I could not see his hands. The bodies were blocking --
A I'm sure I did to help describe what I was seeing. I'm sure I did use the word fondling, yes, ma'am.
Q Okay. Did you see any type of fondling with Mr. Sandusky's hands on the boy?
A No. I've already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy, that I could not see his hands. The bodies were blocking --
As you can see, McQueary testified he used the term 'fondling' with Paterno. He also denied actually seeing it. And I'm pretty confident he communicated that nuance to Paterno.
You bring up a good point about the lack of any cross-examination. At the grand jury, when first asked what McQueary told him he had seen, Paterno replied, "Well, he had seen a person, an older -- not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it -- I'm not sure what the term would be – a young boy."
Later he was asked if 'fondling' was the term he had used previously about what McQueary told him, Paterno replied, "Well, I don't know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was.I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset."
Maybe Paterno didn't know what to call it exactly because while Mike said he thought it was fondling, he didn't actually see it. Maybe Paterno could have clarified that point.
And someone who spoke with Paterno in late 2010/early 2011 relayed this: "Fondling he had used before with the lawyers. But he used horsing around and said Mike was very unsure if he had seen anything - just that it seemed inappropriate to be horsing around in the shower at night with a kid. The phrase horsing around was the most common one he used."
McQueary also testified at the Spanier trial (3/21/2017, p.121) on what he told Curley and Schultz: "I relaid the message that I certainly saw Jerry in what I thought was molesting a minor boy"
Jimmy,
No one has followed this more closely than you, so here are my questions..
. I thought this was 2-3 second glance in a mirror
. then he couldn't see JS hands because they wer blocked by the bodies - I presume they had their backs to him
then I think he said he saw slow rhythmic movements by JS
. then I also think he said he looked them both in the eye [to be sure the kid was safe]
So what is the true testimony and help me separate fact from fiction
.
No one has followed this more closely than you, so here are my questions..
. I thought this was 2-3 second glance in a mirror
. then he couldn't see JS hands because they wer blocked by the bodies - I presume they had their backs to him
then I think he said he saw slow rhythmic movements by JS
. then I also think he said he looked them both in the eye [to be sure the kid was safe]
So what is the true testimony and help me separate fact from fiction
.
Given the condition of JVP in 2010-2012, I think everyone needs to question the reliability of Joe's testimony, interviews, etc.
Yes, please. Unfortunately, given the equivocating statements (testimony or otherwise) from people that often contradict themselves, a GJP that the OAG prosecutor admits that at least led the press to make "incorrect" statements, official and unofficial "gag orders," and people getting older and the incidents in question occurring years ago, and thus memories fading, and a bunch of other issues that I'm probably missing at the moment, I doubt that "the truth" will ever out, and fiction seems to be presented as fact more often than not in this case.
I am not a believer in coincidences, thus I believe that the GJP was a deliberate step on the road to the "narrative." Given that most people, including the press, tend to view government documents with far less skepticism than they should, getting the "factual" story out seems akin to swimming upstream against Niagara Falls.
That was part of the reason he handled it per protocol, actually. He did not want his fame to bias any investigation one way or another. It's known that Joe did not like Jerry that much at this point (probably due to the fact that Jerry at the end of his career was spending more time on TSM than football). Joe was by all accounts a fair person.
Please read what I wrote. I said "they would have had cause to fire him" not "would have fired him".
The equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome may be at work here. I don't discount your point at all.
It’s so funny to watch these dolts like jive, who couldn’t find their asses with both hands, act like they discovered the holy grail with the “firing” angle. Joe didn’t follow the policy here because he was worried about being fired. He followed it because he was well aware that is how large organizations have to operate, especially when a matter is way outside of your area of expertise. Follow the policy. If it’s a bad policy, work to get it changed.
I guess you know jive is a dolt. But it is fun to make him chase his tail for days on end under the guise of him wanting people to move on. He’s a whole ‘nother level of dummy....
I agree with your sentiments on Joe. He was always wiser than most and he also knew to bring his own attorney to the GJ hearings unlike the other 3. He was calculated in what he did and was basically a victim of his own reputation and those above him fumbling the ball so to speak. One person should have called the police...MM. Others who knew of a second incident at the very least should have covered the University legally with a phone call to a real reporting agency. That isn't even up for debate anymore, the call should have been made. The why they didn't is the real question. Did they honestly think nothing happened...then why tell TSM? Why was it on the table to call and why would a lawyer advise them to for nothing at all? The really did fumble here, but again I don't think it was to "protect" Jerry. We just don't have a good reason why yet.
Maybe someday they really give a legit honest answer as to why, but I doubt it.
Last edited:
No to the best of my knowledge. MM met with the PSU superiors as JP had him do. If MM felt nothing was done, it would fall upon him to decide if he wanted to make a call. Unfortunately for him, he was the witness so the decision is all his if he felt this wasn't handled properly. Once C/S/S or whoever contacted TSM, they would be in the same position MM was. TSM should have acted.
wait, are you trying to say nothing was preventing MIKE from going to the police or contacting DPW??
all along, I thought it was Joe, Tim, Gary, Graham, Wendell, Mike Sr, Dr Dranov, Mike's g/f, Jack R, etc . . . who failed to contact the proper authorities. because that is what the relentless trolls have told us.
instead he trickled a rumor to a cop in Baltimore who had connections with the OAG to notify SPM on the day after Corbett was elected
Geez, you don't ask for much, do you ;-) I guess can try to separate fact from fiction. Here's what I'll do. I'll answer your specific questions based on testimony. Then I'll add some stuff I wrote up over a year ago - summaries of what I think is clear from the various testimonies available then, and my best guess at what happened in 2001.
His "first two glances were, what I call glances, maybe one or two seconds." He could see JS's entire backside but they were at a "quartering away angle", so JS blocked his view of the boy, but not all of the boy. He did not see JS's hands. When asked whether he saw movement, he said "Very little, but I would say slow movement, certainly not hard or fast movement but a little movement." There was a third look as he was leaving but I don't think he said how long it was. He did say they made eye contact. (12/16/2011 preliminary hearing, p.15-19, 92-93) but he never said he made eye contact to make sure the boy was ok. And there was some later testimony where he clarified he made eye contact with them but could not really confirm whether they saw him.
The rest of the stuff below are things I wrote up over a year ago.
## This is what is clear from McQueary’s testimony about what he witnessed:
- The first thing that alerted McQueary that someone else was present in the relatively deserted Lasch Football Building on a late Friday evening were sounds that he heard when entering the hallway to the locker room. McQueary heard what he described as slapping sounds that made him embarrassed – he was thinking another staff member had a girl in the shower. That was his frame of mind prior to entering the second set of doors to the locker room.
- The Grand Jury Presentment listed a date of 3/1/2002 for this incident. That date was later changed to 2/9/2001. McQueary has been criticized for not knowing the exact date. This subject was addressed at the Sandusky trial (pages 234 – 235). McQueary testified that he was 90% sure it was in 2002 but that it also could have been 2001. The other detail McQueary provided was that it was a Friday before spring break. Prosecutors likely settled on a March date because Penn State’s spring break occurs then. It is possible McQueary thought the incident was before spring break since the 2/9/2001 date is just two days after national signing day, thus the football coaches and graduate assistants were heading into a period of down time after a busy recruiting schedule.
- McQueary’s consistency in how many views, whether two or three, was the subject of quite a few questions and answers at the Sandusky trial (pages 227 – 233).
- The inconsistency could simply be a distinction of two viewpoints/positions versus three separate looks, two of those from the same viewpoint.
- McQueary has been remarkably consistent in all of his various testimonies with respect to what he heard, what he did not hear, and what he did not see:
- He heard two or three slapping sounds before entering the second set of locker room doors.
- After passing through the second set of doors, McQueary did not hear any more slapping sounds.
- McQueary did not hear any verbiage from Sandusky or the boy.
- McQueary did not hear any screaming or protests from the boy.
- McQueary did not see genitals.
- McQueary did not see Sandusky's hands.
- McQueary did not see insertion.
- McQueary did not see a look of pain on the boy’s face.
- McQueary testified, “I believed Jerry was sexually molesting him and having some type of intercourse.”
- McQueary testified, “I can't sit here and say that I know 100 percent sure that there was intercourse, but that's what I said to myself and that's truly what I believed was happening.”
- McQueary concluded his testimony at the Sandusky trial about what he believed – that Sandusky sodomized a young boy – not what he had explicitly seen.
- McQueary did not call police that night. Neither his father nor Dr. Dranov advised him to call the police.
## This is what is clear from McQueary’s testimony about what he told Paterno:
- McQueary made it clear to Paterno what he witnessed was sexual in nature, that it was wrong, but he “did not go into gross detail.”
- McQueary did not use the word crime with Paterno and he did not tell Paterno that he thought police should be called.
- McQueary testified he “would have explained to [Paterno] the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the word anal or rape in this -- since day one.”
- McQueary did not use the terms sodomy, intercourse, anal intercourse, or anal sodomy with Paterno.
- McQueary testified elsewhere that, “it looked like there was intercourse going on,” but that he was not 100 percent certain.
- McQueary testified that he was sure that he used the word fondling in his discussion with Paterno.
- McQueary had testified that he did not see any type of fondling, but that’s what he thought was going on.
## My best guess at what happened in 2001
The Penn State football buildings were largely deserted on the night of February 9th, 2001. It was the beginning of the weekend, it was the off-season, and recruiting efforts were mostly complete after national signing day two days prior.
Mike McQueary got inspiration to go to his office to pick up recruiting tapes. He’d also recently picked up new sneakers and took them along to drop them off in his locker.
When he walked in the first door to the locker room he heard slapping sounds which made him think a buddy, a fellow graduate assistant coach, had taken a girl in there. It was late on a Friday evening. The facilities would be deserted. After all, the entire coaching staff was taking a collective break after national signing day two days prior.
But when McQueary passed through that second door and turned to his locker, he decided to look over his shoulder into the mirror and take a peek at his buddy. He didn’t see who he expected at all. It was Sandusky and a young boy. They were as close together as they could be. Sandusky’s arms were on or around the boy. McQueary stepped a little away from his locker to get a direct look. It made no sense to him. He was expecting to see a fellow assistant coach in there with a girl. He stepped back to his locker and slammed the door shut to alert them to his presence. He promptly left, but saw them both on the way out. He saw that they were separated. He made eye contact with the boy.
McQueary was expecting to see sex. He didn’t expect it to be Sandusky and a young boy. That the boy didn’t cry out; that he didn’t have a look of pain on his face; that he didn’t ask for help confused McQueary even more.
Needless to say, McQueary was flustered. He went to his office and called his dad. He went to his dad’s house to explain what just happened. His dad got a family friend and business partner to come over to the house, a medical doctor, Jonathan Dranov.
What McQueary told his father and Dr. Dranov that night wasn't significant enough to call police. But it was significant enough they thought he should tell Paterno.
Whatever it was, it was McQueary's opinion that it was sexual and/or way over the line. He never told anyone he witnessed an anal rape. He told Paterno he thought it was fondling, a touching situation. But that’s just it. He told him what he thought was going on. He didn’t actually see fondling or anything else that was an explicitly sexual act. And he would have told Paterno that, presumably.
GMJ11 needs to go to the Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too.
Or you could just read the statement of the actual boy in the shower himself, Allan Myers.
I agree with most of that. My theory on why they told TSM is because they didnt really believe Sandusky was a pedo at the time, but felt that his weird actions might put a good cause at risk. So they let JR know. If there was more than they believed going on, surely he was in a great position to find out. That again is just my theory.
My sense is that many walked on eggshells over the potential to blow up TSM over what was most likely horseplay in their minds.
I don’t put as much stock in who knew about ‘98 and who didn’t as you and some others do. That is a knife that cuts both ways as been discussed ad nauseum around here. Much more gray than nlack and white as to what effect that would have on how someone would react to a subsequent report. And we really don’t know exactly what anyone knew about the ‘98 event and its outcome anyway. I can see the other side too, but I just don’t buy into it.
Wow...awesome...I've said this from the very first day I read MMs accounting of the situation. Even if you twist that he moved over, seeing what he saw from a mirror is highly questionable (JS behind a kid). By the time he slams his door and looks directly into the shower, they are separated.
Also have to say that it is hard to believe he heard "slapping sounds" in between the two doorways before entering the locker room. The slapping sounds would have to be as loud as a jet engine to reach that far and over the sound of the water (an purposeful exaggeration, for those wondering).
Finally, it is SHOCKING that this has never been brought up by defense lawyers.
I in my opinion clearly see shower heads floor drain etc in every view. Am I missing sonething? As for steam I am sure the bathrooms were vented and the mirror has some distance. In my opinion this clearly shows from three differing positions that portion of shower are is in view.
No they would not have had cause. They University would be sued to hell if they fired someone reporting a crime to police in good faith. As would any organization.
Agree....you also have to see the distance that is and consider the fact that depth perception is a challenge with mirrors. As was stated earlier, do you also understand that Mike may have also been expecting to see sex after he heard whatever he heard walking up to the shower. Then, IIRC, he slammed his locker door and turned around to see the two of them, parted.
Do you agree that Mike never directly saw JS touching the child?
I have little doubt JS is guilty given the enormity of evidence spread out over 20 years, but can you understand the reluctance of people to consider his story actionable?
Well for starters, an m.
What the pictures show is that it is possible for Mike to have seen what he claims to have seen. What it is also shows is that it would be awfully difficult to see what he claims to have seen with much surety in the amount of time he says he saw it.
please review his testimony WHILE looking at that diagram
I love how his bro is streeeeeeeeeetching credulity to defend Mike
You must be part of the Pa Attorney Generals office then. Welcome to our board.
Last edited:
